Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"? > Page 9

Page 9 of 9

10-05-2026 17:43
sealover ★★★★★ (2037)	"All that matters is whether his own internal logic is consistent." -IBdaMann Well, if pH can only be defined as a "ratio", and we get rigid and insist that "ratio" can only apply to quantities with real numbers above zero... The internal logic then is consistent to assert that pH cannot be below zero. I guess that is all that matters. Well, MY "internal logic" is consistent TOO! Very consistent. For example, when I say that if pH = -log(H+), and (H+) > 1.0, then pH < 0. We are BOTH right, because all that matters is the consistency of internal logic. And within the consistency of his own internal logic, ITN really IS a "chemist". Okay, he gets to be a "chemist" now. Why not ME? Isn't my own internal logic that I use to call myself a "chemist" incredibly CONSISTENT? You know, having actual degrees in the field of science from credible institutions, publications in the chemistry journals, teaching college level courses in the field, getting paid to have the specific job title, etc. My internal logic is consistent as HELL on this. Why do you and Into the Night BOTH assert, explicitly and repeatedly, that I am NOT a chemist? After all, all that matters is whether my own internal logic is consistent. Im a BM wrote: 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. "You deny science." - Into the Night Into the Night, once again you do NOT deny being a college drop out who was unable to complete the introductory chemistry course with a passing grade. Science is not a course. Science is not a grade. Chemistry is not a degree. Science is not publications. Science is not recognition. Scientific is not a community. Nature is a shit rag. There is no such thing as "biogeochemistry". Science is not a chemical. Omniscience is not citable. Genius is not discernable.
10-05-2026 18:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	sealover wrote: ...deleted repetitive spam... Okay, he gets to be a "chemist" now. Why not ME? Because you deny and discard theories of science. sealover wrote: Isn't my own internal logic that I use to call myself a "chemist" incredibly CONSISTENT? No. You deny and discard theories of science including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. sealover wrote: You know, having actual degrees in the field of science from credible institutions, publications in the chemistry journals, teaching college level courses in the field, getting paid to have the specific job title, etc. My internal logic is consistent as HELL on this. Science is not a degree, institution, publication, journal, course, a paycheck, or title. sealover wrote: Why do you and Into the Night BOTH assert, explicitly and repeatedly, that I am NOT a chemist? Because you deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You think science is buzzword junk. You think science is a paper. You think science is a title. You think science is a pay check. You think science is a magazine or journal. You think science is a government institution. You think science is a community. Science is NONE of these things. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You ignore several of them. sealover wrote: After all, all that matters is whether my own internal logic is consistent. Buzzwords are not logic. They are a fallacy. 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
10-05-2026 20:49
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: ...deleted repetitive spam... Okay, he gets to be a "chemist" now. Why not ME? Because you deny and discard theories of science. sealover wrote: Isn't my own internal logic that I use to call myself a "chemist" incredibly CONSISTENT? No. You deny and discard theories of science including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. sealover wrote: You know, having actual degrees in the field of science from credible institutions, publications in the chemistry journals, teaching college level courses in the field, getting paid to have the specific job title, etc. My internal logic is consistent as HELL on this. Science is not a degree, institution, publication, journal, course, a paycheck, or title. sealover wrote: Why do you and Into the Night BOTH assert, explicitly and repeatedly, that I am NOT a chemist? Because you deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You think science is buzzword junk. You think science is a paper. You think science is a title. You think science is a pay check. You think science is a magazine or journal. You think science is a government institution. You think science is a community. Science is NONE of these things. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You ignore several of them. sealover wrote: After all, all that matters is whether my own internal logic is consistent. Buzzwords are not logic. They are a fallacy. Your whole schtick is to be the reflexive naysayer, knee-jerk contrarian. NO, it's NOT! Something is NOT something else which it is not. NO SUCH THING! The words mean NOTHING. BUZZWORDS! You CANNOT. It is NOT POSSIBLE. NO! NO! NO! You can only "debunk" your own straw man. YOU think blah blah blah.. YOU think.. YOU think.. YOU think... Trust me, I'll let you know what I actually think. But I wish you would limit your trolling to threads where you can obsess on "climate change" and "thermodynamics". YOU think "science" is something that you ALONE understand. Maybe there are two other trolls that sort of understand "science" too, I guess. Oh, Yellow And Red Parrot (YARP), explain again how pH is a "ratio" and why it is "not possible" for a 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid to have pH = 0.0 "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - YARP I can't wait for Halloween. I going to wear my "chemist" costume!
10-05-2026 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... YOU think "science" is something that you ALONE understand. ...deleted whining... Inversion fallacy. You deny science. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What is 'changing' in climate, Robert? Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You just want to discard them. 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
10-05-2026 22:08
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... YOU think "science" is something that you ALONE understand. ...deleted whining... Inversion fallacy. You deny science. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What is 'changing' in climate, Robert? Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You just want to discard them. Can you guide me to ANY citable reference for which "falsifiable theory" you use as the basis to assert that "water itself is a buffer for acid"? Presumably that includes at least a couple of words for those who might not already know the definition of "buffer". Which "falsifiable theory" enables you to assert that pH CANNOT be below zero? Presumably, if the only definition for pH is "ratio", there would be some MATH to show why it CANNOT be below zero. That is, if you have a freakin' CLUE what pH actually is. Which you do NOT, so you play your stupid "RQAA" game.
11-05-2026 03:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... YOU think "science" is something that you ALONE understand. ...deleted whining... Inversion fallacy. You deny science. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What is 'changing' in climate, Robert? Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You just want to discard them. ...deleted irrelevancy... Irrelevance fallacy. Answer the questions put to you. Stop evading. 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
11-05-2026 13:38
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... YOU think "science" is something that you ALONE understand. ...deleted whining... Inversion fallacy. You deny science. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What is 'changing' in climate, Robert? Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You just want to discard them. ...deleted irrelevancy... Irrelevance fallacy. Answer the questions put to you. Stop evading. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate you would realize that I have provided you with the definition for "climate change" no less than two dozen times in the past month or two. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate you would stop EVADING with your bullshit "RQAA" and demonstrate if you have the SLIGHTEST IDEA what basic terms such as "pH" and "buffer" mean in chemistry. "RQAA" is a LIE from you, because you NEVER ONCE provided a definition for "pH" beyond calling it "a ratio", and NEVER ONCE provided a definition for "buffer" beyond saying "Water itself is a buffer for acid." Hey, at least tell us what YEAR you might have posted these definitions, if the diligent viewer would like to benefit from the chemistry lesson you can provide. If you could narrow it down to a particular season of a particular year, I'll be able to find if you EVER defined your terms. I don't believe you did. I really looked. A keyword search reveals when you ever used the term "pH" or "buffer" at this website. I didn't have the patience to go back ALL ten and a half years. Almost NONE of the uses of the terms "pH" and "buffer" at this website BEFORE my arrival were by Into the Night. Closest thing to a definition for pH is "ratio", and "buffer" is dilution by water. Is that your FINAL answer. Coward hides behind word games and "RQAA". FAKE "chemist" YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot)
11-05-2026 21:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: If you weren't so scientifically illiterate you would realize that I have provided you with the definition for "climate change" no less than two dozen times in the past month or two. [quote]Im a BM wrote: ...deleted irrelevancy and whining... You never did, Robert. You only said climate changes. Climate has no values that can change. Climate is a subjective word. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2026 02:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15222)	Im a BM wrote: If you weren't so scientifically illiterate you would stop EVADING with your bullshit "RQAA" and demonstrate if you have the SLIGHTEST IDEA what basic terms such as "pH" and "buffer" mean in chemistry. Too funny! I had to teach you what "buffer" means. I had to give you the chemistry definition because your ecology training didn't adequately prepare you for chemistry topics. As such, you insisted that pure water cannot act as a buffer through dilution, and you were so slow on the uptake that I had to work through an example just so you could begin to understand what the definition of "buffering" really means. ... and you never even said "thank you."
12-05-2026 03:58
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: If you weren't so scientifically illiterate you would stop EVADING with your bullshit "RQAA" and demonstrate if you have the SLIGHTEST IDEA what basic terms such as "pH" and "buffer" mean in chemistry. Too funny! I had to teach you what "buffer" means. I had to give you the chemistry definition because your ecology training didn't adequately prepare you for chemistry topics. As such, you insisted that pure water cannot act as a buffer through dilution, and you were so slow on the uptake that I had to work through an example just so you could begin to understand what the definition of "buffering" really means. ... and you never even said "thank you." I remember well your assertions that only a "magical" acid could have pH = 0.0, how a liter of sea water would have a more "profound" impact from a drop of added acid, compared to the pH decline seen when adding a drop of acid to a liter of pure water. You went all in with "basicity scale" and "change to the acid", even a pseudo equation where "magnitude of effect" was equal to "delta(solution)" of some unidentified parameter that was NOT pH. Yes, you taught me everything I know about pH and bupHering. A pHine pHellow you are pHor being a pHriend. IBdaMann, pHor your pHearless efforts to pHree this website of the pHoulness of warmazombieism pHuck you! Actually, you could look up the presentation I gave to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 to see how long ago YOU taught ME about pH and buffers.
12-05-2026 19:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: I remember well...deleted spam and whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2026 21:04
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I remember well...deleted spam and whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Stop spamming. "Hygroscopic" Now, THAT is a sciency-souncing word. It's one of only a handful of the "buzzwords" that YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) ever learned. Boy, he gets a lot of mileage out of "hygroscopic" when he wants to sound like a REAL "chemist". Uses it where it makes no chemistry sense, but it sure LOOKS cool in a sentence. YARP accepts that there IS "such a thing" as "hygroscopic", because it is one of the few "buzzwords" that he (mistakenly) believes himself to actually know. If YARP's resentful spouse wanted to ridicule YARP's transparent chemistry imposter act... "Search keywords" (upper left) and try "hygroscopic". YARP has used it many times. Once in a while, YARP uses "hygroscopic" in a context that actually makes chemistry sense. Most times he does not.
12-05-2026 23:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2026 23:35
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Spamming gets you everywhere, YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot). It proves that YARP is a chemist, a scientist, and an "expert" of some kind. It's okay. We are all "woke" enough around here to accept YARP self identifying as a "chemist", regardless of what they wrote on YARP's Education Certificate. It must fill YARP with pride to open this website and see "Into the Night" 15 times in a row, having gotten in the last word with SPAM on all 15 most recently active thread. YARP is the Troll King of Spam. As such, he has the authority, by Royal Decree, to assert what is NOT science, what is NOT a chemical, what is NOT possible, what CANNOT be. A reflexive naysayer, knee-jerk contrarian with the Royal authority to back it up. YARP is a paradox within a paradox. The avatar reveals a clever word game. That Yellow And Red Parrot. Not "yellow" like a coward. Not "red" like a Commie. Brave enough to assert that "climate CANNOT change", and pro-Capitalist enough to smoke out the Commie spies pushing "environmental" this and that. Edited on 12-05-2026 23:51
13-05-2026 02:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Spamming gets you everywhere, YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot). Im a BM wrote: ...deleted remaining whining... Spamming gets you nowhere, Robert. Whining gets you nowhere either. 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
13-05-2026 15:09
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Spamming gets you everywhere, YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot). Im a BM wrote: ...deleted remaining whining... Spamming gets you nowhere, Robert. Whining gets you nowhere either. And THAT is how you rack up 24,000 posts! As the most prolific poster of them all, YOU are the main attraction that brings so many new members to join. To be fair, you have only had ten and a half years to transform the website into the Temple of Truth. Climate CANNOT change, right? Well, you can't argue with SUCCESS! Just LOOK at what you have created with all your SPAM for so long. It must fill Branner with pride when he checks in to see more and more members engaging in the kind of discussion he created this place for.
13-05-2026 19:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining gets you absolutely nowhere, Robert. 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
13-05-2026 21:18
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining gets you absolutely nowhere, Robert. "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert." - Into the Night "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - Into the Night Science is not a fallacy mantra.
14-05-2026 02:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Science is not a fallacy mantra. You can't blame your fallacies on science, Robert. Science is not a fallacy. 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
15-05-2026 19:35
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Science is not a fallacy mantra. You can't blame your fallacies on science, Robert. Science is not a fallacy. I continue to try to be liberal and "woke" enough to accept that you self identify as a "chemist", even though it is not consistent with anything that scientists wrote on your Education Certificate. We can let you call yourself that, but shouldn't there be a warning label disclaimer of some kind? You shouldn't be allowed to set foot in a lab, for example. It seems clear that you never have, at least not as a "chemist" who had any idea what to do there. Here's a thought for you. Try being a little less OBNOXIOUS with the false accusations that nobody ELSE is really a chemist. Like all those thousands of PhD scientists who cite my discoveries in their chemistry publications. You feel the need to claim they are "not really chemists". Which makes me just want to remind me that YOU sure as hell are not really a chemist. No matter what you call yourself, it's not enough to change what you actually are. Edited on 15-05-2026 19:38
15-05-2026 23:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Chemistry is not a lab, Robert. Whining will get you nowhere. 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
17-05-2026 20:21
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Chemistry is not a lab, Robert. Whining will get you nowhere. Feeling kind of cocky here. Guess it's time to be a dick! YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot), I will condescend to calling you "Into the Night" to tell you that I was more of a "chemist" than you are today before I even turned 16, in the summer of '74, when the NSF government teat paid to have me go to summer camp at San Diego State (now called California State University, San Diego) for CHEMISTRY classes. You can belittle and dismiss prestigious academic degrees, institutions, scientific journals, and scientists all you want. How do you convince anyone besides IBdaMann and another troll or two that YOUR knowledge of chemistry arises from a SUPERIOR source of training? Science is not, science is not, science is not.... YOU!
17-05-2026 21:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Chemistry is not a lab, Robert. Whining will get you nowhere. Feeling kind of cocky here. Guess it's time to be a dick! YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot), I will condescend to calling you "Into the Night" to tell you that I was more of a "chemist" than you are today before I even turned 16, in the summer of '74, when the NSF government teat paid to have me go to summer camp at San Diego State (now called California State University, San Diego) for CHEMISTRY classes. You can belittle and dismiss prestigious academic degrees, institutions, scientific journals, and scientists all you want. How do you convince anyone besides IBdaMann and another troll or two that YOUR knowledge of chemistry arises from a SUPERIOR source of training? Science is not, science is not, science is not.... YOU! Science is not a degree, college, university, journal, magazine, paper, government agency, 'prestige', training, license, or sanctification of any kind. You still deny mathematics, logic, the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Black's law, Henry's Law, etc. You are no chemist. You are no scientist. 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
17-05-2026 21:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15222)	Im a BM wrote: Like all those thousands of PhD scientists who cite my discoveries in their chemistry publications. Neither of those two people are scientists, nor are either of them "thousands" of people. Im a BM wrote: You feel the need to claim they are "not really chemists". I didn't notice either of them claiming to have neat fireworks. Im a BM wrote: No matter what you call yourself, it's not enough to change what you actually are. He has neat fireworks.
17-05-2026 22:07
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Like all those thousands of PhD scientists who cite my discoveries in their chemistry publications. Neither of those two people are scientists, nor are either of them "thousands" of people. Im a BM wrote: You feel the need to claim they are "not really chemists". I didn't notice either of them claiming to have neat fireworks. Im a BM wrote: No matter what you call yourself, it's not enough to change what you actually are. He has neat fireworks. One of the nice things about actually studying science systematically in college is you don't just have to make shit up to support your assertions. You actually learn what "buzzwords" mean, and how to communicate complex concepts very clearly using the language of "gibber babble". There are whole worlds of literature that make sense if you know the language. You've got something more than omniscience about how the universe OUGHT to be to offer in discussion. You don't have to keep secret definitions for terms that nobody can look up. You don't get confused about what substances they are talking about... "fossil fuel" You don't get left out of the conversation if you learn a little language and don't have to just make shit up and call everyone liars or morons or Commie cowards.
17-05-2026 23:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Like all those thousands of PhD scientists who cite my discoveries in their chemistry publications. Neither of those two people are scientists, nor are either of them "thousands" of people. Im a BM wrote: You feel the need to claim they are "not really chemists". I didn't notice either of them claiming to have neat fireworks. Im a BM wrote: No matter what you call yourself, it's not enough to change what you actually are. He has neat fireworks. Thanks, IBdaMann. I think they are not only neat, but fun to make and shoot as well! Im a BM wrote: One of the nice things about actually studying science systematically in college is you don't just have to make shit up to support your assertions. Science is not a 'system'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. Each theory is an assertion. Each theory is it's own support. It needs no other. You deny science. Im a BM wrote: You actually learn what "buzzwords" mean, and how to communicate complex concepts very clearly using the language of "gibber babble". Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert. Im a BM wrote: There are whole worlds of literature that make sense if you know the language. Buzzwords aren't a language. Im a BM wrote: You've got something more than omniscience about how the universe OUGHT to be to offer in discussion. The universe is what it is. It cannot be anything else. Im a BM wrote: You don't have to keep secret definitions for terms that nobody can look up. Every variable and constant in every law of science is defined. The only authoritative reference to any theory of science is the author of that theory. Im a BM wrote: You don't get confused about what substances they are talking about... "fossil fuel" Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. You seem confused. Im a BM wrote: You don't get left out of the conversation if you learn a little language and don't have to just make shit up and call everyone liars or morons or Commie cowards. You aren't having a conversation, Robert. You are whining. You are BSing. You are not everyone. Omniscience fallacy. 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
18-05-2026 01:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15222)	Im a BM wrote: One of the nice things about actually studying science systematically in college ... ... as opposed to actually learning science ... is that you still have to learn it, reagardless of systematically you studied it. Im a BM wrote: ... you don't just have to make shit up to support your assertions. I'm glad I never have to make shit up. You, on the other hand, are too lazy to even make an attempt to make shit up to support your WACKY religious ravings. Im a BM wrote: You actually learn what "buzzwords" mean, and how to communicate complex concepts very clearly using the language of "gibber babble". You have never communicated clearly, except to convey your utmost faith in physics violations or to deny that water evaporates. Im a BM wrote: There are whole worlds of literature that make sense if you know the language. Exactly. For example, you have no problem understanding gibberish such as "Increases in the climate's change have accelerated beyond what the DNC previously feared. We must tax the shit out of ourselves RIGHT NOW if we want any hope of ameliorating the threat, but it might already be too late. " If ever we run across this kind of gibber-babble, we can always turn to you to tell us, not what it means, but just how crucial it is that we OBEY. ... or better yet, ** you. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who has no idea what his regurgitations mean. You're an idiot, Robert, for allowing the DNC to do your thinking for you. Who knows, you might have been able to have been a substantively contributing member of society instead of a completely raving tool. Im a BM wrote:** You don't get confused about what substances they are talking about... "fossil fuel" You remain confused. You deny Fischer-Tropsh, specifically because your WACKY religion forbids science. You're an idiot. Oh, and water really does evaporate, despite what the DNC has ordered you to believe.
19-05-2026 18:46
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	"You're an idiot. Oh, and water really does evaporate, despite what the DNC has ordered you to believe." - IBdaMann Voices in IBdaMann head have been screaming "Water does NOT evaporate!" IBdaMann has been shouting down his demons. It's okay, IBM. NOBODY is saying that water cannot evaporate. The "DNC" has ordered someone to believe that water does NOT evaporate. Well, I'm glad we got THAT one straightened out. Future generations of scientists will cite climate-debate.com as the place where IBdaMann recorded his scientific genius for humanity. Perhaps the first scientist in the world to "debunk" the water-does-not-evaporate HOAX perpetrated by the Commies and the DNC. Wouldn't it be nice if ocean acidification could simply "evaporate"? Carbonic acid, H2CO3, forms from less than 1% of the CO2 dissolved in sea water. The vapor pressure of carbonic acid is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than water. While there is NOBODY DENYING that water evaporates, there is considerable dispute about how easily carbonic acid evaporates. H2CO3 is much less volatile and sublimes last compared to water, CO2, or its other reaction products. (I stole that sentence directly from GOOGLE). So, if we take a pot of sea water and boil it down to nothing, FIRST the water evaporates. The carbonic acid stays behind becoming more concentrated, as it is much less volatile and has much lower vapor pressure than water. Eventually you have a pot of dry salt. But the carbonic acid in sea water gets consumed by reacting with carbonate: H2CO3 + CO3(2-) = 2HCO3- Once that carbonic acid is transformed to bicarbonate, it stays behind with the dry salt in that pot of sea water we boiled all the acid out of. EVAPORATION doesn't really "buffer" against pH change any better than DILUTION by water. IBdaMann, I don't expect you to actually understand ANY of the chemistry. You were NEVER the "target audience" for the information I share. You were just the obnoxious, scientifically illiterate TROLL who insisted on heckling relentlessly. "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: One of the nice things about actually studying science systematically in college ... ... as opposed to actually learning science ... is that you still have to learn it, reagardless of systematically you studied it. Im a BM wrote: ... you don't just have to make shit up to support your assertions. I'm glad I never have to make shit up. You, on the other hand, are too lazy to even make an attempt to make shit up to support your WACKY religious ravings. Im a BM wrote: You actually learn what "buzzwords" mean, and how to communicate complex concepts very clearly using the language of "gibber babble". You have never communicated clearly, except to convey your utmost faith in physics violations or to deny that water evaporates. Im a BM wrote: There are whole worlds of literature that make sense if you know the language. Exactly. For example, you have no problem understanding gibberish such as "Increases in the climate's change have accelerated beyond what the DNC previously feared. We must tax the shit out of ourselves RIGHT NOW if we want any hope of ameliorating the threat, but it might already be too late. " If ever we run across this kind of gibber-babble, we can always turn to you to tell us, not what it means, but just how crucial it is that we OBEY. ... or better yet, ** you. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who has no idea what his regurgitations mean. You're an idiot, Robert, for allowing the DNC to do your thinking for you. Who knows, you might have been able to have been a substantively contributing member of society instead of a completely raving tool. Im a BM wrote:** You don't get confused about what substances they are talking about... "fossil fuel" You remain confused. You deny Fischer-Tropsh, specifically because your WACKY religion forbids science. You're an idiot. Oh, and water really does evaporate, despite what the DNC has ordered you to believe. Edited on 19-05-2026 19:34
20-05-2026 02:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: "You're an idiot. Oh, and water really does evaporate, despite what the DNC has ordered you to believe." - IBdaMann Voices in IBdaMann head have been screaming "Water does NOT evaporate!" IBdaMann has been shouting down his demons. It's okay, IBM. NOBODY is saying that water cannot evaporate. Don't try to deny your own posts. Im a BM wrote: While there is NOBODY DENYING that water evaporates, there is considerable dispute about how easily carbonic acid evaporates. H2CO3 is much less volatile and sublimes last compared to water, CO2, or its other reaction products. (I stole that sentence directly from GOOGLE). So, if we take a pot of sea water and boil it down to nothing, FIRST the water evaporates. The carbonic acid stays behind becoming more concentrated, as it is much less volatile and has much lower vapor pressure than water. Eventually you have a pot of dry salt. You can't concentrate carbonic acid that way, Robert. Acid is not salt. Im a BM wrote: But the carbonic acid in sea water gets consumed by reacting with carbonate: Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Once that carbonic acid is transformed to bicarbonate, it stays behind with the dry salt in that pot of sea water we boiled all the acid out of. EVAPORATION doesn't really "buffer" against pH change any better than DILUTION by water. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. I see you are still confused between the difference of evaporation and dilution. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, I don't expect you to actually understand ANY of the chemistry. You were NEVER the "target audience" for the information I share. You were just the obnoxious, scientifically illiterate TROLL who insisted on heckling relentlessly. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted remaining whining... Whining doesn't work, Robert. It's worthless. 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
20-05-2026 23:47
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	"Into the Night isn't even in my league. He can only aspire to tell you.. Into the Night can only tell you what science is not, whereas I will give you the full 'You're a scientifically illiterate moron' message... I don't know why you are pretending that there is even a comparison." - IBdaMann YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) is indeed the Troll King of What "Science" is NOT. While YARP and IBdaMann are about equally scientifically illiterate, there is NO COMPARISON between their word game skills. YARP just squawks out "Science is not a chemical.", and then YARP goes on the list everything that is NOT "science" or a "chemical". The unifying concept for the paradigm is that something is NOT something else that it is not. And that's ALL you need to assert to "win" the "debate". IBdaMann, on the other hand, knows how to adopt enough selected "buzzwords" to craft something that almost resembles plausible scientific gibber babble. The reader with no scientific training might be persuaded that it is rational discussion of science. YARP (a.k.a. "Into the Night" or "ITN") has no such skills, and just insists instead that they are ALL nothing more than meaningless buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble. "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann Amen to THAT, Brother! Or if you want to know every word that is "not a chemical". Only a real "chemist" knows what is or is not a "chemical". Identifying what "science" is NOT, and what is NOT a "chemical" is ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY to have a COMPLETE ARGUMENT and SCIENCE LESSON IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Squinting real hard, it is possible to read between the lines: Are you trying to get people to believe that you can read? Im a BM wrote:"You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." - IBdaMann "You are a scientifically illiterate moron." - IBdaMann "You don't even know what science is." - IBdaMann "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games." - IBdaMann This is all you should have posted. Into the Night isn't even in my league. He can only aspire to tell you what you need to hear, whereas I will give it to you straight and unadulterated. Into the Night can only tell you what science is not, whereas I will give you the full "You're a scientifically illiterate moron" message without missing a beat. I don't know why you are pretending that there is even a comparison. Edited on 21-05-2026 00:37
21-05-2026 00:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Whining is pointless, Robert. 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

Page 9 of 9

Join the debate Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
ITN calls himself The Parrot Killer. Ha!	10	30-04-2026 23:00
Subscribtion challange, ITN, Swanny boy , James, IbdaMann and others, help me.	24	22-11-2025 22:26
itn	32	29-05-2024 19:34
itn	4	17-08-2023 20:24
Something To Make itn feel Good	22	26-07-2018 20:15