Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something > Page 4

Page 4 of 5

RE: Foolish to try to criticize just the abstract.02-04-2022 21:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Foolish to try to criticize just the abstract. No, one is NOT expected to provide a "thesis" about the "importance" of the finding as more than one sentence of the abstract, brief summary. It is rare for someone to risk looking like an idiot by drawing firm conclusions about a paper based solely on reading the ABSTRACT. That's exactly how Energy and Environment accidentally published the claim that the sun is made mainly of iron. Some idiot thought it was sufficient to just read the abstract, and they ended up being seriously embarrassed by that ignorance. So, by now you had plenty of time to go to Google Scholar, and click where it says "(PDF) academia.edu" By now, you read the actual paper you were trying to criticize. By now, you must be eager to expose my scientific ignorance and LIES. Since you understand chemistry so much better than I do, help me understand why my published scientific assertions can be belittled and dismissed. Show what you understand, that thing that 740 peer-reviewed papers FAILED to understand, when they cited the sealover paper as if it might be valid science. I was only two or three pages long, I think. Too many hard words to look up? It's okay. I understand. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: And it was cited 740 times in peer-reviewed pubs. "At the moment, all I have it the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that." Apparently, you do not disagree with any specific assertion made regarding science. Some problems with style, but no critiques of the substance. It is possible that you are unaware that "abstract" means very brief summary. There was a reason the editors of Nature only asked that ONE SENTENCE of the abstract be revised. It was kind of a British thing. Wanted me to say "owing to" in one of the last sentences. They didn't seem to think that more than one sentence of the abstract should be on "importance" or "background". There was no "thesis" about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen. The thesis was about polyphenol control of its release from pine litter. The target audience were people who already knew enough about why it was important to want to learn more about what regulates its release. Like climate change. You don't need to keep repeating why its important. You're just trying to understand it better. An abstract is not meant to exceed about one paragraph. The background for why an investigation is done will be the first thing covered in the paper, following the abstract. The editors of Nature would have rejected a long abstract with needless background included, beyond that first sentence. What did your editors say about the amount of background in your abstract? Here's where I note that this paper has been cited in more than 740 different peer-reviewed scientific papers. Apparently, others were able to read this abstract and see what you could not. Clearly stated thesis and conclusions, if you just take the time to learn what some of the buzzwords actually mean to people who understand science. So, are you saying that polyphenol concentration does NOT control the proportion of nitrogen released in organic form from decomposing pine litter? It sounds like you agree with what I said, you just don't like the way I said it. In fact, here are two valid critiques of your critique. No science. No argument. As a scientific genius, can't you prove to the OTHER scientists that I am WRONG ABOUT THE SCIENCE? Can't you muster up enough gibber babble buzzwords to make it sound like a plausible scientific argument? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229. I'll take you on your word that the article is worth discussing and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, from an honest, straightforward, science perspective. Please attach the article here in this thread or email it to me at IBDaMann@yahoo.com At the moment, all I have is the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that. *Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract* of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter THE importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated I don't mean to be rude, but this sentence expresses the thought that will first enter the reader's head, i.e. that nobody cares about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition. Read the sentence again and you'll see what I mean. This would have been an excellent place to write a thesis statement specifying clearly the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition ... and why anyone would wish to read further. Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter*Here we report that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3). OK, the reader now understands what he is about to read, i.e. that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3). Don't you think you should have already explained why this is important? Why is the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms of any concern? So I need to ask, are you trying to link this Climate Change? I'm betting that you weren't because that wasn't really much of a thing back in 1995. I hate to ask but what is your point? What is the conclusion of this paper? What is the thesis statement? This is supposed to be prominently on display in the abstract. Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract* of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterWe have previously shown that concentrations of polyphenols in P. muricata foliage vary along an extreme soil acidity/ fertility gradient. Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations, minimizing nitrogen availability to competing organisms, and attenuating nitrogen losses from leaching and denitrification. Maybe this is your thesis statement. Please let me know. I have a few questions regarding the above two sentences (the second of which is somewhat of a run-on sentence): 1. You characterized an acidity/fertility gradient as a "feedback." Why? 2. Re: #1, most claims of "feedbacks" are merely violations of thermodynamics. How is this "feedback to soil conditions" a legitimate thing? 3. You have made it clear that nitrogen loss is controlled by some undefined "dominant form." What exactly is this "dominant form" and is this control of nitrogen loss a good thing or a bad thing ... and why? Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter**Polyphenol control of nitrogen dynamics helps explain the convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities on highly leached soils. A few more questions: 1. Must one discard your paper if one does not accept Darwin's theory? 2. Is your falsifiable theory that the properties of polyphenol drove the evolution of leached-soil plants due to specific cause-effects that you spell out in the paper? .
03-04-2022 18:09
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: GretaGroupie wrote:I've used a machine that goes buzzzzz (think of a low soothing hum), Who hasn't used an electric shaver? Hmmmm.... that might hurt? IBdaMann wrote: GretaGroupie wrote:"Live-in-la-vida-vida" (or something like that). Viva la Vida Loca Yeah, that..... giggle.
RE: The REAL Reason to Plant Trees.04-04-2022 22:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	The REAL Reason to Plant Trees. I had a pretty good one size fits all lecture I would use about reforestation. Worked from first grade through high school. I would begin by having the audience provide me with a list of benefits that trees provide to humans. Whether second grader or high school sophomore, EVERYBODY KNEW examples of benefits that trees provide to humans. Lumber, firewood, shade, honey, fruit, medicine, wind breaks, living fences... A home for birds and butterflies and squirrels and lizards and.. Everybody already knew a bunch of benefits that trees provided to humans. But then I'd tease them along a little further. What about the air? What about the water? Yes, of course. Trees give us clean air with oxygen to breathe. Trees give us clean water, and keep the river flowing all year long. The audience was well aware that where forest had been cleared, the river no longer flowed year round with clean water. Instead, there were muddy floods during the rainy season, and dry river beds in the dry season. It was easy to prompt them to provide me with the list of reasons we should want to plant trees. Why we should want to plant trees especially in those places where the forest had been cleared. But I didn't tell them the most important reason of all. Trees are among the most important instruments in the symphony of souls. The symphony of souls plays beautiful music which brings great joy to the greater consciousness. The loss of trees, the souls of which are such important instruments in the orchestra, diminished the beauty of the music. The loss of trees diminished the joy of the greater consciousness. As stewards of the earth, and as servants to the greater consciousness, it was our moral duty to plant trees. Well, it was easier just to explain that the hundred million dollar hydroelectric dam downstream was going to silt up in the next five to ten years if they didn't plant some trees right away. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: The Malnourished Student who was so Hungry to Learn. The years as a Peace Corps volunteer working in reforestation and environmental education were among the most wonderful of my life. But there were also plenty of sad memories. So much poverty. So much needless suffering. Shortly before my arrival to the country, there had still been a national school lunch program, sponsored by foreign NGOs. But it wasn't always just one meal a day, because half the students attended only in the morning, and half only in the afternoon. Ronald Reagan was president, and America was expecting poor countries to become more self sufficient. Weaning them off the kind of aid that sponsored the national school lunch program would help them learn to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Stop being so dependent on the hand outs! We're only enabling your corruption. So, by the time I started traveling around by motorcycle to remote rural schools in the highest mountains, the school lunches had recently disappeared. School attendance had also dropped. BY A LOT. A lot of parents didn't think it was worth having their kid travel so far to be away for so long from being able to assist at home if there wasn't a meal in it. But most kids kept going to school without the free lunches. One of them truly broke my heart. Even nearly forty years later, it brings tears to my eyes to remember her face. She wanted so badly to learn. She was FASCINATED to learn about forests and the need for reforestation. She was trying so hard to take it all in. But she was in physical pain. She was HUNGRY. Visible symptoms of malnourishment. And that look in the eyes. The physical pain and the limits imposed on her ability to take it in and remember were plain to see in those hungry eyes. It still breaks my heart to remember her. So, I don't think the cynical jokes are so funny. I take this climate change stuff VERY SERIOUSLY. That girl with the hungry eyes needs our help. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: WAY TOO LONG to even START TO READ. Keep it short and I MIGHT read the next one. My time and my creative energy are valuable to me. Guess you can't read then. You would rather spend your time trolling and spamming, eh?
05-04-2022 00:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	...deleted severely damaged quoting... sealover wrote: By now, you must be eager to expose my scientific ignorance and LIES. Already done. You did it to yourself. sealover wrote: Since you understand chemistry so much better than I do, help me understand why my published scientific assertions can be belittled and dismissed. Science isn't assertions. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Anything else you try to call 'science' can be belittled and dismissed. sealover wrote: Show what you understand, that thing that 740 peer-reviewed papers FAILED to understand, when they cited the sealover paper as if it might be valid science. ...deleted excess noise... Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. 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
05-04-2022 00:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: The REAL Reason to Plant Trees. I had a pretty good one size fits all lecture I would use about reforestation. Worked from first grade through high school. I would begin by having the audience provide me with a list of benefits that trees provide to humans. Whether second grader or high school sophomore, EVERYBODY KNEW examples of benefits that trees provide to humans. Lumber, firewood, shade, honey, fruit, medicine, wind breaks, living fences... A home for birds and butterflies and squirrels and lizards and.. Everybody already knew a bunch of benefits that trees provided to humans. Humans are not birds, butterflies, squirrels, or lizards. Trees don't provide honey. Many plants provide medicines, but only a few trees do. As far as any kind of living fence or wind break, shrubs are better for that. sealover wrote: But then I'd tease them along a little further. What about the air? What about the water? Yes, of course. Trees give us clean air with oxygen to breathe. So does grass. A lot more than trees do. sealover wrote: Trees give us clean water, and keep the river flowing all year long. No. Rain gives us clean water and keeps the river flowing all year long. sealover wrote: The audience was well aware that where forest had been cleared, the river no longer flowed year round with clean water. Plant grass. It's better against erosion. sealover wrote: Instead, there were muddy floods during the rainy season, and dry river beds in the dry season. True of pretty much any river, whether it flows through a forest or not. sealover wrote: It was easy to prompt them to provide me with the list of reasons we should want to plant trees. Why we should want to plant trees especially in those places where the forest had been cleared. Plant grass. It's better against erosion. sealover wrote: But I didn't tell them the most important reason of all. Trees are among the most important instruments in the symphony of souls. The symphony of souls plays beautiful music which brings great joy to the greater consciousness. The loss of trees, the souls of which are such important instruments in the orchestra, diminished the beauty of the music. What music? What symphony? sealover wrote: The loss of trees diminished the joy of the greater consciousness. As stewards of the earth, and as servants to the greater consciousness, it was our moral duty to plant trees. What about the prairie dogs? Don't you like them? What about the buffalo? They're an endangered species. Don't you like them? What about the killdeer bird? They prefer open spaces. A lot of birds do. Don't you like them? What about the road runner? Don't you like them? How about desert scorpions? Don't you want them to survive? What about crops? Don't you want to eat? What about grazing lands? Don't you want to eat? sealover wrote: Well, it was easier just to explain that the hundred million dollar hydroelectric dam downstream was going to silt up in the next five to ten years if they didn't plant some trees right away. Trees won't stop erosion. Grass will though. Plant grass. 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

05-04-2022 02:07
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	We would have to keep planting trees, if California with do something, anything, to mitigate the spread of wildfires, just a little... Freshly planted trees make a nice snack for insects and wildlife. I'm sure the appreciate the free meal. Silly concept, since we clear hundreds of thousands of acres, to plant solar panels and windmills. Basically, you propose to destroy mature trees, and plant new ones, in places more convenient. Meaning land pretty much useless for anything else. Which also means, most of those 'feel-good' trees aren't going to survive. What exactly is the obsession with solar panels and windmill. Both are the least efficient, most expensive alternative energy sources. Fossil fuels are cheap, readily available, energy dense, and very versatile, highly transportable.
05-04-2022 06:18
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	seal over wrote: ...hydroelectric dam downstream was going to silt up in the next five to ten years if they didn't plant some trees right away. Wearing a mask will not stop a virus. It's akin to stopping mosquitos with a chain link fence or preventing soil erosion with a grove of trees. Edited on 05-04-2022 06:19
05-04-2022 08:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GasGuzzler wrote:Wearing a mask will not stop a virus. It's akin to stopping mosquitos with a chain link fence or preventing soil erosion with a grove of trees. Close. You're on the right track. It's a bit more like trying to stop mosquitoes with an antenna tower frame.
05-04-2022 15:31
amandablaire ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	I write my case brief about the environmental issues which came to the court. You will be very surprised by their number. I can't imagine how one country can have a lot of nuclear stations. The world government must realize the scale of the problem and change the environmental system. The legal system we have does not provide real support for people who are trying to protect nature.
05-04-2022 16:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	amandablaire wrote:I write my case brief about the environmental issues which came to the court. You will be very surprised by their number. I can't imagine how one country can have a lot of nuclear stations. The world government must realize the scale of the problem and change the environmental system. The legal system we have does not provide real support for people who are trying to protect nature. This person is a Marxist mouthpiece. Please, someone, ask me how I know.
05-04-2022 16:25
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: This person is a Marxist mouthpiece. Please, someone, ask me how I know. How. Tell us, please, please, please, please, please!
05-04-2022 17:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: This person is a Marxist mouthpiece. Please, someone, ask me how I know. How. Tell us, please, please, please, please, please! ... because the website uses an arial font, a total dead giveaway.
RE: Is this how scientists debate?05-04-2022 17:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Is this how scientists debate? IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:So this means you'll stay in the grown-up pool, right? It's not that I'm afraid of you. It's just that some of the other kids will think you're scary. I make no promises and everybody thinks I'm scary. You can bet I'll drop on by the kiddie pool unannounced on occasion. It'll be a lot of fun.
RE: Is this how scientists debate?05-04-2022 17:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Is this how scientists debate? IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:So this means you'll stay in the grown-up pool, right? It's not that I'm afraid of you. It's just that some of the other kids will think you're scary. I make no promises and everybody thinks I'm scary. You can bet I'll drop on by the kiddie pool unannounced on occasion. It'll be a lot of fun.
05-04-2022 17:30
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: ... because the website uses an arial font, a total dead giveaway. Someone told me arial was a ripoff of velvetica font. Does that mean marxist's are ripoffs? Personally, I always liked the marxist's. They're funny!

RE: Soil Erosion under Pasture versus Trees05-04-2022 23:01
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Soil Erosion under Pasture versus Trees. One important factor in soil erosion that is often overlooked is the water holding capacity of the organic layer above the mineral soil. During intense downpours, the mineral soil is simply not physically capable of infiltrating the water rapidly enough to avoid surface runoff. Many places that were once forests have been cleared for pasture. The grass and its roots do keep the rain drops from physically tearing up the soil surface. But the grass does not act like a sponge the way a forest litter layer does. During a downpour, the mineral soil cannot infiltrate water fast enough, and the grass has very little water holding capacity. The result is surface runoff, and SOMEWHERE downhill, that surface runoff WILL cause EROSION. The result is also inadequate aquifer recharge. During the downpour, runoff causes a flood. During the dry season, not enough water infiltrated to recharge the aquifer when it rained, so the river dries up. These are not just theories. A LOT is known about soil erosion. The universal soil loss equation includes a ground cover water holding capacity factor. It has been known for many years that when you clear forest for pasture, you get a WHOLE LOT MORE SOIL EROSION. Soil scientists figured this stuff out a century and a half ago. Well, maybe not. Because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE WORD "SOIL" MEANS. So, have fun with the cynical jokes. Someday you should think about what your words look like to a sane person. Sane people WILL BE READING THEM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GasGuzzler wrote: seal over wrote: ...hydroelectric dam downstream was going to silt up in the next five to ten years if they didn't plant some trees right away. Wearing a mask will not stop a virus. It's akin to stopping mosquitos with a chain link fence or preventing soil erosion with a grove of trees.
06-04-2022 00:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Soil Erosion under Pasture versus Trees. One important factor in soil erosion that is often overlooked is the water holding capacity of the organic layer above the mineral soil. Depends on the soil. sealover wrote: During intense downpours, the mineral soil is simply not physically capable of infiltrating the water rapidly enough to avoid surface runoff. It depends on the soil. sealover wrote: Many places that were once forests have been cleared for pasture. The grass and its roots do keep the rain drops from physically tearing up the soil surface. But the grass does not act like a sponge the way a forest litter layer does. Neither is a 'sponge'. sealover wrote: During a downpour, the mineral soil cannot infiltrate water fast enough, and the grass has very little water holding capacity. Neither is 'holding capacity'. sealover wrote: The result is surface runoff, and SOMEWHERE downhill, that surface runoff WILL cause EROSION. Special pleading fallacy. sealover wrote: The result is also inadequate aquifer recharge. Nothing to do with it. Non-sequitur fallacy. sealover wrote: During the downpour, runoff causes a flood. Not necessarily. sealover wrote: During the dry season, not enough water infiltrated to recharge the aquifer when it rained, so the river dries up. Non-sequitur fallacies. sealover wrote: These are not just theories. A LOT is known about soil erosion. But not by you, apparently. sealover wrote: The universal soil loss equation includes a ground cover water holding capacity factor. There is no 'universal soil loss equation'. There is no 'ground cover water holding capacity factor'. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: It has been known for many years that when you clear forest for pasture, you get a WHOLE LOT MORE SOIL EROSION. Not necessarily. Plant grass to reduce erosion. sealover wrote: Soil scientists figured this stuff out a century and a half ago. No such branch in science. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Well, maybe not. Because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE WORD "SOIL" MEANS. I already showed the definition of it (and where it comes from). You apparently ignored it. sealover wrote: So, have fun with the cynical jokes. Someday you should think about what your words look like to a sane person. Sane people WILL BE READING THEM. Insane people will be reading them as well. 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
RE: Is "Soil Science" a fake buzzword?06-04-2022 03:18
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Is "Soil Science" a fake buzzword? If so, then there is a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY in support of the HOAX that soil science is a long recognized field of science. Soil science was already a big buzzword more than a century before biogeochemistry became a new buzzword. And biogeochemistry became a new buzzword about 50 years ago. Why do so many universities have a department of "soil science"? What did so many people study when they got degrees in "soil science"? Yes, we were given the definitive linguistic origin of "soil", which included something about "night soil" that I think you might want to double check. My problem with your linguistics analysis is some knowledge of latin, and also the word used for "soil" in multiple foreign languages. No, you didn't teach me for the first time what the word "soil" means. And you failed to convince me that it was impossible for there to be such a thing as "soil science". You failed to convince me that my eyes lied to me. You failed to convince me that everyone besides YOU has to be WRONG. Because YOU are the only one smart enough to know how to define words. That's why you can't make heads or tails of all those "buzzwords", and have no idea how to use them for a plausible sounding argument. Oh, yes, and you are a MASTER OF FOREST HYDROLOGY as well. Who could doubt your authority regarding such things? Your word alone carries the burden of proof across the finish line, because everyone knows you are a scientific genius. Evidence? You don't need no stinkin' evidence! YOU control the definition of words. On the other hand. Science is not words. Most folks won't have too much trouble identifying the fake scientist here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Soil Erosion under Pasture versus Trees. One important factor in soil erosion that is often overlooked is the water holding capacity of the organic layer above the mineral soil. Depends on the soil. sealover wrote: During intense downpours, the mineral soil is simply not physically capable of infiltrating the water rapidly enough to avoid surface runoff. It depends on the soil. sealover wrote: Many places that were once forests have been cleared for pasture. The grass and its roots do keep the rain drops from physically tearing up the soil surface. But the grass does not act like a sponge the way a forest litter layer does. Neither is a 'sponge'. sealover wrote: During a downpour, the mineral soil cannot infiltrate water fast enough, and the grass has very little water holding capacity. Neither is 'holding capacity'. sealover wrote: The result is surface runoff, and SOMEWHERE downhill, that surface runoff WILL cause EROSION. Special pleading fallacy. sealover wrote: The result is also inadequate aquifer recharge. Nothing to do with it. Non-sequitur fallacy. sealover wrote: During the downpour, runoff causes a flood. Not necessarily. sealover wrote: During the dry season, not enough water infiltrated to recharge the aquifer when it rained, so the river dries up. Non-sequitur fallacies. sealover wrote: These are not just theories. A LOT is known about soil erosion. But not by you, apparently. sealover wrote: The universal soil loss equation includes a ground cover water holding capacity factor. There is no 'universal soil loss equation'. There is no 'ground cover water holding capacity factor'. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: It has been known for many years that when you clear forest for pasture, you get a WHOLE LOT MORE SOIL EROSION. Not necessarily. Plant grass to reduce erosion. sealover wrote: Soil scientists figured this stuff out a century and a half ago. No such branch in science. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Well, maybe not. Because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE WORD "SOIL" MEANS. I already showed the definition of it (and where it comes from). You apparently ignored it. sealover wrote: So, have fun with the cynical jokes. Someday you should think about what your words look like to a sane person. Sane people WILL BE READING THEM. Insane people will be reading them as well.
06-04-2022 03:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Erosion is a natural process, and has been going on for longer than mankind has been screwing things up. California wildfires clear a lot of forest acres every year. And when they get into their wet season, they get massive mudslides. Turns out, erosion is very good for ecosystems downstream. Lot of ocean life, depends on the organic matter rinsed off the dry land. Sometimes, you need to take a few steps back, and look at the entire painting, rather than focusing all of your attention on individual brushstrokes...
06-04-2022 04:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	sealover wrote:Is "Soil Science" a fake buzzword? People interested in science use the terms "pedology" and "edaphology" Marxist losers cling to the buzzword "soil science" as a euphemism for centralized planning and management of the earth ... ... and they have hijacked the terms "pedology" and "edaphology", claiming that those disciplines are subservient to the higher management function of centrally planning who gets what resources ... ... and because they find the term in Wikipedia, so they feel as though their slavemasters want them regurgitating the term as part of their political agenda. You came to this site to post as a scientifically illiterate Marxist warmizombie, poised to push everything Marxist and to denigrate science. There's a good reason you never used the terms "pedology" and "edaphology" ... because those represent the science you detest. It's also why you claim to be bioethnogeologichemical, i.e. because you don't want to have anything to do with the scientific disciplines of biology and chemistry. How could you claim to be a biologist when everything you do is aimed at destroying all life on the planet?
07-04-2022 15:03
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: ... and they have hijacked the terms "pedology" and "edaphology" Aren't those the guys who like little boys? Ewww.
RE: Why I'm allowed to troll EVERY THREAD10-04-2022 04:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Why I'm allow to troll EVERY THREAD. Why I'm allowed to intervene in every discussion with absurd demands. Why I'm allowed to viciously insult people. Why I am the ONLY ONE at this website who understands TRUE science. Why I resort to ugly clown pictures to make some kind of point... The point isn't clear. Actually, the point is VERY CLEAR. This is an EFFING TROLL! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Note to all newcomers. Almost all residents of this site will require unambiguous definitions for the primary terms of your arguments. Meaningless buzzwords are usually discarded. Otherwise, feel free to use the language you understand. There are no word cops here, only the occasional buzzword scheister pitching some WACKY Marxist religion. You can instantly recognize them because your requests for definitions will garner only lame excuses and double-downs on dishonesty. Again, don't fall for the phony claims of authority or expertise. This is an anonymous forum so credentials are meaningless. Apply the scientific method and you'll be fine. Remember to ask plenty of questions and to demand unambiguous definitions for any terms that are unclear in any way.
12-04-2022 08:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	squeal over wrote: Why I'm so alone. Why I look for love and acceptance in every thread. Why I don't know how to just be myself. Why I am the ONLY ONE at this website who needs to be told what to believe. Why I'm uglier than a horror-clown. The point isn't clear, i.e. I have no point. I have no definitions. I have no useful information. I have no original thoughts. I'm an EFFING TROLL! Attached image: Edited on 12-04-2022 08:39
12-04-2022 16:18
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: I had scrapple once. I liked it. IBM, do you think squeal over would like scrapple, or would that be too much like inbreeding or kanabalism?
12-04-2022 17:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote:IBM, do you think squeal over would like scrapple, or would that be too much like inbreeding or kanabalism? Spam is made from pork shoulder and pork ham, while scrapple is made from the remaining scraps. If you combine spam and scrapple you get the whole pig. Then you'd have a real squeal-over.
12-04-2022 21:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Is "Soil Science" a fake buzzword? Yes. sealover wrote: If so, then there is a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY in support of the HOAX that soil science is a long recognized field of science. The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. So is the Democrat party. sealover wrote: Soil science was already a big buzzword more than a century before biogeochemistry became a new buzzword. Buzzword fallacy. Fake history. Attempt to use fiction as history. sealover wrote: And biogeochemistry became a new buzzword about 50 years ago. Buzzword fallacy. Fake history. Attempt to use fiction as history. sealover wrote: Why do so many universities have a department of "soil science"? Conspiracy. sealover wrote: What did so many people study when they got degrees in "soil science"? Nothin'. sealover wrote: Yes, we were given the definitive linguistic origin of "soil", which included something about "night soil" that I think you might want to double check. No need. sealover wrote: My problem with your linguistics analysis is some knowledge of latin, and also the word used for "soil" in multiple foreign languages. Denial of eytomology. sealover wrote: No, you didn't teach me for the first time what the word "soil" means. I tried, but you refuse to learn. sealover wrote: And you failed to convince me that it was impossible for there to be such a thing as "soil science". There isn't. sealover wrote: You failed to convince me that my eyes lied to me. Not your eyes. You lied to everyone else. sealover wrote: You failed to convince me that everyone besides YOU has to be WRONG. You are not everyone. You do not get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. sealover wrote: Because YOU are the only one smart enough to know how to define words. The words I define I have defined. I am the only authoritative definition of words that I define. I did not define the word 'soil' or 'science'. sealover wrote: That's why you can't make heads or tails of all those "buzzwords", and have no idea how to use them for a plausible sounding argument. A buzzword has no meaning. You won't define them either. sealover wrote: Oh, yes, and you are a MASTER OF FOREST HYDROLOGY as well. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Who could doubt your authority regarding such things? I am the only authoritative source of words that I define. I did not define 'soil', or 'science'. sealover wrote: Your word alone carries the burden of proof across the finish line, because everyone knows you are a scientific genius. Thank you. sealover wrote: Evidence? You don't need no stinkin' evidence! You can't wish way evidence. sealover wrote: YOU control the definition of words. No. Just the words I create. sealover wrote: On the other hand. Science is not words. Never said it was. sealover wrote: Most folks won't have too much trouble identifying the fake scientist here. Science isn't a scientist or any group of scientists. You don't get to speak for most folks. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Semantics fallacies. No argument presented. 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
12-04-2022 21:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ... and they have hijacked the terms "pedology" and "edaphology" Aren't those the guys who like little boys? Ewww. No. You are describing pedophilia, not pedology. The word 'pedology' first appeared in 1862. It stems from the Greek word 'pedon' (meaning ground) and the suffix from Latin '-ology' (meaning study). It first appeared in Germany. It refers to the study of ground, or soils, including sand, rocks, fertile soil, subsurface soils, etc. Such studies may cross over into hydrology or edaphology as well. It is not geology, which is the study of the origins of rocks and rock formations (essentially a study of Earth's crust). 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 12-04-2022 21:26
14-04-2022 19:56
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	Into the Night wrote: No. You are describing pedophilia, not pedology. Looking back I guess the prof was a bit of a pedo. Not into real little kids, but teenagers. I feel sorry for him. I'd have never met him if he wasn't who he was, but that's still got to suck for him. I wonder if his wife knows?
14-04-2022 19:57
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: Cute piggy in the mud
15-04-2022 06:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Cute piggy in the mud See attached. Attached image:

15-04-2022 06:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Cute piggy in the mud Your avatar should be something like this: Attached image:
15-04-2022 18:36
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: That is a cool pic but I don't know. I love her very much and I know she is talking from her heart but I'm beginning to wonder if trafn is right and she should stop. I'm still waiting to hear back from the prof. Can you darken her hair and face cause they're a little hard to see.
15-04-2022 20:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: That is a cool pic but I don't know. I love her very much and I know she is talking from her heart but I'm beginning to wonder if trafn is right and she should stop. I'm still waiting to hear back from the prof. Can you darken her hair and face cause they're a little hard to see. The point is for you to select the picture of Greta you want to be the tattoo and for you to select the body part onto which you want the tattoo placed. Post those two pics and I'll make it happen.
16-04-2022 15:58
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: Post those two pics and I'll make it happen. What about her face with a rainbow like this on the tip of a finger?
16-04-2022 20:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Post those two pics and I'll make it happen. What about her face with a rainbow like this on the tip of a finger? Done! Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. Attached image:
16-04-2022 20:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Post those two pics and I'll make it happen. What about her face with a rainbow like this on the tip of a finger? Test Attached image:
RE: Stop pissing and shitting in the kiddie pool then16-04-2022 22:10
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Looking at the progress on this thread, it looks like there was a dispute. Apparently ugly clowns are entitled to TROLL ANY AND ALL THREADS. Similar to night soil. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:So this means you'll stay in the grown-up pool, right? It's not that I'm afraid of you. It's just that some of the other kids will think you're scary. I make no promises and everybody thinks I'm scary. You can bet I'll drop on by the kiddie pool unannounced on occasion. It'll be a lot of fun.
RE: Watch for trolls who hide behind word games16-04-2022 22:43
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	"Watch for trolls who hide behind word games." This is GOOD ADVICE. Trolls who hide behind word games are a real thing. Not just a buzzword. Those trolls who hide behind word games are the WORST! You tell 'em! Those other site members who always troll the threads, spamming away. Thank God you are here to uphold the truth and defend the honor of science. How dare they try to have a discussion without satisfying your perfectly reasonable demands for unambiguous definitions! Somebody has to draw a line in the sand and stand up to the MARXIST LIARS. Preach on, brother! I got your back. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Welcome newcomers! If you do decide to join this discussion, a word of caution. Watch for trolls who hide behind word games and who won't define their terms. They usually lie up front about being science experts of some sort and then cry like babies when they are corrected (hence blowing their cover) Do not publish personal information here. This is an anonymous forum so no credentials matter in any way. Only the merit of your words will hold any value. Attempts to compensate for weak arguments by claiming credentials will usually be dismissed as untrue, so just focus on the validity of your assertions. All religions are welcome. The primary faiths you will encounter on this board are Christianity and Climate Change. All views are considered but claims of "science" will naturally face the scientific method. If you hold a belief that you do not wish scrutinized by scientific and mathematical analysis, just declare it as your belief and move forward. Again, welcome!
17-04-2022 01:50
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	IBdaMann wrote: GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Post those two pics and I'll make it happen. What about her face with a rainbow like this on the tip of a finger? Test Should have put it on the 'middle finger'...
17-04-2022 18:02
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: What about her face with a rainbow like this on the tip of a finger? Yes but it is hard to tell it is her HarveyH55 wrote: Should have put it on the 'middle finger'... Oh I like that Harvey but it might be hard to see her face if you have the whole hand in the picture

Page 4 of 5

Join the debate Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something: