Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night tells me that HE is a "chemist", and I am NOT.

IBdaMann tells me that I am a "troll", and HE is NOT.

I think they both have it ass backwards, but that's just my OPINION.

There couldn't possibly be any objective criteria to know who is what.

I do not self identify as a troll, in any case.

Inversion fallacy.
You can't blame your problems on anybody else, troll.

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.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night tells me that HE is a "chemist", and I am NOT.

IBdaMann tells me that I am a "troll", and HE is NOT.

I think they both have it ass backwards, but that's just my OPINION.

There couldn't possibly be any objective criteria to know who is what.

I do not self identify as a troll, in any case.

Inversion fallacy.
You can't blame your problems on anybody else, troll.

In addition to calling yourself a "chemist", you also self identify as some kind of "computer engineer".

PLEASE contact Branner and offer him some of your computer wisdom.

Branner needs to know how to Messiah-proof his website.

As a "computer engineer", you should be able to teach him how to do that.

Go for it!

Do something that is actually of VALUE for this website, Into the Night!

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, since nobody is coming to ITN's defense...
...deleted remaining whining...

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.

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, do you know what a "chemical" is?

It is clear to me that you do NOT even know what a "chemical" is because you have written literally THOUSANDS of sentences that all say "(name of ion) is not a chemical".

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, do you know what a "chemical" is?

It is clear to me that you do NOT even know what a "chemical" is because you have written literally THOUSANDS of sentences that all say "(name of ion) is not a chemical".

Robert, do you know what a category is?

It is clear to me that you do NOT even know what a "category" is because you have referred to categories as "chemicals" literally hundreds of times.

To make matters more absurd, you then claim to be a chemist, and then insist that water never evaporates and that lipids are hydrocarbons.

Apparently, these claims are central to whatever "argument" you think you are making. Apparently, "carbonates" being a category is too complex of a concept for you to grasp. As usch, you keep repeating over and over and over that the category is a chemical, as if the two words are interchangeable.

What the heck are you trying to say, Robert, by calling the fluorides category a "chemical", for example?

It will only make sense when Into the Night FINALLY reveals his SECRET definition for the term "chemical".

It might become more plausible that you have read something having to do with chemistry if you can prove that you know what a "category" is.

It will not because you cannot. Because you are not.

WHY do you claim that the CO3(2-) category is not a category?

"Fisher-Tropsch is your God." - HarveyH55

AND THEREFORE

"Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann

Why do YOU claim that I claim things I never claimed?

Because you are a pHucking TROLL!

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Under what definition of "category" does "carbonates" fail to qualify?

Under the SECRET definition used by a FRAUD who pretends to be a "chemist".

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.

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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Ions are Chemicals that Have a First Name.

Let us assume that the average reader is educated enough to have a basic concept of what a "chemical" is.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Ions, such as the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) are CHEMICALS that are often referred to on a first name basis in water chemistry. A reference to dissolved "carbonate" in sea water is understood to mean CO3(2-), the carbonate ion.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:In a laboratory, a solution of pure sodium carbonate can be made by adding sodium carbonate, Na2CO3, to pure water, H2O.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
In that solution, it can be assumed that virtually every carbonate ion, CO3(2-) has two sodium ions, Na+, attached to it in an outer sphere complex. "Outer sphere" means that no electron orbitals overlap between any atoms in the carbonate ion and electron orbitals of its two closely associated sodium atoms. This is also called an "ionic bond".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
In water chemistry, we don't bother giving the full name every time we make reference to a dissolved ion in solution. We write our reports with tables having columns labeled simply "carbonate" or "CO3(2-)", milligrams per liter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Water chemist do that with ALL the ions they communicate about. Anyone who passed high chemistry can understand that the "fluoride" added to water supplies refers to the fluoride ION, F-. There is rarely need to specify which CATION is associated with the ANION they are referring to. Same for sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, bicarbonate.. All of them are CHEMICALS being referred to by ion first name.

Someone who LIES about being a "chemist" may not have ever learned this.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Such a person who is incredibly ignorant and stubborn may simply insist "fluoride is not a chemical", as if that reveals something significant.

And then "RQAA" when asked, "Well, in that case, what the pHuck do you think a 'chemical' IS?"

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".
Does ANYONE believe him?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Urea cannot be construed to be a "category". There is only one chemical formula for all of the different "ureas" one might ever encounter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
There are many things that PROVE Into the Night could not possibly really be someone who was ever trained as a "chemist".

The inability to comprehend that urea is a "chemical" provides an example.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
The inability to provide a more comprehensive argument than simply repeating, over and over again, that five-word sentence ("urea is not a chemical"), or simply LYING with "RQAA" is even stronger evidence he is NOT a chemist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
If Into the Night wants to prove he at least passed HIGH SCHOOL chemistry, he could at least look up the word "urea" and figure out that it IS a "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
If IBdaMann wants to provide more proof that he, too, is a "scientifically-illiterate moron", he can explain how somehow it makes sense to deny "chemical" status to urea because it's some kind of "category", he can.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
It is an empty and meaningless "argument" to repeat "carbonate is not a chemical". Especially to say that same short sentence OVER AND OVER, without offering ANYTHING to support it.

Not a chemist. Just a TROLL.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".
Does ANYONE believe him?

RQAA

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

Science is not a course.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

"Urea is not a chemical." - Into the Night

At least half of Into the Night's "argument" is to declare some word to be "not a chemical". Most often, that word is the name of an ion (sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, ammonium, fluoride, bicarbonate, etc., etc.). Then IBdaMann can play word games about whether carbonate is a "category" or a "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Urea cannot be construed to be a "category". There is only one chemical formula for all of the different "ureas" one might ever encounter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
There are many things that PROVE Into the Night could not possibly really be someone who was ever trained as a "chemist".

The inability to comprehend that urea is a "chemical" provides an example.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
The inability to provide a more comprehensive argument than simply repeating, over and over again, that five-word sentence ("urea is not a chemical"), or simply LYING with "RQAA" is even stronger evidence he is NOT a chemist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
If Into the Night wants to prove he at least passed HIGH SCHOOL chemistry, he could at least look up the word "urea" and figure out that it IS a "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
If IBdaMann wants to provide more proof that he, too, is a "scientifically-illiterate moron", he can explain how somehow it makes sense to deny "chemical" status to urea because it's some kind of "category", he can.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
It is an empty and meaningless "argument" to repeat "carbonate is not a chemical". Especially to say that same short sentence OVER AND OVER, without offering ANYTHING to support it.

Not a chemist. Just a TROLL.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Google inquiry: "Has the published research of Robert R. Northup contributed to the scientific community's understanding of greenhouse gas emission/sequestration and its relevance to climate change?"

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Google say: "Yes, the published research of Robert R. Northup has significantly contributed to the scientific community's understanding of how ecosystems naturally regulate nutrient cycles, which directly impacts our comprehension of greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, and climate change.

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Key Contributions and Scientific Impact

While Northup's work focuses heavily on biogeochemistry and chemical ecology, its implications are central to climate science:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
* Regulating Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles: Northup is widely known for his breakthrough research on how polyphenols (complex plant compounds) alter soil conditions and regulate nutrient cycling. By demonstrating that polyphenols can shift nitrogen cycling from mineral to organic forms, his work highlighted mechanisms that minimize nitrogen loss from ecosystems. This is directly relevant to climate change, as preventing nitrogen loss reduces the production of nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent greenhouse gas.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
* Soil Organic Matter Dynamics: (too much to copy, but YOU can look it up!)
..fundamental to calculating the earth's soil carbon sequestration potential and predicting terrestrial carbon sinks.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
* Bridging Ecology and Biogeochemistry: By framing these chemical processes as part of an 'extended phenotype' (where a plant's genetics influence the chemistry of the surrounding soil), Northup's work helped pioneer a more interconnected view of ecosystem feedback loops. Modern climate models increasingly rely on these exact biogeochemical mechanisms to simulate how global warming alters natural carbon storage."[/b]

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
There can be no doubt that IBdaMann and Into the Night have made FAR more significant contributions to "science" out there in the real world, under their real names. But, as Into the Night warned, "Doxing is a real problem."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
They better keep their real identities SECRET, even if that prevents the rest of us from reading about their scientific research and discoveries that are so directly relevant to climate change discussion.

Just take their word for it. They are really "scientists"!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".
Does ANYONE believe him?

RQAA

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

Science is not a course.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

"Urea is not a chemical." - Into the Night

At least half of Into the Night's "argument" is to declare some word to be "not a chemical". Most often, that word is the name of an ion (sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, ammonium, fluoride, bicarbonate, etc., etc.). Then IBdaMann can play word games about whether carbonate is a "category" or a "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Urea cannot be construed to be a "category". There is only one chemical formula for all of the different "ureas" one might ever encounter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
There are many things that PROVE Into the Night could not possibly really be someone who was ever trained as a "chemist".

The inability to comprehend that urea is a "chemical" provides an example.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
The inability to provide a more comprehensive argument than simply repeating, over and over again, that five-word sentence ("urea is not a chemical"), or simply LYING with "RQAA" is even stronger evidence he is NOT a chemist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
If Into the Night wants to prove he at least passed HIGH SCHOOL chemistry, he could at least look up the word "urea" and figure out that it IS a "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
If IBdaMann wants to provide more proof that he, too, is a "scientifically-illiterate moron", he can explain how somehow it makes sense to deny "chemical" status to urea because it's some kind of "category", he can.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
It is an empty and meaningless "argument" to repeat "carbonate is not a chemical". Especially to say that same short sentence OVER AND OVER, without offering ANYTHING to support it.

Not a chemist. Just a TROLL.

Im a BM wrote:
Google say: [b]"Yes,...deleted mindless repetition and spamming

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Google say: "Yes,...deleted mindless repetition and spamming

Repetition fallacy. RAAA.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote

ude, you are famous for being repetitive!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Repetitive" and "formulaic" are the adjectives any search engine will show to characterize the posting of the internet persona known as "Into the Night" at climate discussion websites.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Repetition fallacy" on steroids!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Your latest post repeated the sentence, "Urea is not a chemical."

YOU REPEATED THAT SAME STUPID SENTENCE SIX DIFFERENT PLACES in one post. And that is as far as you ever explained the chemistry to support it.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Formulaic". That sentence follows the basic formula.

"Urea is not a chemical." "(whatever) is not a chemical."

"(whatever) is not a chemical." is often more than half the sentences in any given Into the Night post.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Science is not (whatever)." "(whatever) is not a chemical."
"You cannot (whatever) a (whatever)." "(whatever) is not (whatever)"
"It is not possible to measure (whatever)" "You deny (whatever)."
"There is no such thing as '(whatever)'."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
This is the basic formula for an Into the Night post. Repetitive as pHuck!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Empty, meaningless, contrarian claims made with authoritative certainty.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
The latest one is FUNNY.

"Urea is not a chemical."[/b]

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I wonder if IBdaMann has the intellectual honesty to admit he saw your incredibly stupid assertion about urea.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Of course he will not. The "category" is not a "chemical" word game cannot be applied to sanewash your claims about urea.

It didn't work with carbonate either.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Denying "chemical" status to the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) does not change the pH buffering dynamics of sea water. It does not "refute" anything. In the absence of any OTHER chemical "argument", it is nothing more than TROLLING.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
IBdaMann once put up a post for me in which he repeated the sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical." TWO HUNDRED TIMES.

Now that is what I call "repetition fallacy"!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote

ude, you are famous for being repetitive!

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Repetitive" and "formulaic" are the adjectives any search engine will show to characterize the posting of the internet persona known as "Into the Night" at climate discussion websites.

Inversion fallacy.
You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Repetition fallacy" on steroids!

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Your latest post repeated the sentence, "Urea is not a chemical."

YOU REPEATED THAT SAME STUPID SENTENCE SIX DIFFERENT PLACES in one post. And that is as far as you ever explained the chemistry to support it.

Because you keep repeating the same error.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Formulaic". That sentence follows the basic formula.

"Urea is not a chemical." "(whatever) is not a chemical."

"(whatever) is not a chemical." is often more than half the sentences in any given Into the Night post.

Urea is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Science is not (whatever)." "(whatever) is not a chemical."
"You cannot (whatever) a (whatever)." "(whatever) is not (whatever)"
"It is not possible to measure (whatever)" "You deny (whatever)."
"There is no such thing as '(whatever)'."

Because you keep making the same repetitive errors.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
This is the basic formula for an Into the Night post. Repetitive as pHuck!

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Empty, meaningless, contrarian claims made with authoritative certainty.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
The latest one is FUNNY.

"Urea is not a chemical."[/b]

It isn't.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I wonder if IBdaMann has the intellectual honesty to admit he saw your incredibly stupid assertion about urea.

He is not stupid like you. He's a scientist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Of course he will not. The "category" is not a "chemical" word game cannot be applied to sanewash your claims about urea.

It didn't work with carbonate either.

You can't blame your word games on anybody else.
Inversion fallacy.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Urea is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Denying "chemical" status to the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) does not change the pH buffering dynamics of sea water. It does not "refute" anything. In the absence of any OTHER chemical "argument", it is nothing more than TROLLING.

'Chemical' is not a status.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
You don't know what a buffer is.
pH is not a buffer.
pH is not a 'dynamics'.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
IBdaMann once put up a post for me in which he repeated the sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical." TWO HUNDRED TIMES.

Now that is what I call "repetition fallacy"!

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
GOOGLE FUN TIME!

Google inquiry: "Is urea a chemical?"

Google ain't retarded!

Google say: "Yes, urea is an organic chemical compound with the chemical formula CO(NH2)2.

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Chemical Identity

* Chemical Name: Urea (also known as carbamide)

* Chemical Family: Organic Amide (specifically, the simplest diamide of carbonic acid)

* Structure: A carbonyl group (C=O) attached to two amino groups (-NH2)

* Appearance: A colorless, odorless, white crystalline solid or pellet."
[/b]
And Google goes on with more.

Yes, urea is a "chemical"!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Unless there is a new definition for the term "chemical"?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
GOOGLE FUN TIME!

Google inquiry: "Is urea a chemical?"

Google ain't retarded!

Google say: "Yes, urea is an organic chemical compound with the chemical formula CO(NH2)2.

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Google is not sentient.
Science is not Google.
Urea is not a chemical.

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Chemical Identity

* Chemical Name: Urea (also known as carbamide)

* Chemical Family: Organic Amide (specifically, the simplest diamide of carbonic acid)

* Structure: A carbonyl group (C=O) attached to two amino groups (-NH2)

* Appearance: A colorless, odorless, white crystalline solid or pellet."
[/b]
And Google goes on with more.

Yes, urea is a "chemical"!

Urea is not a chemical.
Carbonyl is not a chemical.
(C=O) is not a chemical.
(-NH2) is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Unless there is a new definition for the term "chemical"?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote: Well, you know what a "chemical" is, because you are a "chemist", right? But, why do you keep that definition a SECRET?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Well, you know what a "chemical" is, because you are a "chemist", right? But, why do you keep that definition a SECRET?

Chemists are required to keep their unambiguous definitions a secret because they are their own audience and they already know what the terms mean. You aren't a chemist if you don't know this.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Well, you know what a "chemical" is, because you are a "chemist", right? But, why do you keep that definition a SECRET?

Chemists are required to keep their unambiguous definitions a secret because they are their own audience and they already know what the terms mean. You aren't a chemist if you don't know this.

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY TEST FOR GOOGLE!

Google inquiry: "Can the internet persona known as 'IBdaMann' at climate discussion websites be accurately characterized as 'scientifically illiterate'?"

Google passes this initial test for intellectual honesty!

Google say: "Whether the internet persona 'IBdaMann' can be accurately characterized as 'scientifically illiterate' depends entirely on who you ask. In climate discussion spaces, this characterization is a point of heavy debate.

* Arguments for 'scientifically illiterate': On platforms like Climate-Debate.com and JustPlainPolitics.com, critics frequently view the persona's postings as scientifically illiterate. To back this up, they point to statements where the persona dismisses established atmospheric mechanics - such as the greenhouse effect - claiming it violates fundamental laws of physics like the Stephen-Boltzman law. Other examples include posts asserting 'there is no Climate Change' and questioning the existence of 'fossil fuels' based on literal semantics."

(I refuse to copy Google's description of how IBdaMann can be construed as not "scientifically illiterate". It's like giving air time to a Trump rant. Also, this might force Into the Night to learn how to do a Google inquiry.)

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, to remind Into the Night how much it just BUGS THE HELL OUT OF ME that he is so widely recognized and respected as a scientist and chemist...

Google inquiry: "Can the biogeochemist known as Robert R. Northup in the scientific community be accurately characterized as 'scientifically illiterate'?"

Okay, Google has a very long answer and it may take more time than I care to spare in order to copy it all..

Google say: "No, it is entirely inaccurate to characterize biogeochemist Robert R. Northup as 'scientifically illiterate'.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
In the scientific community, academic and scientific literacy is gauged by peer-reviewed contributions, methodological rigor, and impact on a field. Based on established scientific records, Dr. Northup is a trained researcher whose work has significantly advanced the understanding of ecological biochemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
* Peer-Reviewed Publications: Dr. Northup has authored foundational papers in respected scientific journals. (more details that I won't copy)

Im a BM wrote:
* Impact on Biogeochemistry: His research demonstrated how complex organic compounds (like polyphenols and condensed tannins) regulate nutrient cycling, minimize nitrogen losses, and alter decomposition pathways in acidic soils.

Im a BM wrote:
* Academic Recognition: His scientific methodologies - such as dissolved organic nitrogen assays - and specific findings regarding how tannins influence soil and enteric emissions have been openly cited and built upon by international cohorts of climate and chemical researchers.

Im a BM wrote:
Accusations of 'scientific illiteracy' aimed at established researchers typically stem from informal internet forums, ideological debates, or non-expert commentary rather than peer evaluation. By all standard metrics of the scientific community - experimental methodology, publication history, and peer citation - Robert R. Northup is a highly literate and specialized contributor to his field."[/b]

Im a BM wrote:
I must correct one error Google made.

I did not research or publish anything about "enteric" emissions.

Google is mistaking the fact that my work is so often CITED by folks trying to apply my findings to mitigate (successfully!) "enteric" emissions of methane from cow guts. It doesn't mean that I, personally, ever worked with cow guts. But one of many things that plant polyphenols can do is reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted as bovine belches. Hey, it's a lot more fun to call them "cow farts"!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, to remind Into the Night how much it just BUGS THE HELL OUT OF ME that he is so widely recognized and respected as a scientist and chemist...

Google inquiry: "Can the biogeochemist known as Robert R. Northup in the scientific community be accurately characterized as 'scientifically illiterate'?"

Okay, Google has a very long answer and it may take more time than I care to spare in order to copy it all..

Google say: "No, it is entirely inaccurate to characterize biogeochemist Robert R. Northup as 'scientifically illiterate'.

Hilarious! You are trying to use Google as a science again!

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
You deny many theories of science.
You again show you have no idea what science is.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
In the scientific community, academic and scientific literacy is gauged by peer-reviewed contributions, methodological rigor, and impact on a field. Based on established scientific records, Dr. Northup is a trained researcher whose work has significantly advanced the understanding of ecological biochemistry.

Science is not a community.
Science is not an academy.
Science does not use consensus.
Science is not a 'contribution'.
Science is not a 'impact'.
Science is not a record.
There is no such thing as 'ecological biogeochemistry'.

Im a BM wrote:
* Peer-Reviewed Publications: Dr. Northup has authored foundational papers in respected scientific journals. (more details that I won't copy)

Science does not use consensus.
Science is not a publication.
Science is not a paper.
Science is not a journal.

Im a BM wrote:
* Impact on Biogeochemistry: His research demonstrated how complex organic compounds (like polyphenols and condensed tannins) regulate nutrient cycling, minimize nitrogen losses, and alter decomposition pathways in acidic soils.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Nutrient is not a cy cle.
Soil is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
* Academic Recognition: His scientific methodologies - such as dissolved organic nitrogen assays - and specific findings regarding how tannins influence soil and enteric emissions have been openly cited and built upon by international cohorts of climate and chemical researchers.

Science is not a method.
Nitrogen is not organic.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Climate is not an intestine.
Science is not a research.
Science is not an intestine.

Im a BM wrote:
Accusations of 'scientific illiteracy' aimed at established researchers typically stem from informal internet forums, ideological debates, or non-expert commentary rather than peer evaluation. By all standard metrics of the scientific community - experimental methodology, publication history, and peer citation - Robert R. Northup is a highly literate and specialized contributor to his field."[/b]

Science is not a researcher.
Science is not a 'peer evaluation'.
Science does not use consensus.
Science is not a metric.
Science is not a community.
Science is not a method.
Science is not a publication.
Science is not a citation.

Im a BM wrote:
I must correct one error Google made.

I did not research or publish anything about "enteric" emissions.

Google is mistaking the fact that my work is so often CITED by folks trying to apply my findings to mitigate (successfully!) "enteric" emissions of methane from cow guts. It doesn't mean that I, personally, ever worked with cow guts. But one of many things that plant polyphenols can do is reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted as bovine belches. Hey, it's a lot more fun to call them "cow farts"!

Science is not a citation.
Science is not a 'finding'.
Science is not a 'mitigation'.
Science is not an intestine.
Science is not a gas.
Science is not a cow.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
So what if I am not recognized by the international scientific community as having made major contributions to our understanding of Nature?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
So what if I am not recognized by the international scientific community as having made major contributions to our understanding of Nature?

Don't worry about it. There is no such "community" anyway. Go out and have a beer; you'll get over it.

Im a BM wrote:Oh, God, you got me again!

Im a BM wrote:I am so insecure about whether or not anyone believes that I really am some kind of respected "scientist" who made important discoveries...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Oh, God, you got me again!

I see that you picked up on the recurring theme.

Im a BM wrote:I am so insecure about whether or not anyone believes that I really am some kind of respected "scientist" who made important discoveries...

It would have been better to have acknowledged that you aren't any sort of scientist by any stretch of the imagination. Back in the day, you performed research on soil, and you did some of your work in the Peace Corps where you were indoctrinated into leftist/Marxist mind-numb. You weren't a scientist; you were a technician who was *told* he was a great scientist who was "making great discoveries." You desperately ate it all up, as your complete and utter dependence on your leftist thought-masters took hold and you lived exclusively for their approval. Nobody told you that scientists make science, not discoveries, leaving you none the wiser.

When your indoctrination was complete, and you were promoted to the rank of "biogeochemical," you were imbued with an obligation to save the world from those dreaded conservatives, and to rescue the planet from capitalism-induced human activity. You saw exactly how Republicans were torturing the Climate goddess, and were acidifying ocean alkalinity which, you were told by your Climate clergy, is accomplished by the dark magic of your political opposition.

To aid you in your defense of the global Climate, you took some college courses and learned some jargon. Of course, you fell asleep during the presentation on "Hydrocarbons" and woke up to a discussion on "Lipids" and thought they were one and the same. You completely missed the discussion on "Evaporation" and "Categorization." All-in-all, you learned some cool terms and developed a certain confidence that you could publish your political opinions as "Data." Good on you.

Enter reality. It was inevitable. One day or another you were going to learn that you weren't actually a scientist, and that your speculations and extrapolations aren't actually data. You published your papers in whatever publication would call your opinions "science" out of desperation for unreadable and unverifiable content ... and you waited for other desperate authors to cite your papers in the pursuit of getting their own opinions published as "science" by rags that were equally desperate for unintelligible content. You kept telling yourself "This must be why I am prohibited from defining my terms."

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
So what if I am not recognized by the international scientific community as having made major contributions to our understanding of Nature?

Don't worry about it. There is no such "community" anyway. Go out and have a beer; you'll get over it.

Oh, God, you got me again!

I am so insecure about whether or not anyone believes that I really am some kind of respected "scientist" who made important discoveries...

Im a BM wrote:
Lipids as a major source of what became petroleum...

Im a BM wrote:
It is possible that someday, somewhere we will discover petroleum that formed abiotically from geologic sources of hydrogen, H2, and inorganic carbon. That hasn't happened yet, but theory suggests that someday it might.

Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, the petroleum that we do mine as a source of "fossil fuel" formed from organic carbon created via photosynthesis. Whereas a coal formed from organic carbon piled up in ancient terrestrial wetlands, petroleum formed form organic carbon piled up on the shallow sea floor of ancient continental shelf. The chemical nature of terrestrial swampland organic matter and sea floor sludge organic matter is very different.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann was unable to comprehend my explanation for why LIPIDS are such an important source for what transformed into pure hydrocarbons. Lipids themselves are not hydrocarbons, but they have long hydrocarbon tails attached to carboxylic acid groups (-COOH). "Fatty acids", with the hydrocarbon tail being the "fat", and the carboxylic group to make it an aliphatic organic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Relative to most organic compounds, lipids have very high carbon to oxygen ratio, and very low carbon to hydrogen ratio. During geologic metamorphism, it takes very little change to turn lipids into pure hydrocarbon. Carboxylic groups are cleaved off and combined with hydrogen to make CO2 and H2O. The total entropy increases with all the CO2 and H2O produced, but there is plenty of chemical energy left behind in the pure hydrocarbon product.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann should look up the definition of "lipid". "Fatty acids" are not pure hydrocarbons. They are ALMOST pure hydrocarbons. The overwhelming majority of their mass is a hydrocarbon tail.

Im a BM wrote:
The fact that coal and petroleum formed from corpses of ancient photosynthetic organisms is not "controversial" among anyone who actually studied geology and chemistry. The difference between coal and petroleum results from the difference between the raw materials used to form them.

Im a BM wrote:
Whereas the dead microbial biomass that piled up on the shallow sea floor hundreds of millions of years ago was rich in lipids, the stuff in the coal swamps was very different. Composed primarily of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and tannin, coal swamp organic matter had a LOW carbon-to-oxygen ratio, and a HIGH carbon-to-hydrogen ratio. During geologic metamorphism, cleaving off oxygen consumed all the hydrogen to form H2O. The total entropy increased, and what was left behind was almost pure carbon as coal.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Lipids as a major source of what became petroleum...

Petroleum is not a lipid.

Im a BM wrote:
It is possible that someday, somewhere we will discover petroleum that formed abiotically from geologic sources of hydrogen, H2, and inorganic carbon. That hasn't happened yet, but theory suggests that someday it might.

Already happened.
Carbon is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, the petroleum that we do mine as a source of "fossil fuel" formed from organic carbon created via photosynthesis. Whereas a coal formed from organic carbon piled up in ancient terrestrial wetlands, petroleum formed form organic carbon piled up on the shallow sea floor of ancient continental shelf. The chemical nature of terrestrial swampland organic matter and sea floor sludge organic matter is very different.

Petroleum is not a fossil.
Carbon is not organic.
Petroleum is not photosynthesis.
Coal is not a wetland.
Petroleum is not a sea floor.
Petroleum is not a wetland.
The ocean is not a swamp.
You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann was unable to comprehend my explanation for why LIPIDS are such an important source for what transformed into pure hydrocarbons. Lipids themselves are not hydrocarbons, but they have long hydrocarbon tails attached to carboxylic acid groups (-COOH). "Fatty acids", with the hydrocarbon tail being the "fat", and the carboxylic group to make it an aliphatic organic acid.

Lipid is not a chemical.
Hydrocarbon is not a chemical.
Carboxylic is not a chemical.
Aliphatic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Relative to most organic compounds, lipids have very high carbon to oxygen ratio, and very low carbon to hydrogen ratio. During geologic metamorphism, it takes very little change to turn lipids into pure hydrocarbon. Carboxylic groups are cleaved off and combined with hydrogen to make CO2 and H2O. The total entropy increases with all the CO2 and H2O produced, but there is plenty of chemical energy left behind in the pure hydrocarbon product.

Lipid is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.
Hydrocarbon is not a chemical.
Carboxylic is not a chemical.
You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann should look up the definition of "lipid". "Fatty acids" are not pure hydrocarbons. They are ALMOST pure hydrocarbons. The overwhelming majority of their mass is a hydrocarbon tail.

Lipid is not a chemical.
Fatty is not a chemical.
Hydrocarbon is not a chemical.
Hydrocarbon tail is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The fact that coal and petroleum formed from corpses of ancient photosynthetic organisms is not "controversial" among anyone who actually studied geology and chemistry. The difference between coal and petroleum results from the difference between the raw materials used to form them.

Coal is not a corpse.
Petroleum is not a corpse.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
You deny geology.
You deny chemistry.
You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
Whereas the dead microbial biomass that piled up on the shallow sea floor hundreds of millions of years ago was rich in lipids, the stuff in the coal swamps was very different. Composed primarily of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and tannin, coal swamp organic matter had a LOW carbon-to-oxygen ratio, and a HIGH carbon-to-hydrogen ratio. During geologic metamorphism, cleaving off oxygen consumed all the hydrogen to form H2O. The total entropy increased, and what was left behind was almost pure carbon as coal.

Biomass is not a chemical.
Lipid is not a chemical.
Coal is not a swamp.
The ocean is not a swamp.
Cellulose is not a chemical.
Hemicellulose is not a chemical.
Lignin is not a chemical.
Tannin is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.

Im a BM wrote: These are just two out of 1745 members.

But with IBdaMann's 15,402 posts, and Into the Night's 24,517 posts, out of the 113,652 posts TOTAL that were EVER put up on this website...

These two guys have about four out of ten posts ever put up here.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
?

Petroleum is not a lipid.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Already happened.
Carbon is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Petroleum is not a fossil.
Carbon is not organic.
Petroleum is not photosynthesis.
Coal is not a wetland.
Petroleum is not a sea floor.
Petroleum is not a wetland.
The ocean is not a swamp.
You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Lipid is not a chemical.
Hydrocarbon is not a chemical.
Carboxylic is not a chemical.
Aliphatic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Lipid is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.
Hydrocarbon is not a chemical.
Carboxylic is not a chemical.
You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Lipid is not a chemical.
Fatty is not a chemical.
Hydrocarbon is not a chemical.
Hydrocarbon tail is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Coal is not a corpse.
Petroleum is not a corpse.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
You deny geology.
You deny chemistry.
You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
?

Biomass is not a chemical.
Lipid is not a chemical.
Coal is not a swamp.
The ocean is not a swamp.
Cellulose is not a chemical.
Hemicellulose is not a chemical.
Lignin is not a chemical.
Tannin is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.

Im a BM wrote:[b]Every one of Into the Night'as more than 24,000 posts is an interesting and informative science lesson!