Debunking Google: Drink the Kool Aid

Im a BM wrote:
Google is not God.

Google is not science or sentient.

Google is not even a flawless AI search engine.

Google Search 1: "Origin of 'drink the Kool Aid' phrase"

With THESE keyword terms, Google answers with:

"'Drink the Kool Aid' originates from the 1978 Jonestown tragedy, (blah blah blah about Jonestown, 1978)"

Google Search 2: "Origin of 'Drink the Kool Aid' phrase, Electric Kool Aid Acid Test"

Google is equally confident as it replies: "The phrase 'Drink the Kool Aid' originated from the non-fiction book, 'The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test' by Tom Wolfe, published in 1968..."

Google identifies two distinct origins for the phrase, which are incompatible.

Without reminding Google about the book published ten years earlier, Google went with mainstream mythology. No, "drink the kool aid" wasn't a Jonestown thing until long after it was already something else.

Sometimes your Google questions need enough detail to keep Google honest.

Google can get tricked by gossip, and presumably by deliberate disinformation.

Smarter questions get smarter answers.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Google is not God.

Google is not science or sentient.

Google is not even a flawless AI search engine.

Google Search 1: "Origin of 'drink the Kool Aid' phrase"

With THESE keyword terms, Google answers with:

"'Drink the Kool Aid' originates from the 1978 Jonestown tragedy, (blah blah blah about Jonestown, 1978)"

Google Search 2: "Origin of 'Drink the Kool Aid' phrase, Electric Kool Aid Acid Test"

Google is equally confident as it replies: "The phrase 'Drink the Kool Aid' originated from the non-fiction book, 'The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test' by Tom Wolfe, published in 1968..."

Google identifies two distinct origins for the phrase, which are incompatible.

Without reminding Google about the book published ten years earlier, Google went with mainstream mythology. No, "drink the kool aid" wasn't a Jonestown thing until long after it was already something else.

Sometimes your Google questions need enough detail to keep Google honest.

Google can get tricked by gossip, and presumably by deliberate disinformation.

Smarter questions get smarter answers.

AI is a Kool-Aid guzzling program. It totally caves into peer pressure then spits it back out with super speed and form. Try asking Google, If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?

Im a BM wrote:
So, given the complex origin of "drink the kool aid", what are the connotations that people understand it to mean?

Im a BM wrote:
In the 1968 book (The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test), the Kool-aid was a vehicle for ingestion of LSD. The connotation of "you really drank the Kool-aid" is that you are hallucinating and are expressing irrational ideations. After Jonestone, where they actually drank cyanide-laced FLAVOR AID (a cheap imitation of kool aid), the connotation was more association to blind faith in a death cult.

Im a BM wrote:
The inability of Google to recognize the ORIGINAL "origin" suggests to me that Google gives more "weight" to the more abundant and recent references of "drinking the kool aid" Jonestown style. Only when prompted with the additional information of a book title did Google look for the connection and discover the truly ORIGINAL reference to the term.

Im a BM wrote:
In a science example, one can Google "Adaptive value of tannins".

Im a BM wrote:
The first answer Google gives is the obsolete one.

Im a BM wrote:
All about "defense", in the belief that tannins discourage herbivores and defend against pathogens. More religion than science really, given how nobody ever showed that tannins actually WORK as "defenses". Research such as my own, where we had the same species with different concentrations of tannins as it grew on different soils, it made no difference whatsoever to how much the trees got eaten by herbivores. Other research shows a slight preference for lower tannin leaves because they tend to be higher in protein. But many herbivores adapted ways to circumvent any "defense" from tannins. Jays, for example, make a point to eat some extra insects when they eat acorns. The "defensive" tannins from the acorns bind to the insect protein, rendering them incapable of interfering with the jay's digestive enzymes.

Now, if you Google the same inquiry with some modifying information, you get a different answer.

Google: "Adaptive value of tannins, plant-litter-soil interactions"

In the first inquiry, Google gave the most weight to the abundant old school references to tannins as "defensive" chemicals. It offered no example of any other potential adaptive value.

In the second inquiry, Google gave more weight to all the NEW research into tannins as regulators of plant-litter-soils interactions and nutrient cycling.

Im a BM wrote:

This is where I get to see the fruits of my own research, as I was a major pioneer in this area. Many of the references Google shows cite me.

A third inquiry for fun - Google "Tannins and nitrous oxide emissions", for one of the climate change connections.

Im a BM wrote:

Google gets straight to the point:

"Tannins, particularly condensed (CT) and hydrolyzable (HT) types reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from livestock manure and soil, acting as natural inhibitors."
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
And that reminds me there are a lot of new papers to include which cite my work. One came out two weeks ago about this specific topic.

"Catechol addition reshapes microbial metabolic networks to enhance humification and regulate nitrogen transformation in co-composting of chicken manure and corn." New paper by H. Qi, et al., in the journal Bioresource Technology, volume 452, July 2026, 134521

Catechol is not a tannin, but it represents the ortho dihydric phenols found in tannins as subunits. "Humification" occurs through oxidative coupling as the phenolic monomers polymerize into massive humic acid molecules. The nitrogen in the chicken manure proteins, etc., is tied up in a manner that prevents its transformation into nitrous oxide, or any other inorganic form of nitrogen.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
So, given the complex origin of "drink the kool aid", what are the connotations that people understand it to mean?

There is no 'complex origin'. Drinking Kool-Aid means drinking a sugary drink often made from a powder mix at home.

Im a BM wrote:
In the 1968 book (The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test), the Kool-aid was a vehicle for ingestion of LSD. The connotation of "you really drank the Kool-aid" is that you are hallucinating and are expressing irrational ideations. After Jonestone, where they actually drank cyanide-laced FLAVOR AID (a cheap imitation of kool aid), the connotation was more association to blind faith in a death cult.

Kool-Aid is not LSD. Kool-Aid is not 'cyanide'. Cyanide is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The inability of Google to recognize the ORIGINAL "origin" suggests to me that Google gives more "weight" to the more abundant and recent references of "drinking the kool aid" Jonestown style. Only when prompted with the additional information of a book title did Google look for the connection and discover the truly ORIGINAL reference to the term.

Edwin Perkins.

Im a BM wrote:
In a science example, one can Google "Adaptive value of tannins".

No such thing. Tannins is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The first answer Google gives is the obsolete one.

Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
All about "defense", in the belief that tannins discourage herbivores and defend against pathogens. More religion than science really, given how nobody ever showed that tannins actually WORK as "defenses". Research such as my own, where we had the same species with different concentrations of tannins as it grew on different soils, it made no difference whatsoever to how much the trees got eaten by herbivores. Other research shows a slight preference for lower tannin leaves because they tend to be higher in protein. But many herbivores adapted ways to circumvent any "defense" from tannins. Jays, for example, make a point to eat some extra insects when they eat acorns. The "defensive" tannins from the acorns bind to the insect protein, rendering them incapable of interfering with the jay's digestive enzymes.

Now, if you Google the same inquiry with some modifying information, you get a different answer.

Google: "Adaptive value of tannins, plant-litter-soil interactions"

In the first inquiry, Google gave the most weight to the abundant old school references to tannins as "defensive" chemicals. It offered no example of any other potential adaptive value.

In the second inquiry, Google gave more weight to all the NEW research into tannins as regulators of plant-litter-soils interactions and nutrient cycling.

Tannins is not a chemical. There is no 'adaptive value'.

Im a BM wrote:

This is where I get to see the fruits of my own research, as I was a major pioneer in this area. Many of the references Google shows cite me.

A third inquiry for fun - Google "Tannins and nitrous oxide emissions", for one of the climate change connections.

Google is not God. Tannins is not a chemical. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:

Google gets straight to the point:

"Tannins, particularly condensed (CT) and hydrolyzable (HT) types reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from livestock manure and soil, acting as natural inhibitors."
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
And that reminds me there are a lot of new papers to include which cite my work. One came out two weeks ago about this specific topic.

"Catechol addition reshapes microbial metabolic networks to enhance humification and regulate nitrogen transformation in co-composting of chicken manure and corn." New paper by H. Qi, et al., in the journal Bioresource Technology, volume 452, July 2026, 134521

Catechol is not a tannin, but it represents the ortho dihydric phenols found in tannins as subunits. "Humification" occurs through oxidative coupling as the phenolic monomers polymerize into massive humic acid molecules. The nitrogen in the chicken manure proteins, etc., is tied up in a manner that prevents its transformation into nitrous oxide, or any other inorganic form of nitrogen.

Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical. Ortho dihydric phenol is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a protein. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not nitrous oxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
The GENIUS of Into the Night paraphrased:
"Something is not something else"

Im a BM wrote:
And there is certainly no need to provide a reference to any source when simply stating truths that are held to be self evident.

Im a BM wrote:
There is nothing more revealing in science than to declare what is NOT.

Im a BM wrote:
And now that I have been made aware that "Humic is not a chemical", I must reassess the significance of humic acids in soil chemistry. They must be irrelevant, if "humic is not a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
Oxidative coupling of phenolic monomers (protocatechuic acid, etc.) into massive humic acids is the mechanism that generates an incredibly important soil ingredient.

Im a BM wrote:
Humic acids have an average residence time of hundreds of years in soil before they decompose. Through the production of the phenolic acids (primarily tannins) that provide substrate to become humic acids, plants sequester (inorganic) atmospheric carbon dioxide into an organic carbon form that remains stable in the ground for centuries.

Im a BM wrote:
In many forest soils, humic acids provide the majority of the soil's cation exchange capacity (CEC), to retain nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium against leaching loss. Humic acids significantly improve the physical properties of soil as a medium for plant growth as well. And some soils are so inherently poor, such as the acid white sand rainforests, that WITHOUT the humic acids created from the material the plants put in, no plant could grow there.

Im a BM wrote:
The Pygmy Forest is a bit farther from the equator than than acid white sand rainforests, but it displays the same phenomenon. Exceptionally high concentration of condensed tannins in the foliage create litter that decomposes very, very slowly. A litter layer accumulates above the mineral soil surface, where many of the roots and mycorrhizal fungi are found. As the tannins slowly degrade, those soluble products polymerize via oxidative coupling into insoluble humic acids. Without them, the soil would be unable to hold onto enough calcium and magnesium to keep a forest alive. Without them, the soil would not be able to absorb enough water for adequate infiltration in the wet season, and would not be able to retain enough water to survive the dry season.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The GENIUS of Into the Night paraphrased:
"Something is not something else"

Your confusion is YOUR problem, Robert. I am only pointing it out. You cannot blame your problems on me or anybody else.

Im a BM wrote:
And there is certainly no need to provide a reference to any source when simply stating truths that are held to be self evident.

There is no reference for buzzwords and your confusion, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
There is nothing more revealing in science than to declare what is NOT.

YOUR confusion, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
And now that I have been made aware that "Humic is not a chemical", I must reassess the significance of humic acids in soil chemistry. They must be irrelevant, if "humic is not a chemical".

Humic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Oxidative coupling of phenolic monomers (protocatechuic acid, etc.) into massive humic acids is the mechanism that generates an incredibly important soil ingredient.

Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Humic acids have an average residence time of hundreds of years in soil before they decompose. Through the production of the phenolic acids (primarily tannins) that provide substrate to become humic acids, plants sequester (inorganic) atmospheric carbon dioxide into an organic carbon form that remains stable in the ground for centuries.

Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical. Tannins is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
In many forest soils, humic acids provide the majority of the soil's cation exchange capacity (CEC), to retain nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium against leaching loss. Humic acids significantly improve the physical properties of soil as a medium for plant growth as well. And some soils are so inherently poor, such as the acid white sand rainforests, that WITHOUT the humic acids created from the material the plants put in, no plant could grow there.

Humic is not a chemical. Cation is not a capacity. Sand is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The Pygmy Forest is a bit farther from the equator than than acid white sand rainforests, but it displays the same phenomenon. Exceptionally high concentration of condensed tannins in the foliage create litter that decomposes very, very slowly. A litter layer accumulates above the mineral soil surface, where many of the roots and mycorrhizal fungi are found. As the tannins slowly degrade, those soluble products polymerize via oxidative coupling into insoluble humic acids. Without them, the soil would be unable to hold onto enough calcium and magnesium to keep a forest alive. Without them, the soil would not be able to absorb enough water for adequate infiltration in the wet season, and would not be able to retain enough water to survive the dry season.

Sand is not acid. Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
You seem to feel the need to provide endless examples of the obvious fact that something is not something else that it is not.

NOW, for the first time, I'll offer you a statement to which your rebuttal actually has some kind of meaning in a "debate".

You won't have to pretend that I said "oxygen is iron" so you can offer the COMPLETE rebuttal to every point I made by saying "Oxygen is not iron".

Here you go, with a statement of MY OWN, so you won't have to set up a straw man and pretend it represents my position.

Something IS something else that it is not. (and you can quote me)

NOW your repetitious reply will actually make sense in the context of the discussion.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You seem to feel the need to provide endless examples of the obvious fact that something is not something else that it is not.

NOW, for the first time, I'll offer you a statement to which your rebuttal actually has some kind of meaning in a "debate".

You won't have to pretend that I said "oxygen is iron" so you can offer the COMPLETE rebuttal to every point I made by saying "Oxygen is not iron".

Here you go, with a statement of MY OWN, so you won't have to set up a straw man and pretend it represents my position.

Something IS something else that it is not. (and you can quote me)

NOW your repetitious reply will actually make sense in the context of the discussion.

You aren't having a discussion, Robert. You can't blame your meaningless buzzwords on anybody else.

Im a BM wrote:
I blame ALL of my "meaningless buzzwords" on someone else.

Im a BM wrote:
I did not invent ANY of them.

Im a BM wrote:
Kill the messenger if you want, but "biogeochemistry" is something I inherited from others.

Im a BM wrote:
The beauty of scientists all agreeing to use the same terms in the same way is that you don't have to provide a unique definition every time you use it. You don't have to "define your terms" because the definition has already been agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, you could learn SO MUCH if you had the courage to look up the definitions for a few of those sciency "buzzwords". It might even provide you with something useful to say about the subject, other than "no such thing".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I blame ALL of my "meaningless buzzwords" on someone else.

That you do, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
I did not invent ANY of them.

Yes you did.

Im a BM wrote:
Kill the messenger if you want, but "biogeochemistry" is something I inherited from others.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

Im a BM wrote:
The beauty of scientists all agreeing to use the same terms in the same way is that you don't have to provide a unique definition every time you use it. You don't have to "define your terms" because the definition has already been agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Science isn't 'terms'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, you could learn SO MUCH if you had the courage to look up the definitions for a few of those sciency "buzzwords". It might even provide you with something useful to say about the subject, other than "no such thing".

Buzzwords have no definition, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Future generations of scientists will praise the genius of Into the Night.

Make any word you don't understand simply go away...

No "buzzwords" allowed!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
So, given the complex origin of "drink the kool aid", what are the connotations that people understand it to mean?

There is no 'complex origin'. Drinking Kool-Aid means drinking a sugary drink often made from a powder mix at home.

Im a BM wrote:
In the 1968 book (The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test), the Kool-aid was a vehicle for ingestion of LSD. The connotation of "you really drank the Kool-aid" is that you are hallucinating and are expressing irrational ideations. After Jonestone, where they actually drank cyanide-laced FLAVOR AID (a cheap imitation of kool aid), the connotation was more association to blind faith in a death cult.

Kool-Aid is not LSD. Kool-Aid is not 'cyanide'. Cyanide is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The inability of Google to recognize the ORIGINAL "origin" suggests to me that Google gives more "weight" to the more abundant and recent references of "drinking the kool aid" Jonestown style. Only when prompted with the additional information of a book title did Google look for the connection and discover the truly ORIGINAL reference to the term.

Edwin Perkins.

Im a BM wrote:
In a science example, one can Google "Adaptive value of tannins".

No such thing. Tannins is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The first answer Google gives is the obsolete one.

Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
All about "defense", in the belief that tannins discourage herbivores and defend against pathogens. More religion than science really, given how nobody ever showed that tannins actually WORK as "defenses". Research such as my own, where we had the same species with different concentrations of tannins as it grew on different soils, it made no difference whatsoever to how much the trees got eaten by herbivores. Other research shows a slight preference for lower tannin leaves because they tend to be higher in protein. But many herbivores adapted ways to circumvent any "defense" from tannins. Jays, for example, make a point to eat some extra insects when they eat acorns. The "defensive" tannins from the acorns bind to the insect protein, rendering them incapable of interfering with the jay's digestive enzymes.

Now, if you Google the same inquiry with some modifying information, you get a different answer.

Google: "Adaptive value of tannins, plant-litter-soil interactions"

In the first inquiry, Google gave the most weight to the abundant old school references to tannins as "defensive" chemicals. It offered no example of any other potential adaptive value.

In the second inquiry, Google gave more weight to all the NEW research into tannins as regulators of plant-litter-soils interactions and nutrient cycling.

Tannins is not a chemical. There is no 'adaptive value'.

Im a BM wrote:

This is where I get to see the fruits of my own research, as I was a major pioneer in this area. Many of the references Google shows cite me.

A third inquiry for fun - Google "Tannins and nitrous oxide emissions", for one of the climate change connections.

Google is not God. Tannins is not a chemical. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:

Google gets straight to the point:

"Tannins, particularly condensed (CT) and hydrolyzable (HT) types reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from livestock manure and soil, acting as natural inhibitors."
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
And that reminds me there are a lot of new papers to include which cite my work. One came out two weeks ago about this specific topic.

"Catechol addition reshapes microbial metabolic networks to enhance humification and regulate nitrogen transformation in co-composting of chicken manure and corn." New paper by H. Qi, et al., in the journal Bioresource Technology, volume 452, July 2026, 134521

Catechol is not a tannin, but it represents the ortho dihydric phenols found in tannins as subunits. "Humification" occurs through oxidative coupling as the phenolic monomers polymerize into massive humic acid molecules. The nitrogen in the chicken manure proteins, etc., is tied up in a manner that prevents its transformation into nitrous oxide, or any other inorganic form of nitrogen.

Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical. Ortho dihydric phenol is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a protein. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not nitrous oxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
The GENIUS of Into the Night paraphrased:
"Something is not something else"

All the most important chemical principles are summarized in the penultimate paragraph to settle the "argument" definitively.

"Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical. Ortho dihydric phenol is not a chemical. Nitrogen isn not a protein. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen in not nitrous oxide." - Into the Night

And there is certainly no need to provide a reference to any source when simply stating truths that are held to be self evident.

There is nothing more revealing in science than to declare what is NOT.

Im a BM wrote:
And now that I have been made aware that "Humic is not a chemical", I must reassess the significance of humic acids in soil chemistry. They must be irrelevant, if "humic is not a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
Oxidative coupling of phenolic monomers (protocatechuic acid, etc.) into massive humic acids is the mechanism that generates an incredibly important soil ingredient.

Im a BM wrote:
Humic acids have an average residence time of hundreds of years in soil before they decompose. Through the production of the phenolic acids (primarily tannins) that provide substrate to become humic acids, plants sequester (inorganic) atmospheric carbon dioxide into an organic carbon form that remains stable in the ground for centuries.

Im a BM wrote:
In many forest soils, humic acids provide the majority of the soil's cation exchange capacity (CEC), to retain nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium against leaching loss. Humic acids significantly improve the physical properties of soil as a medium for plant growth as well. And some soils are so inherently poor, such as the acid white sand rainforests, that WITHOUT the humic acids created from the material the plants put in, no plant could grow there.

Im a BM wrote:
The Pygmy Forest is a bit farther from the equator than than acid white sand rainforests, but it displays the same phenomenon. Exceptionally high concentration of condensed tannins in the foliage create litter that decomposes very, very slowly. A litter layer accumulates above the mineral soil surface, where many of the roots and mycorrhizal fungi are found. As the tannins slowly degrade, those soluble products polymerize via oxidative coupling into insoluble humic acids. Without them, the soil would be unable to hold onto enough calcium and magnesium to keep a forest alive. Without them, the soil would not be able to absorb enough water for adequate infiltration in the wet season, and would not be able to retain enough water to survive the dry season.

Im a BM wrote:
In the pouring rain with an alcohol-dry-ice slurry for forest floor leachate.

Im a BM wrote:
Humic acids are very important in soil chemistry, regardless of whether or not some pretend "chemist" asserts that "humic is not a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
I was in the room where it happened, for one of the important discoveries about humic acid formation.

Im a BM wrote:
The old school theory about humic acids was that they were derived primarily, if not entirely, from LIGNIN. All those phenolic subunits in the humic acids made them look a lot like leftover lignin that just took forever to degrade. The theory could not account for all the carboxylic acid groups found in humic acids.

Im a BM wrote:
By the late 1980s, forest soil chemists were finding a very different mechanism for humic acid formation. It was the product of oxidative coupling of smaller, soluble organic acids. These "fulvic acids" were not lignin or derived from lignin. They were phenol carboxylic acids derived primarily from polyphenols. Through oxidative coupling, soluble fulvic acids were suspected of polymerizing into insoluble humic acids.

Im a BM wrote:
Andy Pohlman was the analytical chemist I worked under at UC Berkeley, and he had a great idea how to test it. We had gone to great lengths to create field infrastructure to be able to collect samples of forest floor leachate for analysis. We wanted to characterize the "fulvic acids" in the forest floor leachate by high pressure liquid chromatography, but by the time we analyzed the samples in the lab, the monomeric fulvic acids had mostly disappeared, having polymerized into larger organic acids.

Im a BM wrote:
So, when the next big storm came, they sent me off to the mountains with an alcohol-dry-ice slurry to flash freeze the samples as quickly as the rain leached them out of the forest floor. When I got them back to the lab, all those little fulvic acids had been preserved in their original form. This made it possible to characterize the array of fulvic acids interacting with the aluminum, iron, and manganese in the soil.

Im a BM wrote:
Out in the forest in the pouring rain, I flash froze multiple samples of forest floor leachate, throughfall leaching through the canopy, and stemflow running down the sides of the tree trunks. It was 1987 and I was just getting started studying the biogeochemistry of polyphenols.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The GENIUS of Into the Night paraphrased:
"Something is not something else"

All the most important chemical principles are summarized in the penultimate paragraph to settle the "argument" definitively.

"Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical. Ortho dihydric phenol is not a chemical. Nitrogen isn not a protein. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen in not nitrous oxide." - Into the Night

And there is certainly no need to provide a reference to any source when simply stating truths that are held to be self evident.

There is nothing more revealing in science than to declare what is NOT.

You are not discussing science.

Im a BM wrote:
And now that I have been made aware that "Humic is not a chemical", I must reassess the significance of humic acids in soil chemistry. They must be irrelevant, if "humic is not a chemical".

Humic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Oxidative coupling of phenolic monomers (protocatechuic acid, etc.) into massive humic acids is the mechanism that generates an incredibly important soil ingredient.

phenolic is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Soil is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Humic acids have an average residence time of hundreds of years in soil before they decompose. Through the production of the phenolic acids (primarily tannins) that provide substrate to become humic acids, plants sequester (inorganic) atmospheric carbon dioxide into an organic carbon form that remains stable in the ground for centuries.

Humic is not a chemical. Soil is not an acid. Phenolic is not a chemical. Tannins is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
In many forest soils, humic acids provide the majority of the soil's cation exchange capacity (CEC), to retain nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium against leaching loss. Humic acids significantly improve the physical properties of soil as a medium for plant growth as well. And some soils are so inherently poor, such as the acid white sand rainforests, that WITHOUT the humic acids created from the material the plants put in, no plant could grow there.

Humic is not a chemical. Soil is not an acid. Sand is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The Pygmy Forest is a bit farther from the equator than than acid white sand rainforests, but it displays the same phenomenon. Exceptionally high concentration of condensed tannins in the foliage create litter that decomposes very, very slowly. A litter layer accumulates above the mineral soil surface, where many of the roots and mycorrhizal fungi are found. As the tannins slowly degrade, those soluble products polymerize via oxidative coupling into insoluble humic acids. Without them, the soil would be unable to hold onto enough calcium and magnesium to keep a forest alive. Without them, the soil would not be able to absorb enough water for adequate infiltration in the wet season, and would not be able to retain enough water to survive the dry season.

Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Calcium is not water. Magnesium is not water. Neither is need for soil to absorb water. Both calcium and and magnesium react violently with water.

Im a BM wrote:
In the pouring rain with an alcohol-dry-ice slurry for forest floor leachate.

Rain is not alcohol.

Im a BM wrote:
Humic acids are very important in soil chemistry, regardless of whether or not some pretend "chemist" asserts that "humic is not a chemical".

Humic is not a chemical. Soil is not chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
I was in the room where it happened, for one of the important discoveries about humic acid formation.

Humic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The old school theory about humic acids was that they were derived primarily, if not entirely, from LIGNIN. All those phenolic subunits in the humic acids made them look a lot like leftover lignin that just took forever to degrade. The theory could not account for all the carboxylic acid groups found in humic acids.

Humic is not a chemical. Phenolic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
By the late 1980s, forest soil chemists were finding a very different mechanism for humic acid formation. It was the product of oxidative coupling of smaller, soluble organic acids. These "fulvic acids" were not lignin or derived from lignin. They were phenol carboxylic acids derived primarily from polyphenols. Through oxidative coupling, soluble fulvic acids were suspected of polymerizing into insoluble humic acids.

Humic acid is not a chemical. Organic is not a chemical. Fulvic is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acid is not a chemical. Polyphenol is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Andy Pohlman was the analytical chemist I worked under at UC Berkeley, and he had a great idea how to test it. We had gone to great lengths to create field infrastructure to be able to collect samples of forest floor leachate for analysis. We wanted to characterize the "fulvic acids" in the forest floor leachate by high pressure liquid chromatography, but by the time we analyzed the samples in the lab, the monomeric fulvic acids had mostly disappeared, having polymerized into larger organic acids.

Fulvic is not a chemical. Organic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
So, when the next big storm came, they sent me off to the mountains with an alcohol-dry-ice slurry to flash freeze the samples as quickly as the rain leached them out of the forest floor. When I got them back to the lab, all those little fulvic acids had been preserved in their original form. This made it possible to characterize the array of fulvic acids interacting with the aluminum, iron, and manganese in the soil.

Rain is not alcohol. Fulvic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Out in the forest in the pouring rain, I flash froze multiple samples of forest floor leachate, throughfall leaching through the canopy, and stemflow running down the sides of the tree trunks. It was 1987 and I was just getting started studying the biogeochemistry of polyphenols.

Polyphenol is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

Im a BM wrote:
It appears that you are descending into another psychotic episode.

Please seek help immediately.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It appears that you are descending into another psychotic episode.

Please seek help immediately.

Go learn what 'psychotic' means, Robert. Mantra 1d. Lame.

Im a BM wrote:
Google is not God. Google is not sentient. Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night knows better than Google about everything.

Im a BM wrote:
Google says that a 2.0 M solution of HNO3 (nitric acid, even though "nitric is not a chemical") has pH about -0.3

Im a BM wrote:
This is consistent with my own calculations, based on the standard chemistry formula for pH = -log(H+)

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night's insistence that Google is always wrong reminds me of Greg Gutfeld on the Fox Network.

Im a BM wrote:
It a panel of five ultra MAGA talking heads, including Gutfeld

Im a BM wrote:
Mr. Gutfeld asserted that he "knew more science than Dr. Fauci".

Im a BM wrote:
This was too much for the others. Nobody backed him up, and one of them chided him into doubling down on the absurd assertion.

He confidently assured the other four that YES, his knowledge of science was superior to that of Dr. Fauci.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Google is not God. Google is not sentient. Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical.

These statements are correct.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night knows better than Google about everything.

Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
Google says that a 2.0 M solution of HNO3 (nitric acid, even though "nitric is not a chemical") has pH about -0.3

Google is not sentient. It is not possible to have a negative pH. You are not Google. I already know you don't understand pH.

Im a BM wrote:
This is consistent with my own calculations, based on the standard chemistry formula for pH = -log(H+)

Go learn what pH is and how it's calculated.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night's insistence that Google is always wrong reminds me of Greg Gutfeld on the Fox Network.

I am not on the Fox network, and never really watch it. It's owned and operated by leftists.

Im a BM wrote:
It a panel of five ultra MAGA talking heads, including Gutfeld

MAGA isn't a person, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Mr. Gutfeld asserted that he "knew more science than Dr. Fauci".

Not difficult.

Im a BM wrote:
This was too much for the others. Nobody backed him up, and one of them chided him into doubling down on the absurd assertion.

He confidently assured the other four that YES, his knowledge of science was superior to that of Dr. Fauci.

Again, not difficult. Dr. Fauci long ago abandoned science.

Im a BM wrote:
The mere fact that you are scientifically illiterate is not a reason to criticize you or despise you.

Im a BM wrote:
The vast majority of people do NOT have advanced degrees in science

Im a BM wrote:
and have never published any significant scientific discoveries.

Im a BM wrote:
Most people never even had the opportunity to learn the kind of things they taught me at the world's most prestigious universities.

Im a BM wrote:
The reason I criticize you and despise you is because you are an obnoxious troll who just has to make stupid comments on EVERYTHING I post, sometimes two or three comment posts for every argument post of mine. You clutter up the forum with anti science and spam.

Im a BM wrote:
You have a handful of sentences that you repeat over and over and over.

Im a BM wrote:
You make false accusations and greet new members with insults.

Im a BM wrote:
You didn't succeed at driving ME away, but you sure tried. You guys had much greater success driving at least a hundred OTHER members away.

Im a BM wrote:
I love the "General Question for General Forum" thread, from one of the last new members directed here by a Google search. IBdaMann explains how much Harvey hates it when new members were instantly driven away before he too had a chance to insult them. Good old Harvey. Harvey also hated it when he was subjected to condescending insults because he wasn't gullible enough to believe in magic petroleum in defiance of all known geology.

Im a BM wrote:
Not long after IBdaMann invoked Harvey's name as "hating" it when new members got driven off too fast, Harvey decided HE hated the magic petroleum bullshit and the arrogance and condescending lectures that came along with it. Maybe I should dig up those final posts from Harvey. He doesn't blame ME for driving him away. But I do blame YOU and IBdaMann for driving away more than a hundred members who joined in good faith to discuss an issue of great concern and got subjected to inexcusable abuse.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The mere fact that you are scientifically illiterate is not a reason to criticize you or despise you.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on me.

Im a BM wrote:
The vast majority of people do NOT have advanced degrees in science

Science isn't a degree.

Im a BM wrote:
and have never published any significant scientific discoveries.

Science isn't discoveries.

Im a BM wrote:
Most people never even had the opportunity to learn the kind of things they taught me at the world's most prestigious universities.

Berkeley is not particularly prestigious. Science isn't a university.

Im a BM wrote:
The reason I criticize you and despise you is because you are an obnoxious troll who just has to make stupid comments on EVERYTHING I post, sometimes two or three comment posts for every argument post of mine. You clutter up the forum with anti science and spam.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on me.

Im a BM wrote:
You have a handful of sentences that you repeat over and over and over.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on me.

Im a BM wrote:
You make false accusations and greet new members with insults.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
You didn't succeed at driving ME away, but you sure tried. You guys had much greater success driving at least a hundred OTHER members away.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
I love the "General Question for General Forum" thread, from one of the last new members directed here by a Google search. IBdaMann explains how much Harvey hates it when new members were instantly driven away before he too had a chance to insult them. Good old Harvey. Harvey also hated it when he was subjected to condescending insults because he wasn't gullible enough to believe in magic petroleum in defiance of all known geology.

Petroleum isn't magic. Petroleum isn't geology.

Im a BM wrote:
Not long after IBdaMann invoked Harvey's name as "hating" it when new members got driven off too fast, Harvey decided HE hated the magic petroleum bullshit and the arrogance and condescending lectures that came along with it. Maybe I should dig up those final posts from Harvey. He doesn't blame ME for driving him away. But I do blame YOU and IBdaMann for driving away more than a hundred members who joined in good faith to discuss an issue of great concern and got subjected to inexcusable abuse.

You can't blame your problem on IBdaMann or me, Robert. Inversion fallacy.