Biogeosocialists...
| 18-08-2026 19:43 | |
| sealover★★★★★ (2158) |
HarveyH55 wrote: HarveyH55, I never understood why you thought this thread was relevant to "climate debate". Nor was it clear to me what the title, "Biogeosocialists" had to do with any alleged need for a nanny-state. Harvey, there was a time when you would have joined in the chorus of righteous indignation: DEFINE YOUR TERMS! What the pHuck is a "biogeosocialist"? Actually, I demonstrated scientific failure with that question. The question itself buys into the notion and validates the idea that there even IS "such a thing as" a "biogeosocialist". I am a biogeochemist, and I am not aware that the term "biogeosocialist" is one that is ever used among educated people to discuss anything. Harvey, you were right to call "bullshit" on the dominant troll's blind religious faith in magic petroleum. Thermodenial is manifest in refusal to believe in "woke" thermodynamics. There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy". At least, not in the context of how deposits of fossil fuel formed from the corpses of ancient organisms. Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from. Does that mean that energy was created out of nothing? No, it just means that the wetland peat lost a lot of weight during its transformation into coal. It also lost chemical energy during the metamorphosis, as hydrogen and oxygen attached to carbon atoms were cleaved off and joined together to form H2O. Wetland peat is basically pure organic matter with a low ratio of carbon to oxygen, and a high ratio of carbon to hydrogen. So all its hydrogen gets used up, consumed to form water with the oxygen, during transformation to coal. Coal is nearly pure carbon, with all the hydrogen and oxygen squeezed and baked out of it, to form water, during metamorphosis. But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy" than the wetland peat it formed from. Coal actually contains LESS chemical energy, mole per mole, compared to the peat it formed from. But it also contains a whole lot less oxygen and hydrogen, Harvey, you were right to be irritated by IBdaMann's insults that you are "gullible" for not believing in magic petroleum. Obviously, HE is the gullible one for believing in such fairy tales. That scientifically illiterate moron insists that coal and petroleum did NOT form from organic carbon previously contained in living organisms. What an idiot! HarveyH55, I don't know if you still follow the discussion here. I would love to hear from you again and know what you think of this. |
| 19-08-2026 03:09 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(24435) |
sealover wrote: A description of you. sealover wrote: There is. It is a description of you. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You narcism is quite obvious. You actually believe you are educated. sealover wrote: Petroleum is not magic. Petroleum is not a religion. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'woke thermodynamics'. Science has no religion. You cannot blame your denial of science on anybody else,Robert. sealover wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. sealover wrote: Coal is not a fossil. Coal is not peat. Coal is not a wetland. sealover wrote: Coal is not peat. Coal is not a wetland. Coal has nothing to do with wetlands. sealover wrote: Coal is not peat. Coal has nothing to do with wetlands. sealover wrote: You cannot 'squeeze out' lighter atoms. sealover wrote: Coal is not peat. Energy is not measured in moles. sealover wrote: Petroleum is not magic. sealover wrote: Petroleum is not a fairy. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. You are discarding the Fischer-Tropsche process again. 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 |
| 19-08-2026 18:40 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3909) |
HarveyH55 wrote: HarveyH55, I never understood why you thought this thread was relevant to "climate debate". Nor was it clear to me what the title, "Biogeosocialists" had to do with any alleged need for a nanny-state. Harvey, there was a time when you would have joined in the chorus of righteous indignation: DEFINE YOUR TERMS! What the pHuck is a "biogeosocialist"? Actually, I demonstrated scientific failure with that question. The question itself buys into the notion and validates the idea that there even IS "such a thing as" a "biogeosocialist". I am a biogeochemist, and I am not aware that the term "biogeosocialist" is one that is ever used among educated people to discuss anything. Harvey, you were right to call "bullshit" on the dominant troll's blind religious faith in magic petroleum. Thermodenial is manifest in refusal to believe in "woke" thermodynamics. There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy". At least, not in the context of how deposits of fossil fuel formed from the corpses of ancient organisms. Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from. Does that mean that energy was created out of nothing? No, it just means that the wetland peat lost a lot of weight during its transformation into coal. It also lost chemical energy during the metamorphosis, as hydrogen and oxygen attached to carbon atoms were cleaved off and joined together to form H2O. Wetland peat is basically pure organic matter with a low ratio of carbon to oxygen, and a high ratio of carbon to hydrogen. So all its hydrogen gets used up, consumed to form water with the oxygen, during transformation to coal. Coal is nearly pure carbon, with all the hydrogen and oxygen squeezed and baked out of it, to form water, during metamorphosis. But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy" than the wetland peat it formed from. Coal actually contains LESS chemical energy, mole per mole, compared to the peat it formed from. But it also contains a whole lot less oxygen and hydrogen, Harvey, you were right to be irritated by IBdaMann's insults that you are "gullible" for not believing in magic petroleum. Obviously, HE is the gullible one for believing in such fairy tales. That scientifically illiterate moron insists that coal and petroleum did NOT form from organic carbon previously contained in living organisms. What an idiot! HarveyH55, I don't know if you still follow the discussion here. I would love to hear from you again and know what you think of this. **************************** Into the Night continues to try to block you from seeing this, Harvey. Hey, what did you think of that stupid word game about "fossils are not used as fuel". They couldn't even accept people using the accepted common term used to refer to underground (or undersea) deposits of organic carbon in the form of petroleum, coal, or natural gas. Most sixth graders understand the term "fossil fuel" to refer to the FUEL, not the "fossil". Most sixth graders heard of "fossils" such as those used to reconstruct dinosaur skeletons. Most sixth graders have no confusion about the difference. Didn't you think is was just STUPID of them to obsess on the term "fossil fuel" and viciously argue about whether or not anyone should be allowed to use it as a reference to petroleum, coal, and natural gas? And they wanted to use a much more vague term instead, "hydrocarbon", which doesn't even cover most of what is found in coal seams. But the resinite maceral in coal is indeed hydrocarbon, derived from polyterpene resins of ancient plants, often still containing well preserved insects that got trapped (a la Jurassic Park). Those insects didn't get formed by Fischer-Tropsch! This is not SPAM. It is a reply to HARVEY & his thread. Don't cock block it, ITN. |
| 19-08-2026 22:08 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24435) |
Im a BM wrote: I'm not blocking anyone, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not petroleum. Carbon is not methane. Petroleum is not a fossil. Coal is not fossil. Natural gas is not a fossil. I seems you don't know what a fossil is. Im a BM wrote: You don't get to speak for everyone. I am not responsible for the poor condition of our schools. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Dinosaur skeletons are generally made of epoxy resin. Im a BM wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Petroleum is not a fossil. Im a BM wrote: Coal is not a hydrocarbon. Coal is not a resin. Coal is not a plant. Coal may contain fossils. Coal is not a fossil. Jurassic Park is a movie. It is not real. Im a BM wrote: I don't block your spam, Robert. 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 19-08-2026 22:10 |
| 25-08-2026 00:15 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3909) |
Harvey, if you ever come back to visit, I hope ITN won't make it too difficult for you to find this. Go up two posts above this to find the post I hope you respond to. Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
Join the debate Biogeosocialists...: