Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:

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

Im a BM wrote:
The world must be protected from the evil of persons being allowed to discuss climate change without being obnoxiously trolled.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The world must be protected from the evil of persons being allowed to discuss climate change without being obnoxiously trolled.

I have given you more than a fair chance to describe what is 'changing' in climate. You apparently cannot answer that question.

Climate cannot change.

Now...do you want to try to discuss Global Warming? What makes you so afraid of CO2?

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The world must be protected from the evil of persons being allowed to discuss climate change without being obnoxiously trolled.

I have given you more than a fair chance to describe what is 'changing' in climate. You apparently cannot answer that question.

Climate cannot change.

Now...do you want to try to discuss Global Warming? What makes you so afraid of CO2?

I have begged you for YEARS to just ONCE provide a word beyond "ratio" as an unambiguous definition for "pH".

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

"RQAA" doesn't cut it when all you would have to say is pH = -log(H+)

HOWEVER, you keep insisting that pH = -log(H+) is NOT the correct definition.

You keep your personal definition for pH a big secret.

The closest you have ever come to offering a definition for pH is to say "ratio", and nothing more.

Define your terms, YARP! (Yellow And Red Parrot)

One of many reasons I know that you cannot possibly be a real "chemist".

Quite literally, you don't even know what pH IS!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The world must be protected from the evil of persons being allowed to discuss climate change without being obnoxiously trolled.

I have given you more than a fair chance to describe what is 'changing' in climate. You apparently cannot answer that question.

Climate cannot change.

Now...do you want to try to discuss Global Warming? What makes you so afraid of CO2?

I have begged you for YEARS to just ONCE provide a word beyond "ratio" as an unambiguous definition for "pH".

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

"RQAA" doesn't cut it when all you would have to say is pH = -log(H+)

HOWEVER, you keep insisting that pH = -log(H+) is NOT the correct definition.

You keep your personal definition for pH a big secret.

The closest you have ever come to offering a definition for pH is to say "ratio", and nothing more.

Define your terms, YARP! (Yellow And Red Parrot)

One of many reasons I know that you cannot possibly be a real "chemist".

Quite literally, you don't even know what pH IS!

Not an answer. Pivot fallacy. Try again. Answer the question put to you.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Now...do you want to try to discuss Global Warming? What makes you so afraid of CO2?

I have begged you for YEARS to just ONCE provide a word beyond "ratio" as an unambiguous definition for "pH".
...deleted remaining random pivot...
What is "changing" in "climate change"?

Unless this is some kind of trick question, that would be the climate.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't whine about your straw man "global climate" because there is no such thing.

Im a BM wrote:
Get it? There is NO SUCH THING as "Global Climate".

Im a BM wrote:
There is regional climate. I remember in 4th grade how the teacher explained to us that "California has a Mediterranean climate".

Im a BM wrote:
That includes cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. That includes never getting snowed in. Anyway, I thought I'd ease you into it with an example you might possibly be familiar with. You have heard of Mediterranean climate, right?

Im a BM wrote:
Climate parameters are all about "regimes", which include distribution over time as well as highs, lows, and averages. There is the temperature regime. There is the moisture regime. There is the wind regime.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate is defined as the consistent weather patterns associated with the local regime of temperature, moisture, etc. A significant change in those patterns would constitute climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
California and its Mediterranean climate now suffers the same new wildfire hazards they see in Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. They don't see the atmospheric rivers we get here in quite the same way, but very similar climate changes are happening on every continent where regions are characterized as having a "Mediterranean" climate. Forest pests are ravaging at higher elevation. New extreme weather with freak summer snowstorms in southern Spain as well as southern California. Global weirding.

Im a BM wrote:
I could go on with a hundred more examples that YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) will belittle and dismiss.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate change is happening. I hold that truth to be self evident.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Now...do you want to try to discuss Global Warming? What makes you so afraid of CO2?

I have begged you for YEARS to just ONCE provide a word beyond "ratio" as an unambiguous definition for "pH".
...deleted remaining random pivot...
What is "changing" in "climate change"?

Unless this is some kind of trick question, that would be the climate.

Climate is not a value. Climate cannot change. Try again. What is 'changing' in climate?

Im a BM wrote:
Don't whine about your straw man "global climate" because there is no such thing.

Yet you claim there is. Which is it, Robert?

Im a BM wrote:
Get it? There is NO SUCH THING as "Global Climate".

Yet you claim there is. Which is it, Robert?

Im a BM wrote:
There is regional climate. I remember in 4th grade how the teacher explained to us that "California has a Mediterranean climate".

The SDTC has many climates. It has snowy climate, hot climate, marine climate, forest climate, desert climate, mountain climate, swampy climate, city climate, country climate, an economically depressed climate, a violent climate, a dictatorial climate, a socialist climate, a high fuel price climate, a rainforest climate, a racist climate, an arrogance climate, a windy climate, etc.

Im a BM wrote:
That includes cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. That includes never getting snowed in. Anyway, I thought I'd ease you into it with an example you might possibly be familiar with. You have heard of Mediterranean climate, right?

Forgot the mountains, eh? Snow has fallen most everywhere in California (the SDTC), and it's hilarious watching the panic set in when it does!

Im a BM wrote:
Climate parameters are all about "regimes", which include distribution over time as well as highs, lows, and averages. There is the temperature regime. There is the moisture regime. There is the wind regime.

Climate has no temperature. Climate has no measurement of humidity. Climate has not wind speed or direction.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate is defined as the consistent weather patterns associated with the local regime of temperature, moisture, etc. A significant change in those patterns would constitute climate change.

Weather is not consistent. Climate is not weather. Weather is not a pattern. Climate has no temperature. Climate has no humidity or wet bulb measurement. A desert climate will always be a desert climate. A forest climate will always be a forest climate. Climate cannot change.

Im a BM wrote:
California and its Mediterranean climate now suffers the same new wildfire hazards they see in Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. They don't see the atmospheric rivers we get here in quite the same way, but very similar climate changes are happening on every continent where regions are characterized as having a "Mediterranean" climate. Forest pests are ravaging at higher elevation. New extreme weather with freak summer snowstorms in southern Spain as well as southern California. Global weirding.

The SDTC suffers from a much greater fire hazard. A few simple reasons:
* No one is clearing the brush away any more.
* Sagebrush is allowed to collect against fences producing a great fire hazard. There are also more fences.
* Arson is more common; often set by rioters, looters, or believers in the Church of Global Warming.
* Water supplies have been destroyed in the name of 'environmentalism'; making it very difficult if not impossible to fight these fires.
* In a 'tax the rich' scheme, wealthy neighborhoods have been burned away using arson to construct 'homeless shelters'.

As to Spain:
A liberal government (socialists, like Democrats, sponging off the EU. This economic basket case has suffered a nationwide power loss (requiring a cold start) just last year, that also affected parts of France. So much for the reliability of electric trains! Nuthin' to do but witlessly wander the countryside!

Spain has wildfires as well (pretty much everywhere does!), but NOTHING like you see in the SDTC!

Im a BM wrote:
I could go on with a hundred more examples that YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) will belittle and dismiss.

Redefinition fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate change is happening. I hold that truth to be self evident.

Climate cannot change. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Im a BM wrote:
It is a fair generalization to say that "California has a Mediterranean climate."

Im a BM wrote:
However, the political geographic boundaries of California were not drawn on the basis of climate regimes, or even their corresponding biomes.

Im a BM wrote:
Death Valley does not have "Mediterranean" climate, for example. But most of the state's land area falls within the Mediterranean climate regime. To teach fourth graders, it's a good enough start, without making it too complicated.

Im a BM wrote:
Did you get that, YARP? (Yellow And Red Parrot)

Perhaps YARP thought I meant that every square meter within California has the same climate regime.

Sorry if I got you all confused, YARP. Please accept my apologies.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is a fair generalization to say that "California has a Mediterranean climate."

The SDTC is not the Mediterranean.

Im a BM wrote:
However, the political geographic boundaries of California were not drawn on the basis of climate regimes, or even their corresponding biomes.

Climate is not a kingdom. 'Biomes' is not a word.

Im a BM wrote:
Death Valley does not have "Mediterranean" climate, for example. But most of the state's land area falls within the Mediterranean climate regime. To teach fourth graders, it's a good enough start, without making it too complicated.

The SDTC is not the Mediterranean.

Im a BM wrote:
Did you get that, YARP? (Yellow And Red Parrot)

Perhaps YARP thought I meant that every square meter within California has the same climate regime.

Sorry if I got you all confused, YARP. Please accept my apologies.

YARP is not a parrot.

Every square meter of The Socialist Dictatorship of California (SDTC) has an economically depressed climate.

Climate is not a kingdom. The SDTC, however, IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Six out of eight sentences assert that something "is not" something else that it is not.

Im a BM wrote:
All you scientifically illiterate morons who insisted that CLIMATE is a KINGDOM just got SERVED!

Im a BM wrote:
By asserting that "Climate is not a kingdom", Into the Night acknowledges that "climate" is not just a meaningless "buzzword".

Im a BM wrote:
Therefore, the term "climate" must have a meaningful definition.

Im a BM wrote:
Thanks for enlightening all those confused souls who thought that climate is a kingdom.

You have added more items to the list of all those things that climate is NOT.

Do you have ANY freakin' clue what climate IS?

Please, please, please, pretty please DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Im a BM wrote:
You keep using the term "climate", presumably because it IS something.

Please give us YOUR definition of what you think you are saying when you use the term "climate", because you use the term very frequently.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Six out of eight sentences assert that something "is not" something else that it is not.

...due to your usual problem with using numerous buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
All you scientifically illiterate morons who insisted that CLIMATE is a KINGDOM just got SERVED!

Climate is not a kingdom.

Im a BM wrote:
By asserting that "Climate is not a kingdom", Into the Night acknowledges that "climate" is not just a meaningless "buzzword".

Climate has a meaning. I already gave it to you, but you continue to use it as a Magick Buzzword. You keep describing a 'change' in climate, but you can't define what is 'changing'.

Im a BM wrote:
Therefore, the term "climate" must have a meaningful definition.

It does. I already gave it to you.

Im a BM wrote:
Thanks for enlightening all those confused souls who thought that climate is a kingdom.

You have added more items to the list of all those things that climate is NOT.

Do you have ANY freakin' clue what climate IS?

Please, please, please, pretty please DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
You keep using the term "climate", presumably because it IS something.

Please give us YOUR definition of what you think you are saying when you use the term "climate", because you use the term very frequently.

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
Does ANYONE believe Into the Night knows JACK SHIT about ANATOMY?

Im a BM wrote:
I may send PM's out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174, because I would love to get the whole "Define your terms!" perspective from them.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night has a REVOLUTIONARY NEW DEFINITION for the "interstitium" in human anatomy. Says the parrot, "It's basically saltwater... It's not a tissue.. It has no compartments.. No collagen... No elastin... No fibers.. No connective tissue."

Im a BM wrote:
It is an exciting and EXPLOSIVE area of new medical research. Identified as a single, integrated organ in 2018.

Im a BM wrote:
I am MORE THAN WILLING to define my terms in this discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
I guess ITN gave us a LITTLE more detail about what the interstitium IS, in addition to a long list of what it is NOT. Almost every item on his "is not" list is actually a feature of what the interstitium IS. But according to ITN, it's basically saltwater with some other chemicals in it in the space between cells.
RAAA.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
PLEASE weigh in with an opinion, all ye trolls who dominated the discussion here for so long.

Im a BM wrote:
Does Into the Night know JACK SHIT about ANATOMY?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Does ANYONE believe Into the Night knows JACK SHIT about ANATOMY?

Anatomy is not Jack.
Anatomy is not shit.
Anatomy is not a consensus or vote.

Im a BM wrote:
I may send PM's out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174, because I would love to get the whole "Define your terms!" perspective from them.

Redefinition fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night has a REVOLUTIONARY NEW DEFINITION for the "interstitium" in human anatomy. Says the parrot, "It's basically saltwater... It's not a tissue.. It has no compartments.. No collagen... No elastin... No fibers.. No connective tissue."

Inversion fallacy. Otherwise correct.

Im a BM wrote:
It is an exciting and EXPLOSIVE area of new medical research. Identified as a single, integrated organ in 2018.

It is not an organ.
It is not a research.
If you have a medical problem with explosions, may I recommend Simethicone? People around you would probably appreciate it. You can get it at your local drug store.

Im a BM wrote:
I am MORE THAN WILLING to define my terms in this discussion.

Redefinition fallacy (interstitia<->connective tissue).

Im a BM wrote:
I guess ITN gave us a LITTLE more detail about what the interstitium IS, in addition to a long list of what it is NOT. Almost every item on his "is not" list is actually a feature of what the interstitium IS. But according to ITN, it's basically saltwater with some other chemicals in it in the space between cells.
RAAA.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
PLEASE weigh in with an opinion, all ye trolls who dominated the discussion here for so long.

Anatomy is not an opinion.
Anatomy is not a consensus.
Anatomy is not a vote.

Im a BM wrote:
Does Into the Night know JACK SHIT about ANATOMY?

I know about shit as well. I certainly help sewage treatment plants process enough of it!
Shit is not anatomy.

The anatomy of a jack is pretty simple. Most consist of a reservoir, a one way valve, a release valve, and a lever. They are sold as 'bottle' styles, where the jack stands up like a bottle, or 'ram' styles, where the jack is incorporated into a mechanical apparatus and appears similar to a hydraulic ram.

They all use a light oil as hydraulic fluid.

Im a BM wrote:
My fraudulent effort to pose as some kind of "chemist" has been exposed!

Im a BM wrote:
If I were REALLY a chemist, I would KNOW the formula to calculate the "ratio" that is pH, and then I'd understand why it's mathematically impossible for pH to EVER be below zero...

And the fact that I DON'T know that SECRET definition for pH PROVES that I'm not a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Why are you so afraid of carbonate?

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Does ANYONE believe Into the Night knows JACK SHIT about ANATOMY?

Anatomy is not Jack.
Anatomy is not shit.
Anatomy is not a consensus or vote.

Im a BM wrote:
I may send PM's out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174, because I would love to get the whole "Define your terms!" perspective from them.

Redefinition fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night has a REVOLUTIONARY NEW DEFINITION for the "interstitium" in human anatomy. Says the parrot, "It's basically saltwater... It's not a tissue.. It has no compartments.. No collagen... No elastin... No fibers.. No connective tissue."

Inversion fallacy. Otherwise correct.

Im a BM wrote:
It is an exciting and EXPLOSIVE area of new medical research. Identified as a single, integrated organ in 2018.

It is not an organ.
It is not a research.
If you have a medical problem with explosions, may I recommend Simethicone? People around you would probably appreciate it. You can get it at your local drug store.

Im a BM wrote:
I am MORE THAN WILLING to define my terms in this discussion.

Redefinition fallacy (interstitia<->connective tissue).

Im a BM wrote:
I guess ITN gave us a LITTLE more detail about what the interstitium IS, in addition to a long list of what it is NOT. Almost every item on his "is not" list is actually a feature of what the interstitium IS. But according to ITN, it's basically saltwater with some other chemicals in it in the space between cells.
RAAA.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
PLEASE weigh in with an opinion, all ye trolls who dominated the discussion here for so long.

Anatomy is not an opinion.
Anatomy is not a consensus.
Anatomy is not a vote.

Im a BM wrote:
Does Into the Night know JACK SHIT about ANATOMY?

I know about shit as well. I certainly help sewage treatment plants process enough of it!
Shit is not anatomy.

The anatomy of a jack is pretty simple. Most consist of a reservoir, a one way valve, a release valve, and a lever. They are sold as 'bottle' styles, where the jack stands up like a bottle, or 'ram' styles, where the jack is incorporated into a mechanical apparatus and appears similar to a hydraulic ram.

They all use a light oil as hydraulic fluid.

My fraudulent effort to pose as some kind of "chemist" has been exposed!

If I were REALLY a chemist, I would KNOW the formula to calculate the "ratio" that is pH, and then I'd understand why it's mathematically impossible for pH to EVER be below zero...

And the fact that I DON'T know that SECRET definition for pH PROVES that I'm not a chemist.

Why are you so afraid of carbonate?

Im a BM wrote:
This is how a SCIENTIST teaches about "anatomy":

"Anatomy is not Jack. Anatomy is not shit. Anatomy is not consensus or vote." "Anatomy is not opinion. Anatomy is not consensus. Anatomy is not a vote." "Shit is not anatomy." "The anatomy of Jack is pretty simple." - Into the Night

I'm going have to study that and memorize it for the exam.

"Anatomy" suggests that certain physical structures comprised of tissue can be located and identified in the body. They are either present or absent. Very little ambiguity.

Im a BM wrote:
The "interstitium" is a certain physical structure comprised of connective tissue in a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments, the structure of which is a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers. It is either present or absent.

Im a BM wrote:
Either there is "no such thing" as the interstitium, or there IS such a thing.

Either it's basically just saltwater or it's not. No room for word games.

Im a BM wrote:
Either it contains tissue, fibers, etc., or it does not.

Im a BM wrote:
Whatever "unambiguous definition" for the term "organ" one chooses that accurately applies to the SPLEEN, it will be equally correct for the interstitium.

Im a BM wrote:
But the controversy HERE is not about whether or not it is an ORGAN.

Im a BM wrote:
The controversy here is that Into the Night insists that the interstitium contains NO tissue, NO collagen or elastin fibers, NO stuctural lattice, No fluid-filled compartments... nothing but saltwater and some chemicals in it.

Into the Night's definition for "interstitium" would be CORRECT if the term being defined were INTERSTITIAL FLUID.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
This is how a SCIENTIST teaches about "anatomy":

"Anatomy is not Jack. Anatomy is not shit. Anatomy is not consensus or vote." "Anatomy is not opinion. Anatomy is not consensus. Anatomy is not a vote." "Shit is not anatomy." "The anatomy of Jack is pretty simple." - Into the Night

I'm going have to study that and memorize it for the exam.

"Anatomy" suggests that certain physical structures comprised of tissue can be located and identified in the body. They are either present or absent. Very little ambiguity.

Your word games won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The "interstitium" is a certain physical structure comprised of connective tissue in a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments, the structure of which is a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers. It is either present or absent.

Absent.

Im a BM wrote:
Either there is "no such thing" as the interstitium, or there IS such a thing.

Either it's basically just saltwater or it's not. No room for word games.

Your word games won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Either it contains tissue, fibers, etc., or it does not.

It does not.

Im a BM wrote:
Whatever "unambiguous definition" for the term "organ" one chooses that accurately applies to the SPLEEN, it will be equally correct for the interstitium.

The spleen is not interstitia. The spleen is an organ. The interstitia is not.

Im a BM wrote:
But the controversy HERE is not about whether or not it is an ORGAN.

It is not.

Im a BM wrote:
The controversy here is that Into the Night insists that the interstitium contains NO tissue, NO collagen or elastin fibers, NO stuctural lattice, No fluid-filled compartments... nothing but saltwater and some chemicals in it.

Into the Night's definition for "interstitium" would be CORRECT if the term being defined were INTERSTITIAL FLUID.

You word games won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, you have demonstrated your commitment to TROLLING any discussion regarding the interstitium.

Im a BM wrote:
I will continue with little teases to see if there is a sudden increase in "views", but I won't start the interstitium thread that I want the research scientists to forward links to until Branner and I reach some kind of understanding. Even if they don't get a single reply to any of their heckling posts, the thread will be so cluttered with obnoxious shit... No, it will have to wait for better conditions.

Into the Night will NEVER control HIMSELF.

Im a BM wrote:
I could go ahead and put it on Facebook where moderators prevent punks like IBdaMann and Into the Night from trolling in such obnoxious fashion. But I want it right here, to go along with the rest of the library.

Im a BM wrote:
People who believe that ocean acidification is NO cause for concern, and that climate change is a HOAX, probably account for very few of the people linking to posts on this website, racking up thousands of views in the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, for example.

Im a BM wrote:
Similarly, people who believe that the interstitium is NOT an "organ", and maybe it's nothing more than saltwater even, won't be accounting for a lot of the "views" that the anticipated interstitium thread will be racking up.

Im a BM wrote:
But whoever such people out there might be, perhaps they would be comforted to know that Into the Night is diligently representing their interests in the discussion. Making sure that nobody gets away with pretending that science is buzzwords.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, you have demonstrated your commitment to TROLLING any discussion regarding the interstitium.

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
I will continue with little teases to see if there is a sudden increase in "views", but I won't start the interstitium thread that I want the research scientists to forward links to until Branner and I reach some kind of understanding. Even if they don't get a single reply to any of their heckling posts, the thread will be so cluttered with obnoxious shit... No, it will have to wait for better conditions.

Into the Night will NEVER control HIMSELF.

Censorship never works, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
I could go ahead and put it on Facebook where moderators prevent punks like IBdaMann and Into the Night from trolling in such obnoxious fashion. But I want it right here, to go along with the rest of the library.

Find talking to yourself on Facebook a bit lonely, Robert? :laugh:

Im a BM wrote:
People who believe that ocean acidification is NO cause for concern, and that climate change is a HOAX, probably account for very few of the people linking to posts on this website, racking up thousands of views in the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, for example.

You can't acidify an alkaline.
Climate cannot change.

Why do you want to 'sequester' carbon? Carbon is a useful fuel.

Im a BM wrote:
Similarly, people who believe that the interstitium is NOT an "organ", and maybe it's nothing more than saltwater even, won't be accounting for a lot of the "views" that the anticipated interstitium thread will be racking up.

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
But whoever such people out there might be, perhaps they would be comforted to know that Into the Night is diligently representing their interests in the discussion. Making sure that nobody gets away with pretending that science is buzzwords.

Your word games and buzzwords won't help you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Facebook... The "Climate Change Reality" group at Facebook had been around for seven years, and had just over 900 members when I joined about a year ago.

Im a BM wrote:
Today it has more than 7000 members.

Im a BM wrote:
Imagine how much larger it would have gotten if I didn't join to drive everyone away. Even if I only drove 25 members each time I posted, I prevented it from ballooning to 14,000. But 7000 is a clusterfork to work with. It's easier to hear my own thoughts in this quiet little place.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't know, Into the Night, but I assume you got yourself BANNED from Facebook a long time ago.

Im a BM wrote:
In the unlikely event that you did NOT, you are eligible to join and see what's up with the "Climate Change Reality" group.

Im a BM wrote:
I estimate you have at least 3000 potential soulmates there - like-minded kindred spirits who REFUSE TO BELIEVE in climate change. Or, at least not MANMADE climate change. It's a much bigger "tent" than the tiny cult that died HERE.

Im a BM wrote:
One BIG advantage that Facebook has over climate-debate.com which makes it less UNATTRACTIVE is that they don't allow doxing. And they actually pin the blame on the member who does the doxing, not the member who got doxed.

Im a BM wrote:
I do NOT recommend that anyone join climate-debate.com until the moderator establishes protections against doxing.

Im a BM wrote:
At Facebook I go by my full, real name without concern that some PUNK will say "you doxed yourself" because I referenced widely-cited scientific paper about greenhouse gases that happens to have my name on it as author. Or a poster that happens to have my name on it.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I don't WANT to know your real name. I won't be able to find any useful under it. You are a scientific NOBODY. You are a NOTHING in the real world where scientists do real science. I can't learn from or criticize your papers or any other contribution you made to science under your real name, because there AREN'T ANY.

Im a BM wrote:
You can't make heads or tails out of any of MY widely cited pubs because you don't have a clue what any of the "buzzwords" mean. Such as "pH", "buffer", carbohydrate, hydrocarbon, lignin, tannin... You don't know SHIT. And you can't TEACH shit because you can't teach what you don't know.

Im a BM wrote:
For all you've done to earn my affection and respect, pHuck YOU!
pHuck you. pHuck you. pHuck you. pHuck you. pHuck you. pHuck you

Im a BM wrote:
What do you call a "chemist" who is incapable of writing a formula or description to define pH?

A. A liar
B. An idiot
C. A faker

Im a BM wrote:
"I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - ITN
"You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - ITN
"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - ITN
"They are not really chemist. I am." - ITN

When I first arrived at climate-debate.com, someone did "recognize" you as a chemist. IBdaMann referred to you by name as a "chemist".

It doesn't really bug the hell out of me that IBdaMann recognizes you as a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Just out of concern for your health,

Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad that you have SOMEBODY out there who thinks you're a "chemist".

If IBdaMann endorses you as a "chemist", but turns out to be an "idiot" (like all the fake chemists in the 1300 teams who published 1300 different endorsements of ME as a "chemist"). Does it cancel out?

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann better not be an "idiot", or his endorsement doesn't count.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What do you call a "chemist" who is incapable of writing a formula or description to define pH?

A. A liar
B. An idiot
C. A faker

So...you are a liar, an idiot, and a faker.

Im a BM wrote:
"I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - ITN
"You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - ITN
"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - ITN
"They are not really chemist. I am." - ITN

When I first arrived at climate-debate.com, someone did "recognize" you as a chemist. IBdaMann referred to you by name as a "chemist".

It doesn't really bug the hell out of me that IBdaMann recognizes you as a "chemist".

Lie. Denial.

Im a BM wrote:
Just out of concern for your health,

You don't care about my health. Lie. Synthesis. Mantra 3.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad that you have SOMEBODY out there who thinks you're a "chemist".

If IBdaMann endorses you as a "chemist", but turns out to be an "idiot" (like all the fake chemists in the 1300 teams who published 1300 different endorsements of ME as a "chemist"). Does it cancel out?

Chemistry is not an 'endorsement'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a 'publication'. Science is not a 'team'.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann better not be an "idiot", or his endorsement doesn't count.

It really doesn't. Chemistry is not an endorsement. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

At least IBdaMann thinks my fireworks are a cool part of my chemistry.

Im a BM wrote: DEFINE YOUR TERMS!
"RQAA" doesn't cut it when all you would have to say is pH = -log(H+)
You keep your personal definition for pH a big secret.
One of many reasons I know that you cannot possibly be a real "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:Quite literally, you don't even know what pH IS!

Im a BM wrote:Don't whine about your straw man "global climate" because there is no such thing.

Im a BM wrote: Get it? There is NO SUCH THING as "Global Climate".

Im a BM wrote: There is regional climate.

Im a BM wrote: I remember in 4th grade how the teacher explained to us that "California has a Mediterranean climate".

Im a BM wrote:Climate parameters are all about "regimes",

Im a BM wrote: ... which include distribution over time as well as highs, lows, and averages.

Im a BM wrote: There is the temperature regime.

Im a BM wrote: Climate is defined as the consistent weather patterns ...

Im a BM wrote: California and its Mediterranean climate now suffers the same new wildfire hazards they see in Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

Im a BM wrote: They don't see the atmospheric rivers we get here in quite the same way,

Im a BM wrote: but very similar climate changes are happening on every continent

Im a BM wrote:I could go on with a hundred more examples that YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) will belittle and dismiss.

Im a BM wrote: Climate change is happening. I hold that truth to be self evident.

Im a BM wrote:What do you call a "chemist" who is incapable of writing a formula or description to define pH?

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann referred to you by name as a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote: If IBdaMann endorses you as a "chemist",

Im a BM wrote:
pH? pH? of course, it is the negative logarithm (-log, and NOT the natural log, ln, proposed by IBdaMann) of the hydrogen ion molarity. pH = -log(H+)
Do the math and you'll prove any strong acid at >1.0 M (H+) has pH<0.

But pH is more than that. pH is a way to pHeel pHar superior to the pHake "chemist", into the Night. So pHull of pHeces! So pHucked up, making pHalse claims. ITN pHabricated pHalse scientific title.

So pHar out of touch, in a pHantasy pHeel-good pHairy tale. Oh, it's so pHun and he feels pHine as he pHancies himself to be a "chemist".

The definition for pH they teach at Chemistry Clown College must be kept SECRET.

IBdaMann wrote:
Yep. We should test him, though. Let's ask him what the different types of fireworks are and what safety procedures are required for each. Only a chemist would know that.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What do you call a "chemist" who is incapable of writing a formula or description to define pH?

A. A liar
B. An idiot
C. A faker

So...you are a liar, an idiot, and a faker.

Im a BM wrote:
"I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - ITN
"You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - ITN
"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - ITN
"They are not really chemist. I am." - ITN

When I first arrived at climate-debate.com, someone did "recognize" you as a chemist. IBdaMann referred to you by name as a "chemist".

It doesn't really bug the hell out of me that IBdaMann recognizes you as a "chemist".

Lie. Denial.

Im a BM wrote:
Just out of concern for your health,

You don't care about my health. Lie. Synthesis. Mantra 3.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad that you have SOMEBODY out there who thinks you're a "chemist".

If IBdaMann endorses you as a "chemist", but turns out to be an "idiot" (like all the fake chemists in the 1300 teams who published 1300 different endorsements of ME as a "chemist"). Does it cancel out?

Chemistry is not an 'endorsement'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a 'publication'. Science is not a 'team'.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann better not be an "idiot", or his endorsement doesn't count.

It really doesn't. Chemistry is not an endorsement. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

At least IBdaMann thinks my fireworks are a cool part of my chemistry.

pH? pH? of course, it is the negative logarithm (-log, and NOT the natural log, ln, proposed by IBdaMann) of the hydrogen ion molarity. pH = -log(H+)
Do the math and you'll prove any strong acid at >1.0 M (H+) has pH<0.

But pH is more than that. pH is a way to pHeel pHar superior to the pHake "chemist", into the Night. So pHull of pHeces! So pHucked up, making pHalse claims. ITN pHabricated pHalse scientific title.

So pHar out of touch, in a pHantasy pHeel-good pHairy tale. Oh, it's so pHun and he feels pHine as he pHancies himself to be a "chemist".

The definition for pH they teach at Chemistry Clown College must be kept SECRET.

Into the Night wrote:
Fireworks make use of an oxidizer...

(deleted spam) ..

these products uses a very strictly controlled environment, since sufficient quantities are around to destroy the entire plant.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Fireworks make use of an oxidizer...

(deleted spam) ..

these products uses a very strictly controlled environment, since sufficient quantities are around to destroy the entire plant.

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Fireworks make use of an oxidizer...

(deleted spam) ..

these products uses a very strictly controlled environment, since sufficient quantities are around to destroy the entire plant.

Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Fireworks make use of an oxidizer...

(deleted spam) ..

these products uses a very strictly controlled environment, since sufficient quantities are around to destroy the entire plant.

Stop spamming.

LIF. Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Fireworks make use of an oxidizer...

(deleted spam) ..

these products uses a very strictly controlled environment, since sufficient quantities are around to destroy the entire plant.

Stop spamming.

LIF. Grow up.

Well, gosh, we wouldn't want to see anyone "destroy the entire plant".

Im a BM wrote:

Tell us more about the entire plant.

You ALREADY DID!

"The entire plant is just carbohydrates and some protein." - ITN

Im a BM wrote:
Which is why every good chemist knows that LIGNIN, TERPENES, and VEGETABLE OILS produced by plants are CARBOHYDRATES.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, as long as we protect the "very strictly controlled environment", we won't "destroy the entire plant".

We need that ENTIRE PLANT for all of its "carbohydrates", for food and fiber.

Im a BM wrote:
According to Into the Night, we cannot use the term "fossil fuel", and must instead call petroleum, coal, and natural gas "hydrocarbons".

Im a BM wrote:
According to Into the Night, we cannot call vegetable oil a "hydrocarbon", because it is a "carbohydrate" and NOT a "fossil fuel".

Im a BM wrote:
Because "the entire plant" is just carbohydrate and some protein, and we could destroy the entire plant unless the environment is very strictly controlled.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What do you call a "chemist" who is incapable of writing a formula or description to define pH?

A. A liar
B. An idiot
C. A faker

So...you are a liar, an idiot, and a faker.

Im a BM wrote:
"I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - ITN
"You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - ITN
"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - ITN
"They are not really chemist. I am." - ITN

When I first arrived at climate-debate.com, someone did "recognize" you as a chemist. IBdaMann referred to you by name as a "chemist".

It doesn't really bug the hell out of me that IBdaMann recognizes you as a "chemist".

Lie. Denial.

Im a BM wrote:
Just out of concern for your health,

You don't care about my health. Lie. Synthesis. Mantra 3.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad that you have SOMEBODY out there who thinks you're a "chemist".

If IBdaMann endorses you as a "chemist", but turns out to be an "idiot" (like all the fake chemists in the 1300 teams who published 1300 different endorsements of ME as a "chemist"). Does it cancel out?

Chemistry is not an 'endorsement'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a 'publication'. Science is not a 'team'.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann better not be an "idiot", or his endorsement doesn't count.

It really doesn't. Chemistry is not an endorsement. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

At least IBdaMann thinks my fireworks are a cool part of my chemistry.

pH? pH? of course, it is the negative logarithm (-log, and NOT the natural log, ln, proposed by IBdaMann) of the hydrogen ion molarity. pH = -log(H+)
Do the math and you'll prove any strong acid at >1.0 M (H+) has pH<0.

But pH is more than that. pH is a way to pHeel pHar superior to the pHake "chemist", into the Night. So pHull of pHeces! So pHucked up, making pHalse claims. ITN pHabricated pHalse scientific title.

So pHar out of touch, in a pHantasy pHeel-good pHairy tale. Oh, it's so pHun and he feels pHine as he pHancies himself to be a "chemist".

The definition for pH they teach at Chemistry Clown College must be kept SECRET.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted irrelevance...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted irrelevance...

Irrelevance fallacy. Whining and your BS accomplishes nothing, Robert.

No matter how many names you call someone, or how much you dodge, you cannot escape the fact that you ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You are paranoid of CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
Denying the very existence of biogeochemistry is, literally, SCIENCE DENIAL.

Which used to be the main theme of this website.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

Well, they came crawling out of the woodwork to praise ITN as a "chemist".

Who could possibly DOUBT that Into the Night is really a "chemist"?

ANYONE who has any knowledge of chemistry reading ITN's shit is who.

I know for a fact that Into the Night does not have sufficient understanding of chemistry to pass an introductory college level course.

I TAUGHT such classes, and I would have encouraged Into the Night to drop out before I had to flunk him. I'm sure that another chemistry professor at another college somewhere DID encourage Into the Night to drop out before he would have to flunk him.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

Well, they came crawling out of the woodwork to praise ITN as a "chemist".

Who could possibly DOUBT that Into the Night is really a "chemist"?

ANYONE who has any knowledge of chemistry reading ITN's shit is who.

I know for a fact that Into the Night does not have sufficient understanding of chemistry to pass an introductory college level course.

I TAUGHT such classes, and I would have encouraged Into the Night to drop out before I had to flunk him. I'm sure that another chemistry professor at another college somewhere DID encourage Into the Night to drop out before he would have to flunk him.

You haven't taught anyone anything, Robert. Stop pretending.
Science is not a class, course, university, college, degree, license, title, book, magazine, journal, website, AI site, search engine, government agency, or any other sanctification.

You deny science, and chemistry along with it.
You are still discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.