| 02-04-2026 07:44 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
This is much briefer than most of your posts, but it follows the same format as the rest.
Three out of four statements = SOMETHING IS NOT SOMETHING ELSE
Does this display insight?
Science is not a journal. Carbonate is not a chemical. Iron is not arsenic.
Really? So, what else is new?
Nuthin'. You keep claiming that science is a journal. It isn't.
You keep claiming that carbonate is a chemical. It isn't.
Im a BM wrote:
Most nitrogen atoms on Earth are NOT organic.
The N2 nitrogen gas in the atmosphere contains no nitrogen atoms bonded to organic carbon. The dissolved NH4+ ammonium nitrogen or NO3- nitrate nitrogen in the soil and water contains no N atoms bonded to organic C. Proteins and amino acids contain amino nitrogen that IS bonded to organic carbon atoms. That nitrogen is ORGANIC NITROGEN.
Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic. There is no such thing as 'amino nitrogen'. Ammonium nitrogen is not a chemical. Nitrate nitrogen is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The dictionaries, search engines, and scientific textbooks out vote ITN by about 1000:1
You don't get to quote everything. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not a dictionary, search engine, or book. Science does not use consensus. A dictionary is not sentient. A search engine is not sentient. A book is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
Take the Organic Nitrogen Challenge!
Check a dictionary, search engine, or textbook to see if they disagree with ITN and make a whole lot of references to "organic nitrogen", in the understanding that it REALLY DOES EXIST.
Science is not a dictionary, search engine, or book. Nitrogen is not organic. You don't get to quote everything. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacies.
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 02-04-2026 07:46 |
| 03-04-2026 00:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
This is much briefer than most of your posts, but it follows the same format as the rest.
Three out of four statements = SOMETHING IS NOT SOMETHING ELSE
Does this display insight?
Science is not a journal. Carbonate is not a chemical. Iron is not arsenic.
Really? So, what else is new?
Nuthin'. You keep claiming that science is a journal. It isn't.
You keep claiming that carbonate is a chemical. It isn't.
Im a BM wrote:
Most nitrogen atoms on Earth are NOT organic.
The N2 nitrogen gas in the atmosphere contains no nitrogen atoms bonded to organic carbon. The dissolved NH4+ ammonium nitrogen or NO3- nitrate nitrogen in the soil and water contains no N atoms bonded to organic C. Proteins and amino acids contain amino nitrogen that IS bonded to organic carbon atoms. That nitrogen is ORGANIC NITROGEN.
Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic. There is no such thing as 'amino nitrogen'. Ammonium nitrogen is not a chemical. Nitrate nitrogen is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The dictionaries, search engines, and scientific textbooks out vote ITN by about 1000:1
You don't get to quote everything. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not a dictionary, search engine, or book. Science does not use consensus. A dictionary is not sentient. A search engine is not sentient. A book is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
Take the Organic Nitrogen Challenge!
Check a dictionary, search engine, or textbook to see if they disagree with ITN and make a whole lot of references to "organic nitrogen", in the understanding that it REALLY DOES EXIST.
Science is not a dictionary, search engine, or book. Nitrogen is not organic. You don't get to quote everything. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacies.
If you had ANY qualifications as a "chemist", you would at least know what some of the "buzzwords" are SUPPOSED to mean.
You stand alone against all the scientists who authored and published the term "organic nitrogen", all in agreement as to its significance.
You can make the term disappear from your own consciousness if it causes discomfort. You cannot make it disappear from all the scientific literature.
Science is not a literature, I'm sure.
Actually I DO get to quote everything.
"You deny science" - Into the Night
"You are describing yourself" - Into the Night
Into the Night, you are in an extremely small minority regarding what you call "science" and "chemistry".
Climate CAN change.
Even "skeptic" scientists all agree climate CAN change. They just dispute the degree to which human activity is responsible, if at all, for the changes. |
| 03-04-2026 01:15 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
If you had ANY qualifications as a "chemist", you would at least know what some of the "buzzwords" are SUPPOSED to mean.
You stand alone against all the scientists who authored and published the term "organic nitrogen", all in agreement as to its significance.
You can make the term disappear from your own consciousness if it causes discomfort. You cannot make it disappear from all the scientific literature.
Buzzword have no meaning, Robert. Nitrogen is not organic. You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not 'literature'.
Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a literature, I'm sure.
You are correct here.
Im a BM wrote:
Actually I DO get to quote everything.
Nope. That's an omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, you are in an extremely small minority regarding what you call "science" and "chemistry".
There is no voting block in English.
Im a BM wrote:
Climate CAN change.
Oh? What is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
Even "skeptic" scientists all agree climate CAN change.
So what is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
hey just dispute the degree to which human activity is responsible, if at all, for the changes.
So what is changing?
You keep saying the climate is changing. What is changing?
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 |
| 15-04-2026 17:28 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
If you had ANY qualifications as a "chemist", you would at least know what some of the "buzzwords" are SUPPOSED to mean.
You stand alone against all the scientists who authored and published the term "organic nitrogen", all in agreement as to its significance.
You can make the term disappear from your own consciousness if it causes discomfort. You cannot make it disappear from all the scientific literature.
Buzzword have no meaning, Robert. Nitrogen is not organic. You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not 'literature'.
Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a literature, I'm sure.
You are correct here.
Im a BM wrote:
Actually I DO get to quote everything.
Nope. That's an omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, you are in an extremely small minority regarding what you call "science" and "chemistry".
There is no voting block in English.
Im a BM wrote:
Climate CAN change.
Oh? What is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
Even "skeptic" scientists all agree climate CAN change.
So what is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
hey just dispute the degree to which human activity is responsible, if at all, for the changes.
So what is changing?
You keep saying the climate is changing. What is changing?
After more than 10 years and 24,500 posts at a "climate debate" website, ITN STILL does not know what "climate change" refers to?
It doesn't stop him from trolling every post about "climate". |
| 15-04-2026 18:11 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(15086) |
Im a BM wrote:After more than 10 years and 24,500 posts at a "climate debate" website, ITN STILL does not know what "climate change" refers to?
Climate Change is not his religion; he isn't supposed to know to what it refers. You, on the other hand, worship that faith and are expected to understand what the dogma means, but you don't. You can't unambiguously define any part of your religion in a way that doesn't immediately violate math, science, logic, economics or empirical observation.
It's your religion and you STILL do not know to what "Climate Change" refers.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-04-2026 18:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Some scientists are so "biased" that they believe climate CAN change,
Those people aren't scientists. They are political hacks, cosplaying actual scientists.
When they aren't cosplaying scientists, they cosplay actual economists.
Im a BM wrote: ... and it IS possible to discern what happened in the past based on modern day evidence.
Nope. If you understood anything about science, you would know how stupid that statement is.
You are committing an omniscience fallacy by imagining that your speculation is somehow absolute truth. If you understood science to any degree, you would know that the scientific method demands direct verification, i.e. a time machine to verify the hypothesis.
Being the interested layman that you are, I wouldn't expect you to know any of this.
Im a BM wrote: Among such [fanatical cosplayers], a [fantasy] of "climate change" [requires no] "unambiguous definition" of the term that [merely enhances the religious fantasy].
I get it. Enjoy your fantasy. Perhaps afterwards, you and your friends can play "fort".
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann has got ITN's back on this one.
Into the Night doesn't need anyone to "have his back" while correctly specifying that categories and classifications are categories and classifications.
Im a BM wrote: The carbonate ion is usually referred to simply as "carbonate" in discussions of [cosplayers who don't know what they are talking about].
That's what I've been saying.
Im a BM wrote: The capacity of the persulfate anion to behave as an oxidant terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon other organic forms of elements such as nitrogen is ALMOST independent of the associated cation.
The technical terminology for something that behaves almost independent of an associated cation is "does not behave independently of the associated cation."
Im a BM wrote: One notable exception would be ammonium persulfate.
FYI, ammonium persulfate is a chemical, by the way, of the persulfate class.
The existence of an exception means that there is no rule.
Im a BM wrote: Maybe I'm not really a "chemist", but a lot of chemists employ the laboratory procedure I invented.
I can confirm that you aren't a chemist, if you need someone to vouch for you.
Im a BM wrote: Got the idea from the Dohrman organic carbon analyzer in our lab. Cabrera and Beare came up with the same idea just ahead of us.
Maybe they should have asked a chemist if there are actually differences between nitrogen atoms.
Im a BM wrote:Enter search terms such as "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" or "Northup and organic carbon" in Google.
What the searches actually reveal
1. Northup + persulfate
No relevant scientific or scholarly results surfaced connecting anyone named Northup to persulfate chemistry.
The hits were generic SDS sheets and supplier pages for ammonium and sodium persulfate, not authored by or associated with a Northup.
2. Northup + organic nitrogen
Search results returned commercial fertilizer listings, not scientific publications, and none were authored by or associated with a Northup.
3. Northup + organic carbon
Here we do get legitimate scientific hits — but they concern soil carbon, agricultural emissions, and carbon storage, not persulfate chemistry.
Two distinct researchers named Northup appear:
* Daniel L. Northrup
Co‑author on papers about agricultural emissions, soil carbon storage, and negative‑emissions farming systems.
These works involve carbon cycling, soil carbon, and nitrogen fertilizer efficiency, but not persulfates.
* Brian K. Northup
Co‑author on a study of soil organic matter and soil carbon distribution in Oklahoma.
Again: carbon, nitrogen, soil ecology — no persulfate chemistry.
The Correct Synthesis
There is no known connection between any researcher named Northup and persulfate chemistry.
There are Northups working in:
* soil carbon
* soil organic matter
* agricultural emissions
* nitrogen fertilizer efficiency
But none of these intersect with persulfate chemistry, persulfate oxidation, or persulfate analytical methods.
So the namespace mapping looks like this:
Persulfate Namespace
No Northup present.
Organic Nitrogen / Organic Carbon (Soil Science) Namespace
Daniel L. Northrup → agricultural emissions, soil carbon
Brian K. Northup → soil organic matter, carbon distribution
Im a BM wrote:These "meaningless buzzwords" have been taken seriously by a lot of published academics who actually have earned the right to be called "chemists".
"Published Academics" occupy the bottom of the credibility food chain. Talk about cosplayers! If they really want to be taken seriously, they need to get the hell out of academia and get into the real world of results-driven industry.
I invite ANYONE to fact check IBdaMann's claims.
Get into Google with three different search terms. "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" and "Northup and organic carbon".
IBdaMann didn't seem to see the main part of Google's answers, which refer directly to my own publications. And verify that a LOT of scientists seem to believe in "organic nitrogen" and "organic carbon".
"Northup and persulfate", the first two references on the list are my own publication on the subject, although Zengshou Yu was first author, I'm there too. The next six references Google lists are more recent papers that reference our 1994 paper.
"Northup and organic nitrogen", I proudly invite others to take the challenge. It begins with Google's OWN answer in the upper left.
"Robert Northup, a biogeochemist, discovered that plants in nutrient poor ecosystems such as the pygmy forest, use polyphenols in tannins to bind organic nitrogen in litter, protecting it from loss, and enabling direct uptake via mycorrhizal fungi. This research suggests that plants can 'short circuit' the nitrogen cycle, using dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) directly, instead of waiting for it to convert to inorganic forms."
Google's excellent answer continues with a lot more detail.
Either IBdaMann is INCREDIBLY dishonest, pretending he didn't even see it, or his research skills are so lacking he couldn't even find it.
I am impressed by the quality of Google AI on this one. Very nice answer.
Google agrees with all the scientists that "organic nitrogen" is very real. It even points out that scientists like to save time by just writing "DON" instead of "dissolved organic nitrogen".
I could go on to "Northup and organic carbon", and I hope others will. Google confirms that "organic carbon" is a REAL thing that scientists distinguish, because the distinction is very important to those who understand chemistry.
But if others do no more, just Google "Northup and organic nitrogen" to see how comprehensive Google's answer is, and how DISHONEST IBdaMann is about it.
Check for yourself!
Or just believe a scientifically illiterate troll who used to lead a whole gang of trolls at a dead website.
Google knows a LOT more about these things than IBdaMann.
And GOOGLE identifies me by name as a "biogeochemist".
Apparently, Google believes that there IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry".
It kind of makes it sound like I am recognized as some kind of "chemist".
Additional edit: Google's "Northup and organic nitrogen" AI answer, shown in the upper left of search results, also has a PHOTO of me from 35 years ago.
On the right hand side of Google's AI answer are a couple of articles ("Pygmy forest reveals new secrets about the nitrogen cycle.." and "I Slick thinking - Nature").
Open the "..Slick thinking.." one to get the whole article - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". Oops... Google screwed this one up and only has the SECOND page of the article. Well, at least it's the page with my photo!
"Go and learn some science." - IBdaMann |
| 15-04-2026 20:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
If you had ANY qualifications as a "chemist", you would at least know what some of the "buzzwords" are SUPPOSED to mean.
You stand alone against all the scientists who authored and published the term "organic nitrogen", all in agreement as to its significance.
You can make the term disappear from your own consciousness if it causes discomfort. You cannot make it disappear from all the scientific literature.
Buzzword have no meaning, Robert. Nitrogen is not organic. You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not 'literature'.
Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a literature, I'm sure.
You are correct here.
Im a BM wrote:
Actually I DO get to quote everything.
Nope. That's an omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, you are in an extremely small minority regarding what you call "science" and "chemistry".
There is no voting block in English.
Im a BM wrote:
Climate CAN change.
Oh? What is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
Even "skeptic" scientists all agree climate CAN change.
So what is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
hey just dispute the degree to which human activity is responsible, if at all, for the changes.
So what is changing?
You keep saying the climate is changing. What is changing?
After more than 10 years and 24,500 posts at a "climate debate" website, ITN STILL does not know what "climate change" refers to?
Can't answer, eh? I thought not. You just mindlessly chant a phrase you can't even define.
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 |
| 15-04-2026 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:After more than 10 years and 24,500 posts at a "climate debate" website, ITN STILL does not know what "climate change" refers to?
Climate Change is not his religion; he isn't supposed to know to what it refers. You, on the other hand, worship that faith and are expected to understand what the dogma means, but you don't. You can't unambiguously define any part of your religion in a way that doesn't immediately violate math, science, logic, economics or empirical observation.
It's your religion and you STILL do not know to what "Climate Change" refers.
.
Pretty hilarious, isn't it? Just like all the others.
When it comes right down to what is 'changing', they can't even define what 'climate change' actually means!
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 |
| 15-04-2026 20:54 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:After more than 10 years and 24,500 posts at a "climate debate" website, ITN STILL does not know what "climate change" refers to?
Climate Change is not his religion; he isn't supposed to know to what it refers. You, on the other hand, worship that faith and are expected to understand what the dogma means, but you don't. You can't unambiguously define any part of your religion in a way that doesn't immediately violate math, science, logic, economics or empirical observation.
It's your religion and you STILL do not know to what "Climate Change" refers.
.
Pretty hilarious, isn't it? Just like all the others.
When it comes right down to what is 'changing', they can't even define what 'climate change' actually means!
And therefore, you don't have a clue what they are talking about.
It's all meaningless "buzzwords" and "gibber babble".
You can't name ONE scientific journal that you respect as being credible.
You can't name ONE published paper or book that agrees with your unsupported contrarian assertions.
You can't name one person, other than Into the Night, that you acknowledge as being a credible "chemist".
And you can't provide one single reason to believe that Into the Night has ANY credibility as a "chemist".
Science is not a credibility.
Into the Night is not science.
Science is not a chemical! |
| 15-04-2026 21:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
I invite ANYONE to fact check IBdaMann's claims.
He isn't making a claim. YOU ARE.
Im a BM wrote:
Get into Google with three different search terms. "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" and "Northup and organic carbon".
Persulfate is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann didn't seem to see the main part of Google's answers, which refer directly to my own publications. And verify that a LOT of scientists seem to believe in "organic nitrogen" and "organic carbon".
Google isn't sentient. Science isn't a search engine. Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
"Northup and persulfate", the first two references on the list are my own publication on the subject, although Zengshou Yu was first author, I'm there too. The next six references Google lists are more recent papers that reference our 1994 paper.
So?
Im a BM wrote:
"Northup and organic nitrogen", I proudly invite others to take the challenge. It begins with Google's OWN answer in the upper left.
Google is not sentient. Nitrogen is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
"Robert Northup, a biogeochemist, discovered that plants in nutrient poor ecosystems such as the pygmy forest, use polyphenols in tannins to bind organic nitrogen in litter, protecting it from loss, and enabling direct uptake via mycorrhizal fungi. This research suggests that plants can 'short circuit' the nitrogen cycle, using dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) directly, instead of waiting for it to convert to inorganic forms."
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a cycle.
Im a BM wrote:
Google's excellent answer continues with a lot more detail.
Google is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
Either IBdaMann is INCREDIBLY dishonest, pretending he didn't even see it, or his research skills are so lacking he couldn't even find it.
Google is not a research. Science is not a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
I am impressed by the quality of Google AI on this one. Very nice answer.
Google is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
Google agrees with all the scientists that "organic nitrogen" is very real. It even points out that scientists like to save time by just writing "DON" instead of "dissolved organic nitrogen".
Science is not a web engine. Google is not sentient. Nitrogen is not organic. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I could go on to "Northup and organic carbon", and I hope others will. Google confirms that "organic carbon" is a REAL thing that scientists distinguish, because the distinction is very important to those who understand chemistry.
Carbon is not organic. You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. Omniscience fallacy. You deny chemistry. You deny theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
But if others do no more, just Google "Northup and organic nitrogen" to see how comprehensive Google's answer is, and how DISHONEST IBdaMann is about it.
Google is not sentient. Nitrogen is not organic. Google is not a proof.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
[/b]
Check for yourself!
Or just believe a scientifically illiterate troll who used to lead a whole gang of trolls at a dead website.
No, I don't believe you, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Google knows a LOT more about these things than IBdaMann.
Google isn't sentient. It doesn't know anything.
Im a BM wrote:
And GOOGLE identifies me by name as a "biogeochemist".
Google isn't sentient. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, Google believes that there IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry".
Google is not sentient. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Im a BM wrote:
It kind of makes it sound like I am recognized as some kind of "chemist".
You deny chemistry and theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
Additional edit: Google's "Northup and organic nitrogen" AI answer, shown in the upper left of search results, also has a PHOTO of me from 35 years ago.
Google is not sentient. Google is not science. Google is not chemistry. Nitrogen is not organic. You have already doxed yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
On the right hand side of Google's AI answer are a couple of articles ("Pygmy forest reveals new secrets about the nitrogen cycle.." and "I Slick thinking - Nature").
Nitrogen is not a cycle. Science is not a magazine or journal.
Im a BM wrote:
Open the "..Slick thinking.." one to get the whole article - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". Oops... Google screwed this one up and only has the SECOND page of the article. Well, at least it's the page with my photo!
"Go and learn some science." - IBdaMann
Nitrogen is not a cycle. I suggest you take IBdaMann's advice.
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 |
| 15-04-2026 21:08 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1911) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Some scientists are so "biased" that they believe climate CAN change,
Those people aren't scientists. They are political hacks, cosplaying actual scientists.
When they aren't cosplaying scientists, they cosplay actual economists.
Im a BM wrote: ... and it IS possible to discern what happened in the past based on modern day evidence.
Nope. If you understood anything about science, you would know how stupid that statement is.
You are committing an omniscience fallacy by imagining that your speculation is somehow absolute truth. If you understood science to any degree, you would know that the scientific method demands direct verification, i.e. a time machine to verify the hypothesis.
Being the interested layman that you are, I wouldn't expect you to know any of this.
Im a BM wrote: Among such [fanatical cosplayers], a [fantasy] of "climate change" [requires no] "unambiguous definition" of the term that [merely enhances the religious fantasy].
I get it. Enjoy your fantasy. Perhaps afterwards, you and your friends can play "fort".
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann has got ITN's back on this one.
Into the Night doesn't need anyone to "have his back" while correctly specifying that categories and classifications are categories and classifications.
Im a BM wrote: The carbonate ion is usually referred to simply as "carbonate" in discussions of [cosplayers who don't know what they are talking about].
That's what I've been saying.
Im a BM wrote: The capacity of the persulfate anion to behave as an oxidant terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon other organic forms of elements such as nitrogen is ALMOST independent of the associated cation.
The technical terminology for something that behaves almost independent of an associated cation is "does not behave independently of the associated cation."
Im a BM wrote: One notable exception would be ammonium persulfate.
FYI, ammonium persulfate is a chemical, by the way, of the persulfate class.
The existence of an exception means that there is no rule.
Im a BM wrote: Maybe I'm not really a "chemist", but a lot of chemists employ the laboratory procedure I invented.
I can confirm that you aren't a chemist, if you need someone to vouch for you.
Im a BM wrote: Got the idea from the Dohrman organic carbon analyzer in our lab. Cabrera and Beare came up with the same idea just ahead of us.
Maybe they should have asked a chemist if there are actually differences between nitrogen atoms.
Im a BM wrote:Enter search terms such as "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" or "Northup and organic carbon" in Google.
What the searches actually reveal
1. Northup + persulfate
No relevant scientific or scholarly results surfaced connecting anyone named Northup to persulfate chemistry.
The hits were generic SDS sheets and supplier pages for ammonium and sodium persulfate, not authored by or associated with a Northup.
2. Northup + organic nitrogen
Search results returned commercial fertilizer listings, not scientific publications, and none were authored by or associated with a Northup.
3. Northup + organic carbon
Here we do get legitimate scientific hits — but they concern soil carbon, agricultural emissions, and carbon storage, not persulfate chemistry.
Two distinct researchers named Northup appear:
* Daniel L. Northrup
Co‑author on papers about agricultural emissions, soil carbon storage, and negative‑emissions farming systems.
These works involve carbon cycling, soil carbon, and nitrogen fertilizer efficiency, but not persulfates.
* Brian K. Northup
Co‑author on a study of soil organic matter and soil carbon distribution in Oklahoma.
Again: carbon, nitrogen, soil ecology — no persulfate chemistry.
The Correct Synthesis
There is no known connection between any researcher named Northup and persulfate chemistry.
There are Northups working in:
* soil carbon
* soil organic matter
* agricultural emissions
* nitrogen fertilizer efficiency
But none of these intersect with persulfate chemistry, persulfate oxidation, or persulfate analytical methods.
So the namespace mapping looks like this:
Persulfate Namespace
No Northup present.
Organic Nitrogen / Organic Carbon (Soil Science) Namespace
Daniel L. Northrup → agricultural emissions, soil carbon
Brian K. Northup → soil organic matter, carbon distribution
Im a BM wrote:These "meaningless buzzwords" have been taken seriously by a lot of published academics who actually have earned the right to be called "chemists".
"Published Academics" occupy the bottom of the credibility food chain. Talk about cosplayers! If they really want to be taken seriously, they need to get the hell out of academia and get into the real world of results-driven industry.
I invite ANYONE to fact check IBdaMann's claims.
Get into Google with three different search terms. "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" and "Northup and organic carbon".
IBdaMann didn't seem to see the main part of Google's answers, which refer directly to my own publications. And verify that a LOT of scientists seem to believe in "organic nitrogen" and "organic carbon".
"Northup and persulfate", the first two references on the list are my own publication on the subject, although Zengshou Yu was first author, I'm there too. The next six references Google lists are more recent papers that reference our 1994 paper.
"Northup and organic nitrogen", I proudly invite others to take the challenge. It begins with Google's OWN answer in the upper left.
"Robert Northup, a biogeochemist, discovered that plants in nutrient poor ecosystems such as the pygmy forest, use polyphenols in tannins to bind organic nitrogen in litter, protecting it from loss, and enabling direct uptake via mycorrhizal fungi. This research suggests that plants can 'short circuit' the nitrogen cycle, using dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) directly, instead of waiting for it to convert to inorganic forms."
Google's excellent answer continues with a lot more detail.
Either IBdaMann is INCREDIBLY dishonest, pretending he didn't even see it, or his research skills are so lacking he couldn't even find it.
I am impressed by the quality of Google AI on this one. Very nice answer.
Google agrees with all the scientists that "organic nitrogen" is very real. It even points out that scientists like to save time by just writing "DON" instead of "dissolved organic nitrogen".
I could go on to "Northup and organic carbon", and I hope others will. Google confirms that "organic carbon" is a REAL thing that scientists distinguish, because the distinction is very important to those who understand chemistry.
But if others do no more, just Google "Northup and organic nitrogen" to see how comprehensive Google's answer is, and how DISHONEST IBdaMann is about it.
Check for yourself!
Or just believe a scientifically illiterate troll who used to lead a whole gang of trolls at a dead website.
Google knows a LOT more about these things than IBdaMann.
And GOOGLE identifies me by name as a "biogeochemist".
Apparently, Google believes that there IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry".
It kind of makes it sound like I am recognized as some kind of "chemist".
Additional edit: Google's "Northup and organic nitrogen" AI answer, shown in the upper left of search results, also has a PHOTO of me from 35 years ago.
On the right hand side of Google's AI answer are a couple of articles ("Pygmy forest reveals new secrets about the nitrogen cycle.." and "I Slick thinking - Nature").
Open the "..Slick thinking.." one to get the whole article - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". Oops... Google screwed this one up and only has the SECOND page of the article. Well, at least it's the page with my photo!
"Go and learn some science." - IBdaMann
The ever evasive IBdaMann either doesn't know how to use Google, or he LIED about what he found there. Or his blind spot required him to skim past all the direct references to his inquiry until he found the obscure one that satisfied, as in the case with the accepted definition of "biogeochemistry". He "debunked" it! |
| 15-04-2026 21:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
And therefore, you don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Who are 'they'? You are only one person. Are you having a schizophrenic episode?
Im a BM wrote:
It's all meaningless "buzzwords" and "gibber babble".
Yup. That's what you write.
Im a BM wrote:
You can't name ONE scientific journal that you respect as being credible.
Science isn't a journal. There is no such thing as a 'scientific journal'.
Im a BM wrote:
You can't name ONE published paper or book that agrees with your unsupported contrarian assertions.
Science isn't a paper. Science isn't a book.
You believe that the globe is somehow warming. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
You can't name one person, other than Into the Night, that you acknowledge as being a credible "chemist".
I can, because I work with them. Making fireworks involves chemistry, you know. One recently held a very good lecture on the intricacies of black powder.
Im a BM wrote:
And you can't provide one single reason to believe that Into the Night has ANY credibility as a "chemist".
He already did. RQAA.
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 |
| 15-04-2026 21:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
sealover wrote:
The ever evasive IBdaMann either doesn't know how to use Google, or he LIED about what he found there. Or his blind spot required him to skim past all the direct references to his inquiry until he found the obscure one that satisfied, as in the case with the accepted definition of "biogeochemistry". He "debunked" it!
Google is not God. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Google does not define any word except 'Google'.
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 |
| 15-04-2026 21:27 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
The ever evasive IBdaMann either doesn't know how to use Google, or he LIED about what he found there. Or his blind spot required him to skim past all the direct references to his inquiry until he found the obscure one that satisfied, as in the case with the accepted definition of "biogeochemistry". He "debunked" it!
Google is not God. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Google does not define any word except 'Google'.
"Google is not God." - Into the Night
Science is more than just a set of falsifiable theories. But science it NOT... let me list 10,000 things that science is not.
Science is not God.
Google is not God.
This is consistent with the hypothesis that science is Google.
But Google is not a set of falsifiable theories.
Or is it? |
| 15-04-2026 22:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Science is more than just a set of falsifiable theories.
Science is exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less.
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 |
| 16-04-2026 17:36 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Science is more than just a set of falsifiable theories.
Science is exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less.
Proving once again that ITN literally does not even know what science is.
Perhaps that's why he seems to truly believe he is a "scientist".
There is no "unambiguous definition" for "science", or virtually any other term.
Society reached an agreement a couple of centuries ago about who can claim the legitimate title of "scientist" or "chemist". ITN does not qualify by any standard.
Even if he DID attend the great Black Powder Chemistry Conference, where an actual "chemist" spoke. |
| 16-04-2026 22:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Science is more than just a set of falsifiable theories.
Science is exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less.
Proving once again that ITN literally does not even know what science is.
Attempted proof by Stone.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps that's why he seems to truly believe he is a "scientist".
Extension.
Im a BM wrote:
There is no "unambiguous definition" for "science", or virtually any other term.
Never said there was, moron.
Im a BM wrote:
Society reached an agreement a couple of centuries ago about who can claim the legitimate title of "scientist" or "chemist". ITN does not qualify by any standard.
Science is not a society. Consensus is not used in science. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a title, degree, license, or sanctification of any kind. Science is not a standard.
Im a BM wrote:
Even if he DID attend the great Black Powder Chemistry Conference, where an actual "chemist" spoke.
A lecture is not a conference. He's a young kid, but very promising. I complemented him on his lecture. Despite his age and the geeky nature of the material, he was able to explain everything clearly to a wide audience.
Yes, he's a chemist. Less experienced then me, but quite capable.
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 16-04-2026 22:33 |
| 16-04-2026 22:52 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
sealover wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Some scientists are so "biased" that they believe climate CAN change,
Those people aren't scientists. They are political hacks, cosplaying actual scientists.
When they aren't cosplaying scientists, they cosplay actual economists.
Im a BM wrote: ... and it IS possible to discern what happened in the past based on modern day evidence.
Nope. If you understood anything about science, you would know how stupid that statement is.
You are committing an omniscience fallacy by imagining that your speculation is somehow absolute truth. If you understood science to any degree, you would know that the scientific method demands direct verification, i.e. a time machine to verify the hypothesis.
Being the interested layman that you are, I wouldn't expect you to know any of this.
Im a BM wrote: Among such [fanatical cosplayers], a [fantasy] of "climate change" [requires no] "unambiguous definition" of the term that [merely enhances the religious fantasy].
I get it. Enjoy your fantasy. Perhaps afterwards, you and your friends can play "fort".
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann has got ITN's back on this one.
Into the Night doesn't need anyone to "have his back" while correctly specifying that categories and classifications are categories and classifications.
Im a BM wrote: The carbonate ion is usually referred to simply as "carbonate" in discussions of [cosplayers who don't know what they are talking about].
That's what I've been saying.
Im a BM wrote: The capacity of the persulfate anion to behave as an oxidant terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon other organic forms of elements such as nitrogen is ALMOST independent of the associated cation.
The technical terminology for something that behaves almost independent of an associated cation is "does not behave independently of the associated cation."
Im a BM wrote: One notable exception would be ammonium persulfate.
FYI, ammonium persulfate is a chemical, by the way, of the persulfate class.
The existence of an exception means that there is no rule.
Im a BM wrote: Maybe I'm not really a "chemist", but a lot of chemists employ the laboratory procedure I invented.
I can confirm that you aren't a chemist, if you need someone to vouch for you.
Im a BM wrote: Got the idea from the Dohrman organic carbon analyzer in our lab. Cabrera and Beare came up with the same idea just ahead of us.
Maybe they should have asked a chemist if there are actually differences between nitrogen atoms.
Im a BM wrote:Enter search terms such as "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" or "Northup and organic carbon" in Google.
What the searches actually reveal
1. Northup + persulfate
No relevant scientific or scholarly results surfaced connecting anyone named Northup to persulfate chemistry.
The hits were generic SDS sheets and supplier pages for ammonium and sodium persulfate, not authored by or associated with a Northup.
2. Northup + organic nitrogen
Search results returned commercial fertilizer listings, not scientific publications, and none were authored by or associated with a Northup.
3. Northup + organic carbon
Here we do get legitimate scientific hits — but they concern soil carbon, agricultural emissions, and carbon storage, not persulfate chemistry.
Two distinct researchers named Northup appear:
* Daniel L. Northrup
Co‑author on papers about agricultural emissions, soil carbon storage, and negative‑emissions farming systems.
These works involve carbon cycling, soil carbon, and nitrogen fertilizer efficiency, but not persulfates.
* Brian K. Northup
Co‑author on a study of soil organic matter and soil carbon distribution in Oklahoma.
Again: carbon, nitrogen, soil ecology — no persulfate chemistry.
The Correct Synthesis
There is no known connection between any researcher named Northup and persulfate chemistry.
There are Northups working in:
* soil carbon
* soil organic matter
* agricultural emissions
* nitrogen fertilizer efficiency
But none of these intersect with persulfate chemistry, persulfate oxidation, or persulfate analytical methods.
So the namespace mapping looks like this:
Persulfate Namespace
No Northup present.
Organic Nitrogen / Organic Carbon (Soil Science) Namespace
Daniel L. Northrup → agricultural emissions, soil carbon
Brian K. Northup → soil organic matter, carbon distribution
Im a BM wrote:These "meaningless buzzwords" have been taken seriously by a lot of published academics who actually have earned the right to be called "chemists".
"Published Academics" occupy the bottom of the credibility food chain. Talk about cosplayers! If they really want to be taken seriously, they need to get the hell out of academia and get into the real world of results-driven industry.
I invite ANYONE to fact check IBdaMann's claims.
Get into Google with three different search terms. "Northup and persulfate", "Northup and organic nitrogen" and "Northup and organic carbon".
IBdaMann didn't seem to see the main part of Google's answers, which refer directly to my own publications. And verify that a LOT of scientists seem to believe in "organic nitrogen" and "organic carbon".
"Northup and persulfate", the first two references on the list are my own publication on the subject, although Zengshou Yu was first author, I'm there too. The next six references Google lists are more recent papers that reference our 1994 paper.
"Northup and organic nitrogen", I proudly invite others to take the challenge. It begins with Google's OWN answer in the upper left.
"Robert Northup, a biogeochemist, discovered that plants in nutrient poor ecosystems such as the pygmy forest, use polyphenols in tannins to bind organic nitrogen in litter, protecting it from loss, and enabling direct uptake via mycorrhizal fungi. This research suggests that plants can 'short circuit' the nitrogen cycle, using dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) directly, instead of waiting for it to convert to inorganic forms."
Google's excellent answer continues with a lot more detail.
Either IBdaMann is INCREDIBLY dishonest, pretending he didn't even see it, or his research skills are so lacking he couldn't even find it.
I am impressed by the quality of Google AI on this one. Very nice answer.
Google agrees with all the scientists that "organic nitrogen" is very real. It even points out that scientists like to save time by just writing "DON" instead of "dissolved organic nitrogen".
I could go on to "Northup and organic carbon", and I hope others will. Google confirms that "organic carbon" is a REAL thing that scientists distinguish, because the distinction is very important to those who understand chemistry.
But if others do no more, just Google "Northup and organic nitrogen" to see how comprehensive Google's answer is, and how DISHONEST IBdaMann is about it.
Check for yourself!
Or just believe a scientifically illiterate troll who used to lead a whole gang of trolls at a dead website.
Google knows a LOT more about these things than IBdaMann.
And GOOGLE identifies me by name as a "biogeochemist".
Apparently, Google believes that there IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry".
It kind of makes it sound like I am recognized as some kind of "chemist".
Additional edit: Google's "Northup and organic nitrogen" AI answer, shown in the upper left of search results, also has a PHOTO of me from 35 years ago.
On the right hand side of Google's AI answer are a couple of articles ("Pygmy forest reveals new secrets about the nitrogen cycle.." and "I Slick thinking - Nature").
Open the "..Slick thinking.." one to get the whole article - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". Oops... Google screwed this one up and only has the SECOND page of the article. Well, at least it's the page with my photo!
"Go and learn some science." - IBdaMann
The ever evasive IBdaMann either doesn't know how to use Google, or he LIED about what he found there. Or his blind spot required him to skim past all the direct references to his inquiry until he found the obscure one that satisfied, as in the case with the accepted definition of "biogeochemistry". He "debunked" it!
IBdaMann, I hope you didn't miss this post because ITN jumped in first.
Did you really not see in the upper left, the very first part of Google's reply to the "Northup and organic nitrogen" keyword search, where it spelled out why I am famous among biogeochemists?
Google itself identifies me as a "bioogeochemist" who "discovered" things.
Pretty hard to miss at the upper left of Google's reply.
But honesty is not IBdaMann's strong suit, is it?
Unable to admit that I am FIRST author of those major pubs.
But if IBdaMann were 17th author of some mediocre scientific pub about nothing important, that would STILL make him eminently more qualified to discuss science than the actual IBdaMann we have here at climate-debate.com |
| 16-04-2026 23:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, I hope you didn't miss this post because ITN jumped in first.
Did you really not see in the upper left, the very first part of Google's reply to the "Northup and organic nitrogen" keyword search, where it spelled out why I am famous among biogeochemists?
Google itself identifies me as a "bioogeochemist" who "discovered" things.
Nitrogen is not organic. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Buzzwords are not 'discovery'.
Im a BM wrote:
Pretty hard to miss at the upper left of Google's reply.
Google is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
But honesty is not IBdaMann's strong suit, is it?
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Unable to admit that I am FIRST author of those major pubs.
Big hairy deal.
Im a BM wrote:
But if IBdaMann were 17th author of some mediocre scientific pub about nothing important, that would STILL make him eminently more qualified to discuss science than the actual IBdaMann we have here at climate-debate.com
Science isn't a publication. Science isn't a title.
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 |
| 17-04-2026 15:17 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
(try to guess what ITN is responding to)
Nitrogen is not organic. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Buzzwords are not 'discovery'.
Im a BM wrote:
(keep guessing)
Google is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
(what IS he responding to?)
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
(what size hairy deal?)
Big hairy deal.
Im a BM wrote:
(Obviously, science is a publication and a title, right?)
Science isn't a publication. Science isn't a title.
Apparently, there is some controversy about whether or not "buzzwords" are "discovery". It turns out they are not.
A couple of statements which are straight up WRONG.
A significant fraction of the nitrogen on Earth IS "organic" (e.g. proteins)
There absolutely IS "such a thing as biogeochemistry"
There absolutely is NOT any in value making stupid lists of things that "Science isn't.."
Science isn't a car. Science isn't a beer bottle. Science isn't a scientifically illiterate Internet troll who falsely claims to be a "chemist", and thinks all the words he doesn't know (because he never actually studied science) must be meaningless buzzwords.
For a devastating and complete rebuttal: "Science isn't a study." |
| 17-04-2026 20:01 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, there is some controversy about whether or not "buzzwords" are "discovery". It turns out they are not.
Buzzword have no meaning, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
A couple of statements which are straight up WRONG.
A significant fraction of the nitrogen on Earth IS "organic" (e.g. proteins)
Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a protein.
Im a BM wrote:
There absolutely IS "such a thing as biogeochemistry"
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Im a BM wrote:
There absolutely is NOT any in value making stupid lists of things that "Science isn't.."
I already told you what science is. You ignored it and went right back to your buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Science isn't a car. Science isn't a beer bottle. Science isn't a scientifically illiterate Internet troll who falsely claims to be a "chemist", and thinks all the words he doesn't know (because he never actually studied science) must be meaningless buzzwords.
Science is not a 'study' or 'research'.
Im a BM wrote:
For a devastating and complete rebuttal: "Science isn't a study."
Science is not a 'study' or 'research'.
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 |
| 17-04-2026 22:16 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, there is some controversy about whether or not "buzzwords" are "discovery". It turns out they are not.
Buzzword have no meaning, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
A couple of statements which are straight up WRONG.
A significant fraction of the nitrogen on Earth IS "organic" (e.g. proteins)
Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a protein.
Im a BM wrote:
There absolutely IS "such a thing as biogeochemistry"
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Im a BM wrote:
There absolutely is NOT any in value making stupid lists of things that "Science isn't.."
I already told you what science is. You ignored it and went right back to your buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Science isn't a car. Science isn't a beer bottle. Science isn't a scientifically illiterate Internet troll who falsely claims to be a "chemist", and thinks all the words he doesn't know (because he never actually studied science) must be meaningless buzzwords.
Science is not a 'study' or 'research'.
Im a BM wrote:
For a devastating and complete rebuttal: "Science isn't a study."
Science is not a 'study' or 'research'.
Science can be whatever you say it is.
You have not convinced anyone that your qualifications as a "chemist" really exist. Nobody actually came to your defense here,.
You stand alone insisting that you, alone, know things you cannot account for on the basis of any training or published source.
Sure, terpenes are carbohydrates, if you say so. Lignin too. Heck, we'll make TANNINS carbohydrates while we're at it because we are a "chemist". We can invent any "chemical" we want. |
| 17-04-2026 22:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Science can be whatever you say it is.
I didn't define 'science', Robert. You don't get to either. Your own illiteracy is your own problem.
Im a BM wrote:
You have not convinced anyone that your qualifications as a "chemist" really exist. Nobody actually came to your defense here,.
Chemistry is not a title. Lie.Denial.
Im a BM wrote:
You stand alone insisting that you, alone, know things you cannot account for on the basis of any training or published source.
Science isn't 'training'. Science isn't a book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, journal, website, search engine, or any other 'publication'.
Im a BM wrote:
Sure, terpenes are carbohydrates, if you say so. Lignin too. Heck, we'll make TANNINS carbohydrates while we're at it because we are a "chemist". We can invent any "chemical" we want.
Tannins is not a chemical.
Redefinition falllacies (chemistry<->void, science<->void).
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 |
| 18-04-2026 18:47 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Science can be whatever you say it is.
I didn't define 'science', Robert. You don't get to either. Your own illiteracy is your own problem.
Im a BM wrote:
You have not convinced anyone that your qualifications as a "chemist" really exist. Nobody actually came to your defense here,.
Chemistry is not a title. Lie.Denial.
Im a BM wrote:
You stand alone insisting that you, alone, know things you cannot account for on the basis of any training or published source.
Science isn't 'training'. Science isn't a book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, journal, website, search engine, or any other 'publication'.
Im a BM wrote:
Sure, terpenes are carbohydrates, if you say so. Lignin too. Heck, we'll make TANNINS carbohydrates while we're at it because we are a "chemist". We can invent any "chemical" we want.
Tannins is not a chemical.
Redefinition falllacies (chemistry<->void, science<->void).
"Tannins is not a chemical" - Into the Night
"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass" - Into the Night
Into the Night trolls EVERY post that attempts to discuss climate change or anything related to it at this website.
His posts are anti scientific and often say things that are just plain STUPID.
As a biogeochemist with widely cited publications directly relevant to the kind of discussion this website was intended for, I find ITN to be quite the irritant.
But the irritation I experience is MY problem.
If I were Branner, I would have banned Into the Night more than ten years ago.
Nearly 25,000 posts of "Something is not something else, science is not a chemical, you CANNOT blah blah blah, You deny science!"
IBdaMann introduced me to the term "Scientifically illiterate moron".
For an unambiguous definition of the term, check out any of the 25,000 posts. |
| 18-04-2026 20:24 |
Swan ★★★★★
(7841) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Science can be whatever you say it is.
I didn't define 'science', Robert. You don't get to either. Your own illiteracy is your own problem.
Im a BM wrote:
You have not convinced anyone that your qualifications as a "chemist" really exist. Nobody actually came to your defense here,.
Chemistry is not a title. Lie.Denial.
Im a BM wrote:
You stand alone insisting that you, alone, know things you cannot account for on the basis of any training or published source.
Science isn't 'training'. Science isn't a book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, journal, website, search engine, or any other 'publication'.
Im a BM wrote:
Sure, terpenes are carbohydrates, if you say so. Lignin too. Heck, we'll make TANNINS carbohydrates while we're at it because we are a "chemist". We can invent any "chemical" we want.
Tannins is not a chemical.
Redefinition falllacies (chemistry<->void, science<->void).
LOL I think that you tried to say that tannins are not a chemical but failed. Bye the way tannina are most certainly a group of chemicals
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 18-04-2026 20:48 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Science can be whatever you say it is.
I didn't define 'science', Robert. You don't get to either. Your own illiteracy is your own problem.
Im a BM wrote:
You have not convinced anyone that your qualifications as a "chemist" really exist. Nobody actually came to your defense here,.
Chemistry is not a title. Lie.Denial.
Im a BM wrote:
You stand alone insisting that you, alone, know things you cannot account for on the basis of any training or published source.
Science isn't 'training'. Science isn't a book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, journal, website, search engine, or any other 'publication'.
Im a BM wrote:
Sure, terpenes are carbohydrates, if you say so. Lignin too. Heck, we'll make TANNINS carbohydrates while we're at it because we are a "chemist". We can invent any "chemical" we want.
Tannins is not a chemical.
Redefinition falllacies (chemistry<->void, science<->void).
LOL I think that you tried to say that tannins are not a chemical but failed. Bye the way tannina are most certainly a group of chemicals
Swan is correct. Tannins are most certainly a group of chemicals.
VOCABULARY ENRICHMENT: Humic Acids, Fulvic Acids, Condensed/Hydrolyzable
There are hundreds of distinct chemical formulas for "tannins", polyphenols produced by plants.
Condensed Tannins - These are the old school tannins going all the way back to the ferns. They are phenol carboxylic acids in large polymers, and they are insoluble.
Hydrolyzable Tannins - These are newer, and only the angiosperms have them. Conifer forests are strictly condensed tannins. Broadleaf forests also have hydrolyzable tannins. They are SOLUBLE polymers of phenol carboxylic acids.
Humic Acids - Found in soil, these are huge polymers of phenol carboxylic acids, formed through the oxidative coupling of monomers derived from tannins. They are insoluble and last for centuries before the decompose.
Fulvic Acids - Found in soil, these are soluble phenol carboxylic acids and some purely aliphatic acids (citric, oxalic, etc.) that move in soil solution. They form complexes with metals such as calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, and manganese. They are antioxidants and free radical scavengers. Many of them can form strong complexes with proteins to prevent nitrogen mineralization. |
| 18-04-2026 21:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night trolls EVERY post that attempts to discuss climate change or anything related to it at this website.
What is 'changing', Robert?
Im a BM wrote:
His posts are anti scientific and often say things that are just plain STUPID.
You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
As a biogeochemist with widely cited publications directly relevant to the kind of discussion this website was intended for, I find ITN to be quite the irritant.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science isn't a 'publication'. It is not a magazine, journal, book, pamphlet, paper, website, search engine, or any other 'publication'.
Im a BM wrote:
But the irritation I experience is MY problem.
Yes, it is.
Im a BM wrote:
If I were Branner, I would have banned Into the Night more than ten years ago.
You want a dead echo chamber, eh? You already tried that, Robert. It failed. Others have already tried that as well. They failed the same way.
Im a BM wrote:
Nearly 25,000 posts of "Something is not something else, science is not a chemical, you CANNOT blah blah blah, You deny science!"
You are trying to claim science is a chemical now? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann introduced me to the term "Scientifically illiterate moron".
I would agree with him here. You ARE a scientifically illiterate moron. You think buzzwords are science. You think some magazine or journal is science. You think your moronic papers is science. You think Google is science. You think climate can somehow 'change', but you can't describe what is 'changing'. You think the presence of a gas can somehow add magickal energy to the Earth. You think your endless buzzwords is 'science'.
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 |
| 18-04-2026 21:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
Swan is correct. Tannins are most certainly a group of chemicals.
VOCABULARY ENRICHMENT: Humic Acids, Fulvic Acids, Condensed/Hydrolyzable
Random words.
Im a BM wrote:
There are hundreds of distinct chemical formulas for "tannins", polyphenols produced by plants.
Tannins is not a chemical. Polyphenols is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Condensed Tannins - These are the old school tannins going all the way back to the ferns. They are phenol carboxylic acids in large polymers, and they are insoluble.
Tannins are not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical. Polymers is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrolyzable Tannins - These are newer, and only the angiosperms have them. Conifer forests are strictly condensed tannins. Broadleaf forests also have hydrolyzable tannins. They are SOLUBLE polymers of phenol carboxylic acids.
Hydrolyzable tannis is not a chemical. Condensed tannis is not a chemical. Hydrolyzable tannins is not a chemical. Polymers is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Humic Acids - Found in soil, these are huge polymers of phenol carboxylic acids, formed through the oxidative coupling of monomers derived from tannins. They are insoluble and last for centuries before the decompose.
Humic is not a chemical. Polymers is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical. Tannins is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Fulvic Acids - Found in soil, these are soluble phenol carboxylic acids and some purely aliphatic acids (citric, oxalic, etc.) that move in soil solution. They form complexes with metals such as calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, and manganese. They are antioxidants and free radical scavengers. Many of them can form strong complexes with proteins to prevent nitrogen mineralization.
Fulvic acids is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical. Aliphatic acids is not a chemical. Citric is not a chemical. Oxalic is not a chemical. Oxygen is not a void. 'Free radical scavengers' is a marketing buzzword. Nitrogen is not a mineral.
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 |
| 18-04-2026 21:21 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2931) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan is correct. Tannins are most certainly a group of chemicals.
VOCABULARY ENRICHMENT: Humic Acids, Fulvic Acids, Condensed/Hydrolyzable
Random words.
Im a BM wrote:
There are hundreds of distinct chemical formulas for "tannins", polyphenols produced by plants.
Tannins is not a chemical. Polyphenols is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Condensed Tannins - These are the old school tannins going all the way back to the ferns. They are phenol carboxylic acids in large polymers, and they are insoluble.
Tannins are not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical. Polymers is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrolyzable Tannins - These are newer, and only the angiosperms have them. Conifer forests are strictly condensed tannins. Broadleaf forests also have hydrolyzable tannins. They are SOLUBLE polymers of phenol carboxylic acids.
Hydrolyzable tannis is not a chemical. Condensed tannis is not a chemical. Hydrolyzable tannins is not a chemical. Polymers is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Humic Acids - Found in soil, these are huge polymers of phenol carboxylic acids, formed through the oxidative coupling of monomers derived from tannins. They are insoluble and last for centuries before the decompose.
Humic is not a chemical. Polymers is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical. Tannins is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Fulvic Acids - Found in soil, these are soluble phenol carboxylic acids and some purely aliphatic acids (citric, oxalic, etc.) that move in soil solution. They form complexes with metals such as calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, and manganese. They are antioxidants and free radical scavengers. Many of them can form strong complexes with proteins to prevent nitrogen mineralization.
Fulvic acids is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic acids is not a chemical. Aliphatic acids is not a chemical. Citric is not a chemical. Oxalic is not a chemical. Oxygen is not a void. 'Free radical scavengers' is a marketing buzzword. Nitrogen is not a mineral.
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL!
19 sentences of this post by Into the Night end with "...is not a chemical"
Pure scientific genius on display.
Many other posts by Into the Night feature at least a dozen sentences that all begin with "Science is not..."
So, the pure scientific genius of Into the Night can be integrated into the singularity truism of...
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL
Because "science" is most certainly NOT a "chemical"
Only a REAL "chemist" knows how to say that something "is not a chemical".
Edited on 18-04-2026 21:27 |
| 18-04-2026 23:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23562) |
Im a BM wrote:
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL!
Never said it was, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
19 sentences of this post by Into the Night end with "...is not a chemical"
Because you keep making up wacky buzzwords and calling them chemicals.
Im a BM wrote:
Pure scientific genius on display.
No. You deny science.
Im a BM wrote:
Many other posts by Into the Night feature at least a dozen sentences that all begin with "Science is not..."
Because you keep claiming wacky buzzwords as 'chemicals', Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the pure scientific genius of Into the Night can be integrated into the singularity truism of...
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL
Because "science" is most certainly NOT a "chemical"
Never said it was, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Only a REAL "chemist" knows how to say that something "is not a chemical".
True Scotsman fallacy.
Science is not buzzwords. Chemistry is not buzzwords.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 19-04-2026 01:54 |
Swan★★★★★
(7841) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL!
Never said it was, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
19 sentences of this post by Into the Night end with "...is not a chemical"
Because you keep making up wacky buzzwords and calling them chemicals.
Im a BM wrote:
Pure scientific genius on display.
No. You deny science.
Im a BM wrote:
Many other posts by Into the Night feature at least a dozen sentences that all begin with "Science is not..."
Because you keep claiming wacky buzzwords as 'chemicals', Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the pure scientific genius of Into the Night can be integrated into the singularity truism of...
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL
Because "science" is most certainly NOT a "chemical"
Never said it was, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Only a REAL "chemist" knows how to say that something "is not a chemical".
True Scotsman fallacy.
Science is not buzzwords. Chemistry is not buzzwords.
Julio from East LA is a chemist, or so at least Cheech said
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |