“How Trolls Troll” …Nutrition Expert Posts Video On “Trolling” And How To Deal With Them

Many of you are aware that I’m also a big skeptic of the western dietary guidelines we’ve been handed down by the government over the past decades.

Claiming a vast consensus among nutritionists and physicians, government insisted the high carb, low fat diet was the healthiest. Well we all know how that all turned out. Pretty catastrophic!

Only now, after tens of millions of heart attacks and a global epidemic of diabetes, are nutrition skeptics finally getting heard. Yet these skeptics, believe it or not, are still getting trolled even after it has become crystal clear they were right all along.

One skeptic doctor, Dr. Darren Schmidt, was even compelled to produce a video on trolling after having put up with it for so long: How Trolls Troll.

In his video he produces a list of things to keep in mind when confronted by trolls, and tips on how to deal with them effectively.

Moral superiority, Godwin’s Law, refuse to learn

These tips of course apply to climate science, where skeptics are continuously trolled by alarmist bedwetters who insist the climate and planet are in crisis and refuse to hear or believe anything to the contrary.

The trolling described in the video will remind readers of the trolling that we often see at NoTricksZone and elsewhere.

What follows are cropped images of Dr. Schmidt’s list spliced together:

As you will notice, trolling uses the same playbook in climate science, e.g.:

  1. Assuming the moral high ground
  2. Often posting long convoluted diatribes
  3. Refuse to learn
  4. You’re wrong, no matter what.
  5. Disagree on everything.
  6. Insisting on the non-defendable

 

90 responses to ““How Trolls Troll” …Nutrition Expert Posts Video On “Trolling” And How To Deal With Them”

  1. SebastianH

    It’s basically a list of what you guys regularly do in the comments. I find it rather fascinating that you think you are the ones being trolled. Playing the victim should be on that list too.

    The 6 points you selected at the end perfectly match up to (for example) spike55’s recent behaviour:
    1) definetely
    2) yep, the messages come by the dozen
    3) definetely refuses to learn
    4) see the Tokyo post, where he accuses me of using fake data while using the same data himself
    5) that pretty much is the same as 4) but even when I write that he is right about the force thing, he can’t just agree and move on. He constructs some weird reply to disagree with me nonetheless
    6) all the time

    Kenneth does is more subtle, but he is definetely guilty of conforming to that list too 😉

    1. spike55

      Only ONE troll around here, and that is YOU, seb

      Everybody knows it, except YOU.

      You are still stuck with basic seb anti-physics, and definitely put up every block you can against learning anything.

      And yes, I know that I am correct about the “force” thing.

      Why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of all the attention-seeking BS you always carry on with.

      The table requires the same upward force on the 50kg weight as holding it above your head does. This requires energy.

      Just as air, under the force of gravity causes continual compression, thus warmth.

      Thanks for finally admitting that the gravity thermal pressure gradient helps set the surface temperature.

      And that CO2 warming is a total unsupportable MYTH.

      Now can we all go home !!

      1. Patrick healy

        Subtlety, Seb, come on grammar old boy.

      2. SebastianH

        Only ONE troll around here, and that is YOU, seb

        Everybody knows it, except YOU.

        You do what the list says trolls would do, therefore you are a troll.

        You are still stuck with basic seb anti-physics, and definitely put up every block you can against learning anything.

        Again, it’s you who is “anti-physics” and refuses to learn. Do you remember the last time you changed your mind about something? Or do you always automatically go on a collision course whenever a perceived opponent writes/says something? No matter how silly that makes you look …

        And yes, I know that I am correct about the “force” thing.

        Why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of all the attention-seeking BS you always carry on with.

        I repeatedly said so. I never argued about forces being present. The whole thing is about your confusion about energy and force. Have you answered the question if it takes more energy for a table to hold up a book for 1 hour vs. 2 hours already? I doubt you have.

        The table requires the same upward force on the 50kg weight as holding it above your head does. This requires energy.

        How much for holding up the book for 1 hour? How much for 2 hours? Answer already!

        Just as air, under the force of gravity causes continual compression, thus warmth.

        That is not happening. You are confusing the downward motion of air parcels in a convective atmosphere with actual compression of an atmosphere that compresses towards the center of gravity. Earth is not Jupiter!

        Thanks for finally admitting that the gravity thermal pressure gradient helps set the surface temperature.

        *sigh* … is misinterpreting everything also on that list above? I am not admitting this and no the thermal gradient in atmospheres does not set the surface temperature. It can’t!

        1. spike55

          Poor seb, you lack of engineering an physics knowledge is REALLY HILARIOUS.

          Q1. Why can’t the “flimsy” table exert the necessary force to hold up the 50kg weight?

          Q2. Where does the big strong table get the force from to counter the gravity force of the 50kg weight?

          Q3. Does it take YOU more energy to hold the 50kg above your head for 10 minutes, or for 20 minutes?

          Let’s here some more ignorant yapping from seb, shall we. 🙂

          So FUNNY !!

          “Just as air, under the force of gravity causes continual compression, thus warmth.

          It just IS HAPPENING.. Gravity is ALWAYS causing a downward force in the atmosphere… surely you aren’t saying that the gravity force suddenly, and MAGICALLY disappears !!

          REALLY TRULY???? .. cross your heart !!! 🙂

          HILARIOUS.

          It truly is a fantasy world your little mind lives in , seb. !!

          1. SebastianH

            Poor seb, you lack of engineering an physics knowledge is REALLY HILARIOUS.

            Just answer the damn question already!

            It just IS HAPPENING.. Gravity is ALWAYS causing a downward force in the atmosphere… surely you aren’t saying that the gravity force suddenly, and MAGICALLY disappears !!

            You have no idea what is happening. Not talking about there being no downward force called gravity. You are conflating things that are different in nature. A continual compression without increasing pressure and/or the count of molecules per volume does not exist. Neither the atmosphere nor the table gets compressed by the weight. They are already compressed and once you answered my question, you’ll see the problem with how you think stuff works.

          2. spike55

            “You have no idea what is happening. ”

            Well you certainly don’t

            There is ALWAYS a downward force of air from gravity.

            There is ALWAYS compression from that force.

            That force must ALWAYS be countered.

            Where does that counter force come from, little minded troll?

            WAKE UP, and get out of your fantasy fizzics la-la-land, seb-troll.

            Does it take the same amount of your energy to hold a 50kg weight for 1 hours as for 2 hours?

            roflmao

            You must think you are Super-Dope or something !!

            Where do YOU get the force from to hold up a 50kg weight, seb

            Where does a table get the force from to hold up a 50kg weight seb

            Where does the bottom, say 10m of atmosphere, get the force from to counter the CONTINUAL gravity force of the air above it seb??

          3. spike55

            “Neither the atmosphere nor the table gets compressed by the weight.”

            OMG. You have just destroyed the whole of structural physics.

            Your ignorance has been utterly and completely EXPOSED

            OF COURSE the table gets compressed by the weight. And the weight is required to maintain that compression.

            I suppose you think a plank doesn’t bend when you walk on it.. I suppose you think pre-tensioning of bridges beams is for nothing.

            UNBELIEVABLE that you could be so IGNORANT !!!

            The weight of the atmosphere is what maintains the pressure and the temperature.

            WOW.. this is getting TOTALLY BIZARRE

            How can you get thorough life without having the vaguest understanding of ANYTHING !!!!

          4. SebastianH

            Unbelievable replies …

            Will you finally just answer that simple question instead of dancing around by stating the obvious?

            And can you ever resist the urge to misinterpret everything I write? I’ll give you a pass if this was the language barrier again, but I think I clarified what is ment by “Neither the atmosphere nor the table gets compressed by the weight.” in the very next sentence. There is a difference between an ongoing compression and stuff that is already compressed. I hope that is also the case in the English language.

            Anyway, don’t get distracted by this, just answer the question.

            How much energy is required for holding up the book for 1 hour? How much for 2 hours?

            As you would say: waiting …

          5. spike55

            Poor seb
            Trying to bury himself deeper and deeper , but STILL exposing the FACT that he is TOTALLY IGNORANY about anything to do with structural physics.

            “There is a difference between an ongoing compression and stuff that is already compressed”

            There sure is, and the atmosphere is ALWAYS undergoing compression, because there is ALWAYS the gravity force of the air pressing downwards.

            Remove that force, and the air becomes un-compressed.

            How much energy does it take YOU to hold that 50kg weight for 2 hours, compared to one hour, seb..

            same amount of energy.. really !!!

            BIZARRE super-dude fantasy stuff.. for sure…

            Where do YOU get the force to counter that weight-force of the 50kg weight, seb?

            Where does the table get the force to counter the weight force of that?

            Once again, you show your complete inability to answer simple questions.

            At least you have ADMITTED that the air requires a CONTINUAL compressive force to remain compressed, therefore must be applying a CONTINUAL opposite force 😉

            Where does that force to counter the gravity force of the air above come from, seb-troll.

            Please keep compounding your ignorance, it is causing much laughter and hilarity as you prance around like a headless chook. !. 🙂

          6. spike55

            Let’s try again, shall we seb puppy-troll.

            We put the 50kg weight on our “flimsy” table , and it is unable to resist the weight force and collapses.

            We get a more “sturdy” table, and it groans a bit, but is quite capable of holding up the 50kg weight

            Question.. WHERE does the sturdy table get the force from, to enable it to counter the weight force of the 50kg weight.

            Its NOT difficult, unless you are INTENTIONALLY avoiding answering for some reason.. 😉

          7. SebastianH

            Just answer the question, troll!

          8. spike55

            “Just answer the question, troll!”

            I have two questions that you continually run away from

            How about YOU answer them for once, seb.

            We put the 50kg weight on our “flimsy” table , and it is unable to resist the weight force and collapses.

            We get a more “sturdy” table, and it groans a bit, but is quite capable of holding up the 50kg weight

            Q.. WHERE does the sturdy table get the force from, to enable it to counter the weight force of the 50kg weight.

            Q.. WHERE does the bottom 2m of the atmosphere get the force from to counter the CONTINUAL weight force of the air above it.

            Q. How much energy does it take for YOU to hold a 50kg weight for 1 hour vs 2 hours.?

            No more whinging , whining and carrying on

            Just ANSWER the questions

            and maybe try these two as well, which you have run away from for such a long time.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    2. spike55

      “accuses me of using fake data “

      4) The first data you posted WAS fake data.. you admitted as such, yourself.

      Stop playing the victim, everyone is sick of your deceit, seb.

      1. SebastianH

        What? Seriously … you are just making it worse.

        1. spike55

          Dig, dig, little seb

          You KNOW the first one was NCDC based.. the FAKEST there is.

          1. SebastianH

            It was the wrong link to the world temperature data instead of the Japanese temperature on the very same website (http://www.data.jma.go.jp).

            The only one digging deeper here is you. Send a postcard when you reached the Earth’s core…

          2. spike55

            As I said.. you admitted you were wrong

            For once someone dragged the truth out of you. !

            NCDC/NOAA, fake non-data.

            Why keep digging when you are in quicksand, seb ??? DOH !!

    3. Kenneth Richard

      Kenneth does is more subtle, but he is definetely guilty of conforming to that list too

      No words.

      1. spike55

        Yep, poor seb appears to be TOTALLY self-delusional. !

        I suspect he is well aware that it is he that is the troll and serial pest, and is just attempting an even bigger troll.

        Quite PATHETIC, either way.

      2. SebastianH

        Really Kenneth?

        You post very long lists of papers and expect your opponent to read through it and invest time to counter everything you come up with. A basic denial of service attack.

        You are persistent and repeatedly accused me of ignoring what you wrote.

        You have not shown that you are willing to learn how the mechanisms you are arguing against work.

        You invoke “moral superiority” all the time. And Godwin’s law … well, I hope you remember those instances as well as I do.

        At least you are not cheerleading 😉

        I suspect he is well aware that it is he that is the troll and serial pest, and is just attempting an even bigger troll.

        I am aware that you find me annoying. But that doesn’t make me the troll, spike55 … leader of the troll mob on this blog.

        1. John Brown

          SebH you have a wicked understanding of what is going on.

          You talking opponents and attack. Step back from the edge and have a look at the landscape. We discuss science here.

          The beauty of science is that its objectivity is resistant to any opponent.
          And fighting is only necessary to overcome subjective views that might dominate the territory of interest.

          Nobody asks you to read the papers, let alone no-one asks you to comment.
          But here is the catch, if you comment on the papers, read them as well.

          You indicate that you are overwhelmed by the amount of papers that Kenneth can find on the subject. You cannot deny there is quite a lot of them!

          Can you explain the mechanism that you think Kenneth does argue against? Can you maybe name it or is it just an obscure “mechanism”?

          You spend 6 post or more just here, first one to comment. Was your time not worth reading some science papers?

          Its almost amusing seeing you here. I get the impression that your real purpose here is not the science at all.

          Have you thought about the suspended book in air? How does it stay there. Its like a huge molecule and is suspended. What does it take?

          1. SebastianH

            SebH you have a wicked understanding of what is going on.

            Just mirroring the us vs. them theme.

            You talking opponents and attack. Step back from the edge and have a look at the landscape. We discuss science here.

            No, you don’t.

            The beauty of science is that its objectivity is resistant to any opponent.
            And fighting is only necessary to overcome subjective views that might dominate the territory of interest.

            If only it were objective science that you are trying to discuss. You guys ignore most part of climate science in favor of a ridiculous worldview that is heavily based on not understanding mechanisms, believing in a few selected junk science papers and making up the wildest interpretations from the available data/actual science.

            Nobody asks you to read the papers, let alone no-one asks you to comment.
            But here is the catch, if you comment on the papers, read them as well.

            As if I would not read the papers, but any reply towards the validity of certain papers or the interpretations presented here is usually countered by “we need more than that”, “you can’t convince us” or some more insulting variation of that. And if someone is new here and actually invests the time to bring up the easily found research for you guys, it gets turned down as fake/leftist/whatever. Nope, it’s not fun to discuss science with such a mob here 😉

            You indicate that you are overwhelmed by the amount of papers that Kenneth can find on the subject. You cannot deny there is quite a lot of them!

            You are probably aware that “the other side” ™ has huge collections of papers as well. I am a bit overwhelmed by him posting the same papers all the time despite repeated explanations why they don’t support what he thinks they support. There should be a Kenneth FAQ to reply with the same copy-and-paste blocks of replies whenever he does this. Oh wait, those FAQ exist, but you guys consider websites like them a scam 😉

            Can you explain the mechanism that you think Kenneth does argue against? Can you maybe name it or is it just an obscure “mechanism”?

            He regularly argues against the CO2 greenhouse effect and I don’t think he fully understands it the way he argues against it (or presents papers that do this for him).

            He regularly argues about the cloud cover change causing everything by presenting only the change in SW forcing that fewer clouds are causing. Leaving out half of the equation and ignoring that cloud cover is a feedback mechanism, not a cause.

            He doesn’t understand exponential growth.

            And so on.

            You spend 6 post or more just here, first one to comment. Was your time not worth reading some science papers?

            I reply on this blog in spare time between (software) builds. What science papers was presented here that I should have read?

            Its almost amusing seeing you here. I get the impression that your real purpose here is not the science at all.

            Read the comment section of this blog when I stay off. What is the purpose of all the cheerleading and applauding whatever nonsense gets posted? Then compare that to when I have time to comment/reply. Suddenly it’s everyone getting their pitchforks out and replying against this one guy who doesn’t agree with their belief system. And on top of that complaining that I write so many replies in this 1-to-many conversation 😉

            Have you thought about the suspended book in air? How does it stay there. Its like a huge molecule and is suspended. What does it take?

            It’s about a book on a table. Spike55 is claiming it requires energy to stay on the table. I am asking him if it takes more energy to hold the book up for 2h vs. 1h … it looks like it is impossible for him to reply to this question without compromising his core belief (that a temperature gradient caused by gravity is actually setting the temperature at the surface).

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Can you explain the mechanism that you think Kenneth does argue against? Can you maybe name it or is it just an obscure “mechanism”?

            He regularly argues against the CO2 greenhouse effect

            …as the dominant or controlling factor in the Earth’s radiative budget. Cloud radiative forcing dominates and consequently overwhelms CO2 forcing according to widely-accepted estimates (1,653 citations):

            https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/edu/courses/radiation_and_climate_change/Ramanathan1989.pdf
            “The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about >our times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of C02. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a C02 doubling. … The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the C02 concentration of the atmosphere.”

            He regularly argues about the cloud cover change causing everything by presenting only the change in SW forcing that fewer clouds are causing. Leaving out half of the equation and ignoring that cloud cover is a feedback mechanism, not a cause.

            As you know (but you wrote it anyway because you refuse to refrain from purposeful misrepresentation), I don’t write that “cloud cover change causes everything”. You also purposely misrepresented what I wrote by claiming that I don’t present the LW effect of clouds. Of course this isn’t true, as I have routinely presented the LW or greenhouse effect of clouds as dominating over the CO2 greenhouse effect.

            Your claim that “cloud cover is a feedback mechanism, not a cause”, and yet papers routinely state that clouds are the cause of radiation budget changes. For example:

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
            “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”

          3. spike55

            No, seb has basically ZERO understanding of what is going on.

            Its all IMAGINARY UNSUBSTANTIATED BS.

            Mighty Seb thinks he can hold a 50kg weight for 2 hours, using the same amount of energy as for 1 hour.

            (I doubt he could hold it for even 2 minutes)

            BIZARRE !!!

            And he STILL doesn’t have the vaguest understanding of the fact that SOMETHING has to hold up the air.

            He STILL cannot tell us how the bottom 10m of air holds up the many lm of air above it.

            He STILL can’t tell us where the energy comes from to counteract the gravity weight force of those many km of air.

            Where does the “sturdy” table get the force to counter the weight force of the 50kg weight seb.

            Why can’t the “flimsy” table manage to find that counter force?

            We all want to know how this happens in your fantasy la-la-land. !!

            Why not enlighten us.

            And while you are at it, enlighten us into the wonders of AGW science by presenting some evidence of atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere.

          4. John Brown

            SebH how obscure, you want to mirror someone who you think is a troll a yet you do not want to be taken as one.

            You do not cease to astonish me with some simple revelations of your thinking.

            If you refuse to see that there is actual science being discusses then what is discussed? You state further down that other sides use the same papers and if they do is it science then or not?

            There maybe could be some dispute about the interpretation, yet this is a process of science. The only one making a war out of it is you. You fight, oppose, indiscriminately and on top of all you deny that there is actual science being discussed.

            Do you realize how your own words dub you in?

            And if you was to pay attention Kenneth does not argue against the greenhouse effect, he argues time and time again that cloud cover has a much more profound effect and dwarfs any impact that CO2 might have. You misinterpret Kenneths position entirely and you should really read was he writes.

            The book on the table is a nice discussion, it will not help you understand the atmospheric model. A book suspended in “thin” air is the model you need to understand. The air is not “resting” on the Earth surface.

            Last but not least I want to express my doubts, that you can judge that cloud cover is a “feedback mechanism”. There is actual science papers written about this. Have you read them all? Understood them all? Honestly, did you?

          5. SebastianH

            spike55, just answer the question instead of manically avoiding it and drifting off into your fantasy world!

            SebH how obscure, you want to mirror someone who you think is a troll a yet you do not want to be taken as one.

            Huh? How should one reply to the prevalent us vs. them theme? Should I try to ask people why they think that this is a partisan issue? Been there, done that. You guys view climate science in a certain way and people like me as opponents (or trolls because you feel disturbed in your cosy bubble). So I reply in kind.

            This remark of yours feels like the accusation against me that my skepticism is directional. In what other direction should it point on a blog that is so one-sided as this one?

            You do not cease to astonish me with some simple revelations of your thinking.

            Rest assured, I am equaly amazed about the way you interpret what people write. I’d call that a heavy bias …

            If you refuse to see that there is actual science being discusses then what is discussed?

            There is no discussion at all. You could call the troll attacks on anything I or other people from outside your bubble write a discussion, but I wouldn’t.

            You state further down that other sides use the same papers and if they do is it science then or not?

            What? Please read again. “Same papers” doesn’t refer to the “other side” it means Kenneth posts the same papers over and over.

            The only one making a war out of it is you. You fight, oppose, indiscriminately and on top of all you deny that there is actual science being discussed.

            No, I don’t and no, there is no science discussion happening here. That would involve you guys not automatically refusing anything a third party writes. If I’d comment that 1+1 is 2 I am sure someone will reply that there is no evidence for this and/or how stupid I would be for saying something like this without posting at least 5 papers supporting this claim 😉

            That’s the fight. Withstanding you guys.

            And if you was to pay attention Kenneth does not argue against the greenhouse effect

            Right, that’s why papers like Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) never get posted here 😉 Or Nikolov and Zeller 😉

            Of course there are instances where he tries to argue that the effect does nothing or very little. You could interpret this as not arguing against the GHE itself, but it also shows it’s not fully understood.

            he argues time and time again that cloud cover has a much more profound effect and dwarfs any impact that CO2 might have.

            Yes, by leaving out half the equation. As he does when mentioning SMB increases and suggesting that the ice mass increased as if those two things were the same.

            A book suspended in “thin” air is the model you need to understand. The air is not “resting” on the Earth surface.

            Why do you think the atmosphere is not resting on the surface? Do you think it would stay where it is if you replaces the solid and liquid parts of this planet by a black hole of the same mass?

            Last but not least I want to express my doubts, that you can judge that cloud cover is a “feedback mechanism”. There is actual science papers written about this. Have you read them all? Understood them all? Honestly, did you?

            Contrary to you guys understanding everything there is about climate science multiple times better than the experts in the field? 😉

            You are overestimating your own qualifications. And yes, I’ve read a few of those “cosmic rays are controlling the cloud cover” papers and discussions about them. Have you?

          6. Kenneth Richard

            And if you was to pay attention Kenneth does not argue against the greenhouse effect

            Right, that’s why papers like Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) never get posted here 😉 Or Nikolov and Zeller 😉

            GT09 and NZ17 papers are posted here along with papers that accept there is a CO2 greenhouse effect that has an impact on planetary temperatures. In fact, the vast majority of the papers featured in articles agree that CO2 has an effect on temperatures. And even then, SebastianH, you claim that it is I who “argues against” the CO2 greenhouse effect even though you know that the act of featuring a paper for an article does not mean that I am the one making the argument. Instead, it’s the scientists who author the papers that do that. You know this, and yet you disingenuously insist that it is I, not the scientists, making the case.

          7. spike55

            seb, I am asking how much energy it takes for you to hold a 50kg mass for 1 hour versus 2 hours.

            I am also asking you where the table gets the force from to counter the weight force of the 50kg mass

            It seems you cannot answer without compromising you ignorance about everything.

            Your DENIAL that the lower atmosphere is ALWAYS under compression from the forces of gravity, and therefore must ALWAYS be exerting an upward force. Then when asked where that upward force comes from.. you run away in utter panics.

            You seem to think that the most basic laws of physics don’t apply to when you don’t want them too.

            Where do YOU get the force from to hold up a 50kg weight?

            Where does the table get the force from to hold up the 50kg weight?

            Try to answer instead of going off on another massively pathetic whinging and whining binge.

          8. spike55

            “despite repeated explanations “

            No they are overwhelmingly just EVIDENCE free rants, based on NOTHING but brain-hosed empty opinions.

            From you, how could they be anything else.

            Where does the bottom say 10 m of atmosphere get the CONTINUAL force from that is needed counter the weight force of the CONTINUAL downward effect of gravity of the air above it, seb?

          9. SebastianH

            In fact, the vast majority of the papers featured in articles agree that CO2 has an effect on temperatures.

            So? It’s what you write yourself with the support of certain papers that makes me think you have no idea how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. You have a general idea, but those claims that some places are cooling and therefore it can’t be the GHE from a well-mixed gas that is warming up the planet, make it perfectly clear what the level of that understanding is.

            And even then, SebastianH, you claim that it is I who “argues against” the CO2 greenhouse effect even though you know that the act of featuring a paper for an article does not mean that I am the one making the argument.

            You are not purely featuring papers. You reply to what people write with lists of papers, highlighting certain passages and forming your own sentences in a desperate attempt to show that the GHE must be weak or non-existent. When challenged about those lists you reply with your own thoughts and they are very enlightening. Instances of you asking why the poles warm despite the extraordenarily weak and sometimes negative GHE in those places come to mind. I should have bookmarked those comments … you’ll probably reply with that you would never say such things and it’s all just citing papers or something like that 😉

            Instead, it’s the scientists who author the papers that do that. You know this, and yet you disingenuously insist that it is I, not the scientists, making the case.

            By that logic, dear Kenneth, I am also not making any claim myself. Everything I say comes from scientists and authors of papers. I haven’t done any climate science myself. Therefore I don’t get why you constantly say that what I am writing is not what science says.

            So we are just pointlessly throwing science at each other without any oppinion on it that is our own. Great 😉

          10. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “Everything I say comes from scientists and authors of papers.”

            I can write the same thing. I can back up my positions with conclusions from scientists.

            SebastianH: “I don’t get why you constantly say that what I am writing is not what science says.”

            No, there are some scientists who write the kind of things you do. There are also scientists who do not agree with your conclusions or the conclusions of those you may cite. In other words, the science isn’t “settled”. What you call “facts” are not actually facts. Uncertainty abounds in climate science, and thus projections of catastrophic doom due to CO2 emissions are hypothetical. This is the very theme of many of the articles here at NoTricksZone.

            So we are just pointlessly throwing science at each other without any oppinion on it that is our own.

            I’m not sure I agree that what you are “pointlessly throwing” here on these comment boards is actual science, or real-world observation and measurement.

            In my case, I find it less plausible that humans can control the temperatures of the oceans (and glacier melt, sea level rise…) by burning more or less CO2 than the contention that the Earth’s climate system is predominantly modulated by natural factors beyond human control. One perspective is more plausible than the other. I have not ruled any conclusion out. That’s because I’m a skeptic.

          11. spike55

            “So we are just pointlessly throwing science at each other”

            NO, Kenneth is putting forward science.

            You have put forward NOTHING but brain-hosed opinionated nonsense.

            There is NOT ONE BIT of science in your post.

          12. spike55

            “you have no idea how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work”

            roflmao

            Please describe, using scientific evidence, how it is “supposed” to work.

            We have seen some explanation from others, and they are basically a load of unsupportable nonsense.

            We know what is “supposed” to have happened in stories from Grimm Bris, not much difference.

            So please, let’s see YOUR interpretation of how its “supposed” to work.. with empirical data to back up your fantasies.

            Let’s watch seb [snip – an animal movement SebastianH finds offensive when referenced], yet again. 😉

            https://i.postimg.cc/VvPk8RXr/chasing.jpg

          13. SebastianH

            Spike55, just answer the question already. This is getting old. You claim it requires energy for a table to hold up a 50 kg weight. How much and is there a difference between holding it up for 1 hour or 2 hours?

            Either you don’t know the answer, then say so or you know it and refuse to answer for some unknown reason. Which is it?

        2. spike55

          Thing is seb, that you continually invoke your arrogance, and ego, thinking you know more than others.. but without ANYTHING to back up anything you yap about.

          And PEOPLE JUST LAUGH AT YOU. 🙂

          1. SebastianH

            Don’t project your own shortcommings onto others, spike55.

          2. spike55

            Poor seb.

            Seems the TRUTH is hurting you recently

            Problems getting your evidence-free rants across?

            Problems keeping up with the basics of science and physics?

            You came here purely as a [snip – SebastianH is allowed to call others this, but you can’t call him this because he finds it offensive], and are now whimpering like a [SebastianH likes animal and considers it offensive when so closely associated with the word choice above] that he when you get some of your own back.

            Could you please at least try to be a bit less pathetic !!!

  2. Martin

    You might be interested in this podcast too.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtqCBimr6U
    Its not the most fluid conversation but for people interested in nutrition , might have some useful info. (I know your Loooooove (irony here) for vegan)

  3. mwhite
  4. Bitter&twisted

    SOP list for trolls.
    Looks like our resident troll is also a nutritionist troll.
    DNCWTRT

    1. Yonason

      “SOP list for trolls”

      Heh! Next they’ll be subject to govt inspections, and be issued licenses to troll.

      “Do I get my license?”
      “No, I’m sorry. You aren’t annoying enough. Next.”

      Why, it might even come to activist judges preventing people from banning them… Oh, wait…

  5. Yonason

    DILBERT KNOWS HIS TROLLS

    Seen one, seen ’em all.

    (for those who haven’t yet had the pleasure of enjoying that cartoon)

  6. Yonason

    AMAZING!

    According to SebH, Pierre is trolling himself, with the help of Kenneth, who he invited to help him.

    Too funny for words.

    1. spike55

      Yep, quite BIZARRE, everyone on the forum is a troll, except seb, of course.

      WELL DONE seb, you are a great weapon for our side, REALITY.

      1. spike55

        hmmm.. I know I wrote more that that..

        … the middle part seems to be missing 😉 lol !

        1. Yonason

          I saw and read it, then when I refreshed my page it was gone. It still stands on it’s own, though.

          Brevity is preferable, I think, especially when you’ve said it before. ;0)

    2. SebastianH

      According to SebH, Pierre is trolling himself, with the help of Kenneth, who he invited to help him.

      What is “bizarre” is this interpretation of what I wrote. You guys obviously aren’t trolling yourselves. You act as trolls whenever someone who opposes your nonsense dares to post in the comments. When you do your circle j**k performance (e.g. in that recent coal article where you all celebrate like you won something) you are obviously not trolling anyone. That’s the echo chamber part you guys probably like about places like this one.

      And when this gets disturbed by someone picking apart whatever was written, you start to troll this person away. Any objective observer would be able to confirm that.

      1. spike55

        Poor seb, you SELF-DELUSION quite BIZARRE

        I ask again.. what is your PURPOSE here?

        If its not purely to TROLL.

        You have NEVER once picked anything apart with anything except BASELSS anti-science, self-aggrandising attention-seeking opinion.

        You have PROVEN that you are INCAPABLE of presenting any science or evidence to back up your rantings.. so

        WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE HERE. !!!

  7. Brian G Valentine

    Eco vegans are horrible – but the ABSOLUTE WORST of these are those who impose their idiotic “lifestyles” on Children and Pets such as dogs and cats.

    As far as I am concerned this is criminal behavior and demands intervention from child care authorities and humane organizations.

    1. Yonason

      Speaking of vegans…
      https://www.weaselzippers.us/398934-whole-foods-vs-vegans-berkeley-store-gets-restraining-order-against-activists/

      Aren’t they protesting in the wrong aisles? Preaching to the choir, it seems. Ha ha.

      (Maybe it’s safer there than by the butcher or the deli?)

  8. hazère-tyuillope

    You should read the book written by Nina Teycholz,”The big fat surprise” the parallel with climate science is absolutely stunning !

    1. Penelope

      hazere-tyuillope,
      Thank you. I hadn’t heard of her book about the fats fallacy.
      I never fell for that one. When I first heard that animal fats are bad for us I thought, “But human beings have survived on their herds for 1000s of years, and on meat wild or domesticated for millennia. If it were bad for us we wouldn’t be here. Best I check out the research on this one.”

      You won’t believe what I found when I checked the “studies”: They got their results by failing to distinguish between natural saturated fats and the manmade saturated fats, hydrogenated transfats like margarine, Crisco, etc.

      The truth about natural saturated fats has been out there for decades, yet our “independent” media never presents the current fat fallacy as a controversy. How can that be? When you look closely you find that there is big money behind the promulgation of this fallacy. I see evidence that it’s a hoax.

      A sick population is less vigorous, less able to defend itself against oligarchic plans for global govt by them.

  9. Penelope

    “Refusal to Learn”. I wd have worded it differently. When one hears putative information that contradicts one’s present views one SHOULD doubt it. It should make you uncomfortable, and if you’re seriously intellectual about your present conclusions, that which threatens your world view really should make you a little angry– or at least it does me.

    But this very human response should be followed by a willingness to ENTERTAIN an opposing point of view or at least opposing data which, if found true, will modify or even enlarge your present scope of knowledge.

    New knowledge not formerly in my field of vision makes me feel grateful, even though I’m initially annoyed at its disruption to my beliefs.

    When I was ten, out in the barn one day it occurred to me that it was the bits that didn’t fit that were important, that would show me the errors in my thinking. I started a notebook, and I had to write on the first page anything that didn’t fit & keep it there until I could either disprove it or modify my beliefs to accommodate it.

    I didn’t get very far with the notebook, but the idea of being able to entertain contradictory data and premises stuck.

    Well I’m an old lady now, and I can tell you that if you can conjure up the energy to entertain bits outside your present worldview you will be led to the inescapable truth that there actually is a small class of rich and powerful oligarchs who are, through control of finance, media and govts, converting the world into a global oligarchy.

    Your penetration of the AGW hoax and the means by which it is accomplished should alert you to ENTERTAIN the possibility of many other such hoaxes.

  10. In the Real World

    A lot of people have a go at Seb H for his trolling , but has anybody thought that he might be part of a ” Cunning Plan ” to discredit all of the AGW supporters by making it blatantly obvious how ridiculous their ideas are .
    Like his recent post that the ” Global warming hiatus ” did not happen .

    I am sure that most people will have seen the ” Climategate Emails ” , where the CRU & others were discussing how to ” Hide the decline ” , & other ways to pretend that the world was still warming .

    So I guess he will now say that the Climategate Emails were not real .

    1. spike55

      “but has anybody thought that he might be part of a ” Cunning Plan ” to discredit all of the AGW supporters”

      If so, it is a VERY GOOD act.

      And he has been FABULOUSLY SUCCESSFUL! 🙂

    2. Penelope

      In The Real World,
      Yes, although our investigations can never establish motive, it seems unlikely that a person could be innocently denying all the evidence present on this site.

      The item which I have noticed ALWAYS brings out trolls wherever I post it is Primary Water, the little-known fact that the earth produces water and it rises to the surface where it can be easily tapped. Although many Primary Water wells exist in the world, including one I’ve visited in California, this continues as suppressed knowledge.

      If you can ENTERTAIN the possibility, just google Primary Water. It’s ancient technology known and used by Hamurabi and by many desert dwellers.

      1. SebastianH

        Penelope,

        seriously. Suppressed knowledge of “primary water”? In another thread you go on about the “one world government” and stuff like that. And you guys wonder when you are viewed as conspiracy theorists? 😉

        @In the Real World:
        Nope.

        Like his recent post that the ” Global warming hiatus ” did not happen .

        You think there was a hiatus in global warming? Or do you mean the slow down of the increase of the average surface temperature?

        1. spike55

          “You think there was a hiatus in global warming?”

          Apart from the El Nino transient,

          NO WARMING since 2001

          Transient all but gone, temperature back down to the zero-trend from 2001-2015

          And please, don’t pretend the recent El Nino was cause by human anything, even for you that would be just too ridiculous.. (maybe)

          And of course there was NO WARMING from 1980-1997 either.

          https://i.postimg.cc/fyv8vcRh/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png

          But you knew that, didn’t you.

          Afterall, as you are well aware, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of humans causing any global warming in the satellite era. We know you know that, because of your refusal to answer simple questions…

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        2. SebastianH

          Someone deleted the part about climategate emails in my comment?

          Why? So this dude can accuse me of something without me having a chance to set him right?

          So I guess he will now say that the Climategate Emails were not real .

          Those mails are real,[snip]

          http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/01/in-the-arctic-amo-nao-predominantly-force-ocean-temperatures-and-cause-major-melting-events/comment-page-1/#comment-1275140
          [With this in mind, I’m going to ask you politely (again) to either refer to us as skeptics without (a) adding quotes (to denote that we are not real skeptics) or (b) without adding the prefix pseudo. Or, think of another label for us that is not offensive. I don’t really care if you think that “pseudoskeptics” or “climate deniers” are what we really are or what we deserve to be called. You do not have permission to trample onto this territory and refer to us that way. If you write a comment that violates this policy, it will be deleted either in whole or in part.]

          1. spike55

            And yes, we already KNOW that the Arctic is basically driven significantly by the AMO cycle.

            NOTHING you have produce has countered that fact.

            Nothing you produce EVER counters facts.. because you have NO EVIDENCE.

          2. SebastianH

            Or, think of another label for us that is not offensive.

            And here we have the moral highground again. And of course you deleted the link to why people like you guys (is that allowed to say?) see “climate gate” as a conspiracy thing to manipulate temperature data.

            Don’t want to let reader stumble upon information that is apparently new to them. Stay safe, stay in the bubble 😉

          3. John Brown

            SebH,

            What are you talking about?

            “…people like you guys (is that allowed to say?) see “climate gate” as a conspiracy thing to manipulate temperature data.”

            No!
            We know it is real! It has happen, it has been written and its documented!

            Nothing you can say will change it.

          4. spike55

            Yep John, that is what is so FUNNY about seb-puppy-troll.

            He actually thinks his mindless yappings will have an effect on reality and facts.

            Its like watching a puppy chasing its tail, and it he stops, you just tweak that tail, or dangle a bit of string, and off he goes again.

          5. SebastianH

            No!
            We know it is real! It has happen, it has been written and its documented!

            Yeah, the publishing of emails happened. The interpretations that you guys come up with are however very unreal.

            Nothing you can say will change it.

            See the troll list above what this sentence makes you.

            @spike55:

            He actually thinks his mindless yappings will have an effect on reality and facts.

            I don’t think you can ever move from your weird positions and learn something new. You can never listen to your opponents and entertain a thought even though you disagree with it. But duty calls: https://xkcd.com/386/ … so here I am.

            I congratulate you however to your selfdescribing and very perfect puppy analogy.

          6. spike55

            “I don’t think you can ever move from your weird positions and learn something new.”

            I don’t think you will EVER produce one tiny bit of evidence that is likely to sway anyone.

            Let’s give you yet another try to actually back up the whole premise of t=you brain-hosed AGW farce…

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Q3. Where does the bottom 10m of the atmosphere get the force from to CONTINUALLY counter the weight force of the many km of air above it?

            Try not to remain EMPTY forever.

        3. Penelope

          The very term “conspiracy theorist” was coined by the CIA –their memo is linked below. The media has quite skillfully mocked citizen researchers who question hoaxes like AGW.

          The occasion for beginning the CIA/media war on citizen researchers was the turmoil in the country following the assassination of John Kennedy. Too many people were uncovering too much & their credibility had to be attacked.

          https://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy-theory-foundations-of-a-weaponized-term/5319708
          “CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

          The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

          The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

          1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have . . . .”

          1. SebastianH

            The very term “conspiracy theorist” was coined by the CIA –their memo is linked below. The media has quite skillfully mocked citizen researchers who question hoaxes like AGW.

            Nope, it is people that call AGW a hoax that give meaning to this term. You are in line with flatearthers who think the illuminate are hiding the truth about the form of this planet.

          2. spike55

            Prove that there is anything BUT a hoax behind the FARCE that is AGW, seb pup.

            Come on.. here is your BIG opportunity to REMAIN MORE THAN EMPTY..

            PROVE to us that it has at least a tiny fragment of scientific evidence behind it.

            So far, you have been tried, and found to be incredible INACAPABLE, EMPTY and INEPT at providing the slightest actual evidence.

            Its as though you KNOW the whole thing is a monumental SCAM and are doing your utmost to PROVE that fact.

            Are you really just a double agent, intent on proven that AGW is a complete farce.. because is all you have ever achieved her.

            You have certainly NEVER produce one tiny skerrick of anything to support this piece of anti-science nonsense.

            How about you start by answering two simple questions??

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          3. SebastianH

            Prove that there is anything BUT a hoax behind the FARCE that is AGW, seb.

            Why should I? Even it were possible to prove such a thing, you would reject it automatically because you are the troll.

            Besides, you are claiming that it is a hoax, so prove that it is a hoax. That should be very simple if you believe this is the case, right?

          4. spike55

            “Why should I?”

            Well, that is among you more PATHETIC replies.

            Run away again,, the seb way

            You KNOW you cannot produce any evidence to back up even the most basic conjecture of your religion…

            Do you want to at least TRY, seb?

            Or are you just going to continue chasing your tail ?

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

  11. sasquatch

    An ignorant person is someone who doesn’t know what you just found out. – Will Rogers

    You have to have an open mind, give the benefit of the doubt.

    Comments that are objectionable can be ignored.

    About one of the coldest early Octobers I have ever seen and I’ve been around long enough to remember a lot of them.

    1. SebastianH

      Where do you live? It’s pretty warm here in Germany …

  12. Yonason

    The kind of “science” the trolls support.
    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2018-10-01T09_10_53-07_00

    It’s horrific.

    1. SebastianH

      A podcast about intelligent design?!? Seriously?

      But please, tell us more about the absolute and real truth you seem to know about and the rest of us are all ignoring because we like “our science” better than your version of reality. And how often have you guys called for jail for climate scientists because you don’t agree with them? How is that not totalitarian?

      1. Robert Folkerts

        Hi Seb, are you a bit more swayed to unintelligent design? For sure there is some kind of design everywhere, for all to see!

        1. SebastianH

          What do you mean by the term “unintelligent design”? What “some kind of design everywhere” are you talking about? Please name a few examples.

          P.S.: I have a book recommendation for you: “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.

          1. spike55

            No-One could EVER accuse you of anything relaed to “intelligence”, seb.

          2. Yonason

            Richard Dawkins?

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            A bit longer, but fairly thorough.
            https://youtu.be/UeqEBrnai4s

            The point? If one wants to learn about evolution, Dawkins is the wrong person to be learning from.

          3. spike55

            Dawkins.. the pseudo-atheist. 😉

            or more accurately, the Clayton’s atheist.

          4. Yonason
        2. Yonason

          @

          Notice how he defaults to his standard ad hom attack, rather than dealing with the substance of the presentation, which I would HOPE every sane person agrees with.

          And, just to remind SebH, it has to do with the immense harm that can be caused when a few scientists claim absolute moral authority, and politicians enact their demented beliefs into law.

          (any bets on whether SebH actually listened to it? ;O)

          1. SebastianH

            Calling a podcast that says it is about intelligent design a podcast about intelligent design is an ad hom attack? In what world?

            Also notice how you not even acknowledge the problem with demanding people going to jail while at the same time calling them totalitarian 😉

            You are really one of a kind (I hope).

  13. Robert Folkerts

    Hey Seb, are you suggesting you are not able to see any design in either yourself or anything else?
    What used to be referred to as a simple cell is now acknowledged as anything but! The progress from the scientific method is fascinating.
    Now explain to me why I should read a book about Dawkins delusions? Other ideas he has put into print have become well and truly obsolete as discovered knowledge increases.

    1. SebastianH

      Hey Seb, are you suggesting you are not able to see any design in either yourself or anything else?

      Just say you believe in fairy tales (religion / a deity designing things) and we can end this “discussion” right here and now.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Just say you believe in fairy tales (religion / a deity designing things)

        Please refrain from writing bigoted comments like these, SebastianH.

        This comment may be offensive to those who follow Judaism, Islam, Christianity…

        Considering your obvious intolerance for those different than you, I would imagine that you would have no compunction about walking up to a woman wearing a burqa and telling her that she believes in fairy tales. You wouldn’t even recognize this behavior as rude.

        Keep your religious intolerance and bigotry to yourself.

        1. Robert Folkerts

          I think it would be quite difficult for Seb to restrain his personal biases from manifesting in comments.
          Gives a good insight into himself.

        2. Yonason

          SebH’s litmus test of a person’s worth is whether or not they believe in fairies? Really?!

          “Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding was the head of RAF Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, and the main architect of its success,.”
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/hugh_dowding

          Oh, and did I mention? He believed in fairies. Now, all you sane Brits out there, clap raise your hands if you would have preferred to lose the war than be saved by someone who also happened to believe in fairies?

          Anyone? No?

          I didn’t think so.

      2. spike55

        Poor seb… Just admit that all your rantings are based on unsupportable evidence-free anti-science nonsense and we can get back to having rational scientific discussions around here.

  14. Remy petry

    Trolls troll and trolling?
    that’s really awesome title for this post 😀

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close