Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Well, one option is to look it up in an organic chemistry textbook. Almost all of them have at least one chapter dedicated to "carbohydrates". One would find meaningless buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble about "saccharides" and such. Meaningless symbols and numbers, too. Such as a general formula of Cn(H2O)n. In the case of monosaccharides such as glucose, fructose, or galactose, n = 6. Disaccharides such as sucrose or lactose have n= 12. Really big carbohydrates such as cellulose or starch have really big numbers for "n".

Latin reveals root words for carbon and water. Hydrated carbon. General formula Cn(H2O)n. NOT like vegetable oil or terpenes, the molecules of which contain no oxygen atoms whatsoever.

I can only imagine WHERE Into the Night believes he studied organic chemistry.

Science is not a "study"!

Chemistry is not a textbook.
Terpene compounds contain oxygen.

Im a BM wrote:
According to the chemistry textbooks, which are NOT "science", per se, the general formula for TERPENES is:

(C5H8)n

"Monoterpenes" have n=2. "Diterpenes" have n=4. "Sesquiterpenes" have n=3. Go and figure! I didn't make the rules of chemistry nomenclature.

Most terpenes made by plants are polyterpenes, with larger numbers than 2 for "n".

Nary an atom of oxygen to be found in their structure.

Nothing but hydrogen and carbon.

What would LATIN suggest we might call them?

HYDROCARBONS is what they call compounds such as terpenes, composed strictly of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Hydro carbon...

Science is not a "Latin".

Oh, that's what CHEMISTRY TEXTBOOKS also call "hydrocarbons".

Terpenes are not carbohydrates, they are hydrocarbons.

Lignin is not a carbohydrate or a hydrocarbon. It is a polyphenol, a polymer of aromatic alcohol. The basic unit that forms polymers of lignin is included in the broad class of "alcohols", strangely enough. According to CHEMISTRY EXPERTS.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
According to the chemistry textbooks, which are NOT "science", per se, the general formula for TERPENES is:

(C5H8)n

"Monoterpenes" have n=2. "Diterpenes" have n=4. "Sesquiterpenes" have n=3. Go and figure! I didn't make the rules of chemistry nomenclature.

Most terpenes made by plants are polyterpenes, with larger numbers than 2 for "n".

Nary an atom of oxygen to be found in their structure.

Nothing but hydrogen and carbon.

What would LATIN suggest we might call them?

HYDROCARBONS is what they call compounds such as terpenes, composed strictly of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Hydro carbon...

Science is not a "Latin".

Oh, that's what CHEMISTRY TEXTBOOKS also call "hydrocarbons".

Terpenes are not carbohydrates, they are hydrocarbons.

Lignin is not a carbohydrate or a hydrocarbon. It is a polyphenol, a polymer of aromatic alcohol. The basic unit that forms polymers of lignin is included in the broad class of "alcohols", strangely enough. According to CHEMISTRY EXPERTS.

Chemistry is not a textbook. Chemistry is not an expert.
A terpene is not a hydrocarbon. It is a carbohydrate. These compounds contain oxygen.
Lignin is a carbohydrate. It also contains oxygen.

Swan wrote:They used to have biogeofireworks at every Greatful Dead concert. They were apple juice based I think

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:They used to have biogeofireworks at every Greatful Dead concert. They were apple juice based I think

The Greatful Dead are the most successful one-hit-wonder EV-AH! I always wondered what their secret was but now you have answered that question.

.

Im a BM wrote:

All but one of the members you quote stopped posting anything here at least three years ago.
.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

All but one of the members you quote stopped posting anything here at least three years ago.
.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold.

The heart of Climate Change observations summed up in two short sentences.

Thank you very much.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

All but one of the members you quote stopped posting anything here at least three years ago.
.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold.

The heart of Climate Change observations summed up in two short sentences.

Thank you very much.

Actually clouds block heat.

Really

Now why do you want 50,000,000 illegal alien Iranians burning down every Jewish deli?

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

All but one of the members you quote stopped posting anything here at least three years ago.
.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold.

The heart of Climate Change observations summed up in two short sentences.

Thank you very much.

Actually clouds block heat.

Really

Now why do you want 50,000,000 illegal alien Iranians burning down every Jewish deli?

The kosher buffoon has no clue

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:They used to have biogeofireworks at every Greatful Dead concert. They were apple juice based I think

The Greatful Dead are the most successful one-hit-wonder EV-AH! I always wondered what their secret was but now you have answered that question.

.

IBdaMann, I notice the nostalgia in your signature line.

Your posts end with two quotes from "keepit", three quotes from "tmiddles", as well as quotes from "Spongy Iris", "trafn", "Climate Scientist", "Hank", "Leafsdude", and "Ceist".

You're still living in the past.

All but one of the members you quote stopped posting anything here at least three years ago.

Almost all the old troll gang stopped posting as well.

I didn't see any quotes in your signature line from Into the Night, Harvey, GasGuzz, gfm###, or any other fellow trolls.

IBdaMann, are you hoping that keepit, tmiddles, trafn, Climate Scientist, Hank, Leafsdude, and Ceist will COME BACK?

Maybe you wear your signature line like war medals.

Your victory is nearly complete.

But there are still a handful of members you didn't successfully drive away completely.

Not everyone bore out your prediction upon introduction.

"You won't be here long", you always told the new members, after calling them "scientifically illiterate morons", and righteously demanding "Define your terms!"

Can't even get Into the Night to define "carbohydrate", although he continues to insist that if a PLANT makes it and it isn't protein, its a CARBOHYDRATE. The mystery "ratio" that is "pH" is never defined by Into the Night. Come to think of it, the only term ITN has EVER defined is "science". "A set of falsifiable theories".

He won't even say what a "chemist" is, although he pretends to be one.

"You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."

Enjoy your nostalgia for the good old days when your gang of trolls used to ambush every new member.

How badly do you miss them?

Maybe we can invite them to your 12th anniversary party, to celebrate the day of your very first post as a climate-debate.com troll on October 22, 2014.

You have accomplished so much here in more than eleven years.

Have you seen how many "views" your old threads are getting every day now?

You FINALLY have a large audience for your shit, but you only post ten times a month now, instead of ten times a day as you used to.

I don't think any of your friends or rivals from the past are coming back.

Maybe you should direct your comments to the NEW audience.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, I notice the nostalgia in your signature line.

Im a BM wrote: Your posts end with two quotes from "keepit", three quotes from "tmiddles", as well as quotes from "Spongy Iris", "trafn", "Climate Scientist", "Hank", "Leafsdude", and "Ceist".

Im a BM wrote: You're still living in the past.

Im a BM wrote:All but one of the members you quote stopped posting anything here at least three years ago.

Im a BM wrote: I didn't see any quotes in your signature line from Into the Night, Harvey, GasGuzz, gfm###,

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, are you hoping that keepit, tmiddles, trafn, Climate Scientist, Hank, Leafsdude, and Ceist will COME BACK?

Im a BM wrote:Your victory is nearly complete.

Im a BM wrote: But there are still a handful of members you didn't successfully drive away completely.

Im a BM wrote: Can't even get Into the Night to define "carbohydrate"

Im a BM wrote: Come to think of it, the only term ITN has EVER defined is "science". "A set of falsifiable theories".

Im a BM wrote: He won't even say what a "chemist" is,

Im a BM wrote: although he pretends to be one.

Im a BM wrote: "You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."

Im a BM wrote: You FINALLY have a large audience for your shit, but you only post ten times a month now, instead of ten times a day as you used to.

Im a BM wrote: I don't think any of your friends or rivals from the past are coming back.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, you're overdue for another sporadic cameo.

How about addressing the basic question of providing an unambiguous definition for terms, as scientists are supposed to.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night REFUSES to provide ANY definition for "carbohydrate", while making absurd contrarian assertions that every class of non-protein organic compound produced by plants are "carbohydrates".

Im a BM wrote:
According to repeated claims by ITN, vegetable oil is a "carbohydrate".

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann has a good nose for conspiracies, such as the origin of "biogeochemistry" as a religious cult under a fake Russian scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, do YOU know why food labels for vegetable oil insist on claiming that the product contains ZERO grams of "carbohydrate" per serving?

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night doesn't have to reveal his secret definition for the term if he can simply DEBUNK the conspiracy to lie about the composition of vegetable oil.

Im a BM wrote:
Between a "chemist" and a detective with a finely tuned bullshit detector, you guys could expose a major nutrition deception conspiracy.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, you're overdue for another sporadic cameo.

How about addressing the basic question of providing an unambiguous definition for terms, as scientists are supposed to.

He does.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night REFUSES to provide ANY definition for "carbohydrate", while making absurd contrarian assertions that every class of non-protein organic compound produced by plants are "carbohydrates".

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
According to repeated claims by ITN, vegetable oil is a "carbohydrate".

...and?

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann has a good nose for conspiracies, such as the origin of "biogeochemistry" as a religious cult under a fake Russian scientist.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, do YOU know why food labels for vegetable oil insist on claiming that the product contains ZERO grams of "carbohydrate" per serving?

Still have no idea what a carbohydrate is, eh?

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night doesn't have to reveal his secret definition for the term if he can simply DEBUNK the conspiracy to lie about the composition of vegetable oil.

There is no 'secret definition', Robert. The Democrat party is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

Im a BM wrote:
Between a "chemist" and a detective with a finely tuned bullshit detector, you guys could expose a major nutrition deception conspiracy.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'major nutrition deception conspiracy'.

Im a BM wrote:
It's hard to get Into the Night to express any clear AFFIRMATIVE position about what something IS. Always comes back with assertions about what is NOT.

Vegetable oil is NOT a "carbohydrate" by ANY valid definition.

Im a BM wrote:
The "major nutrition deception conspiracy" would be to explain why the food labels call vegetable oil "fat", and NOT "carbohydrate".

Im a BM wrote:
Unless they are perfectly correct to be consistent with what all the actual CHEMISTS call "hydrocarbon" versus "carbohydrate".

Im a BM wrote:
ITN NEVER defines his terms, but keeps writing "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon" as if he had a clue what the terms actually mean.

Im a BM wrote:
According to ITN, plants are not physically capable of synthesizing hydrocarbons, such as terpenes and oil.

Im a BM wrote:
If a plant makes it and it's not protein, it's a CARBOHYDRATE according to ITN.

Im a BM wrote:
I wouldn't be so bothered that the idiot pretends to be a "chemist" if he weren't also a TROLL who tells everyone ELSE (with just three exceptions) that they don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote: Vegetable oil is NOT a "carbohydrate" by ANY valid definition.

Im a BM wrote: ITN NEVER defines his terms, but keeps writing "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon" as if he had a clue what the terms actually mean.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Vegetable oil is NOT a "carbohydrate" by ANY valid definition.

Do you know what a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is? It is sometimes called a "No Valid Definitioin" fallacy.

Anyway, you just made it.

Im a BM wrote: ITN NEVER defines his terms, but keeps writing "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon" as if he had a clue what the terms actually mean.

Isn't this way too funny? You refuse to define anything, even when politely asked, and then you turn around and pretend to bash on Into the Night for not defining something.

Tell me you see the humor in all that.

Just for my edification, when did you unambiguously define "carbohydrate" (without any "typically" or "usually") and what was that defintion?

.

Im a BM wrote:
I know you didn't miss ALL the posts in which ITN asserted that EVERY organic compound made by plants, other than protein, is "carbohydrate".

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, you even attempted to argue that lignin might be construed as a carbohydrate, in agreement with ITN. Lignin does have SOME oxygen in its structure, but not nearly enough for Cn(H2O)n stoichiometry.

Im a BM wrote:
I could, once again, provide the definition of "carbohydrate" that actual chemists go by.

Im a BM wrote:
First, I'll remind IBdaMann that ITN asserts TERPENES made by plants are "carbohydrates" rather than hydrocarbons.

Im a BM wrote:
Remember how amber gemstones are made from "oxygenated hydrocarbons"?

Im a BM wrote:
You should remember because you were calling people "morons" for not believing in your omniscience. Terpenes have the basic formula (C5H8)n. During fossilization, or technically "petrification" of polyterpene resins, some oxygen gets added to the structure.
Wrong chemical formula. No 'structure'. Buzzword fallacies.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
It started with LIGNIN, which ITN asserted was a "carbohydrate". "The entire plant is just carbohydrates and some protein", said ITN. His new definition then extended to tannins, terpenes, and even VEGETABLE OIL.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, you may have noticed ITN insisting that vegetable oil is a "carbohydrate". A term he never ONCE provided a definition for.

Carbohydrates are "saccharides". Terpenes, lignin, tannin, and vegetable oil are NOT saccharides. Monosaccharides include fructose, glucose, and galactose, with the formula C6H12O6, or Cn(H2O)n, with "n"=1. Disaccharides include sucrose and lactose, with the formula C12H24O12, or Cn(H2O)n, with "n"=2. Bigger saccharides like cellulose, hemicellulose, and starch have larger "n" in their Cn(H2O)n formula. That 1:2:1 ratio of Carbon:Hydrogen

xygen in the carbohydrate formula is NOT what is found in terpenes, lignin, tannin, or vegetable oil.

Im a BM wrote:
Speaking of vegetable oil, neither you or ITN responds to repeated inquiries about how the food labels could have gotten it so WRONG, if vegetable oil is really a "carbohydrate".

Im a BM wrote:
More than a THIRD of all posts on this website are by YOU or ITN. Two out of 1737 members put up nearly 39,000 of the total 110,000 posts.

Im a BM wrote:
Unfortunately you are too scientifically illiterate to have a discussion of any value with. Your obnoxious approach drove the others away. You two have trolled this website for more than ten years.

Your word games are an uninformative waste of time.

Im a BM wrote:
Without Google directing new members to this site anymore...

I'll pull up what happened that LAST times they still did.

Im a BM wrote:
Roj475 was one of the LAST new members who made a genuine attempt to engage in climate change debate, now more than three years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
He proposed a "General Question in General Forum" to try to assess if this was strictly a science denial website. He certainly got an answer!