Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium.. > Page 11

Page 11 of 13

06-05-2024 20:57
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2293)	sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:[quote]Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . If I am going to "dox" myself, I should insult myself while I'm at it. Technical point: Anyone can look up the term "petroleum coke". The comment "Petroleum does not contain any coke" is INCORRECT. Perhaps it could have said "Refined petroleum does not contain any coke." That would have been a correct statement, sort of. But it would have been a pivot response to the statement that "..petroleum also contains a lot of coke.." Besides, "refined petroleum" isn't even called "petroleum" anymore. Please, no stupid word games.
06-05-2024 21:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Im a BM wrote: Technical point: Anyone can look up the term "petroleum coke". The comment "Petroleum does not contain any coke" is INCORRECT. Please, no stupid word games. Petroleum does not contain any coke, nor is an ingredient in Coca-Cola. The stupid word games are YOURS, Sock. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. They are YOUR problems. 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
06-05-2024 21:28
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2293)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Technical point: Anyone can look up the term "petroleum coke". The comment "Petroleum does not contain any coke" is INCORRECT. Please, no stupid word games. Petroleum does not contain any coke, nor is an ingredient in Coca-Cola. The stupid word games are YOURS, Sock. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. They are YOUR problems. The natural assumption would be that "petroleum" refers to "unrefined petroleum". Is it your assertion that unrefined petroleum does not contain any coke? If so, you are WRONG AGAIN.
06-05-2024 21:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Technical point: Anyone can look up the term "petroleum coke". The comment "Petroleum does not contain any coke" is INCORRECT. Please, no stupid word games. Petroleum does not contain any coke, nor is an ingredient in Coca-Cola. The stupid word games are YOURS, Sock. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. They are YOUR problems. The natural assumption would be that "petroleum" refers to "unrefined petroleum". Is it your assertion that unrefined petroleum does not contain any coke? If so, you are WRONG AGAIN. Petroleum does not contain any coke. 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
06-05-2024 21:37
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2293)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Technical point: Anyone can look up the term "petroleum coke". The comment "Petroleum does not contain any coke" is INCORRECT. Please, no stupid word games. Petroleum does not contain any coke, nor is an ingredient in Coca-Cola. The stupid word games are YOURS, Sock. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. They are YOUR problems. The natural assumption would be that "petroleum" refers to "unrefined petroleum". Is it your assertion that unrefined petroleum does not contain any coke? If so, you are WRONG AGAIN. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Here is one definition: "Petroleum coke, abbreviated coke, pet coke, or petcoke, is a final carbon-rich solid material that derives from oil refining, and is one type of the group of fuels known as coke." Petroleum DOES contain coke. At least it does here in the real world.

06-05-2024 22:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Technical point: Anyone can look up the term "petroleum coke". The comment "Petroleum does not contain any coke" is INCORRECT. Please, no stupid word games. Petroleum does not contain any coke, nor is an ingredient in Coca-Cola. The stupid word games are YOURS, Sock. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. They are YOUR problems. The natural assumption would be that "petroleum" refers to "unrefined petroleum". Is it your assertion that unrefined petroleum does not contain any coke? If so, you are WRONG AGAIN. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Here is one definition: "Petroleum coke, abbreviated coke, pet coke, or petcoke, is a final carbon-rich solid material that derives from oil refining, and is one type of the group of fuels known as coke." Petroleum DOES contain coke. At least it does here in the real world. Redefinition fallacy. Petroleum does not contain coke. Your hallucinations do not change that. You do not get to declare reality for anyone else. 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
07-05-2024 00:49
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. .
07-05-2024 17:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14988)	Im a BM wrote:Here is one definition: "Petroleum coke, abbreviated coke, pet coke, or petcoke, is a final carbon-rich solid material that derives from oil refining, and is one type of the group of fuels known as coke." Ergo, according to this definition, coke is not petroleum. Coke is a different group of fuels. Try reading it again. Petroleum does NOT contain coke. Petroleum contains hydrocarbons. The petroleum refining process produces a byproduct that is rich in carbon, i.e. coke. Once the coke comes into existence, it is not in the petroleum.
07-05-2024 19:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. .
10-05-2024 05:28
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2293)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. .
11-05-2024 13:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. .
11-05-2024 19:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Stop spamming.
12-05-2024 00:02
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . We now have it, on the irrefutable and infallible authority of Into the Night, that this post by IBdaMann is "spam". Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
13-05-2024 01:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Stop spamming.
13-05-2024 04:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . "Stop spamming." - Into the Night We now have it, based on irrefutable and infallible authority, that this post by IBdaMann is "spam". Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.

14-05-2024 02:36
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . When I opened up this website a moment ago, I saw a list of the 15 most recently active threads. A DOZEN OF THE "LAST POST"s were by Into the Night. who says: "Stop spamming." - Into the Night We now have it, based on irrefutable and infallible authority, that this post by IBdaMann is "spam". Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
14-05-2024 23:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Stop spamming.
19-05-2024 01:45
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . When I opened up this website a moment ago, I saw a list of the 15 most recently active threads. A DOZEN OF THE "LAST POST"s were by Into the Night. who says: "Stop spamming." - Into the Night We now have it, based on irrefutable and infallible authority, that this post by IBdaMann is "spam". Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
19-05-2024 04:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	Stop whining. Stop spamming.
20-05-2024 21:17
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . When I opened up this website a moment ago, I saw a list of the 15 most recently active threads. A DOZEN OF THE "LAST POST"s were by Into the Night. who says: "Stop spamming." - Into the Night We now have it, based on irrefutable and infallible authority, that this post by IBdaMann is "spam". Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
24-05-2024 19:42
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . When I opened up this website a moment ago, I saw a list of the 15 most recently active threads. A DOZEN OF THE "LAST POST"s were by Into the Night. who says: "Stop spamming." - Into the Night We now have it, based on irrefutable and infallible authority, that this post by IBdaMann is "spam". If you look close enough you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it the three places where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
25-05-2024 00:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . If you look close enough, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
26-05-2024 02:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . If you look close enough and squint, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
31-05-2024 19:56
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . If you look close enough and squint, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
02-06-2024 23:40
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. . If you look close enough and squint, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
04-06-2024 19:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14988)	Robert Northup has resumed spamming this site again. Is this a precursor to his becoming banned? I hope he'll stop before he gets the boot.
04-06-2024 19:53
keepit ★★★★★ (3330)	ibd, I've gotten the boot from a few things before and each time i found something better (just like my grandmother told me when i was young). Bring it on.
04-06-2024 20:38
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2293)	IBdaMann wrote: Robert Northup has resumed spamming this site again. Is this a precursor to his becoming banned? I hope he'll stop before he gets the boot. Looks like sealover just doxed himself. AGAIN! Nobody can seem to stop him. Not even by spamming "Stop spamming", over and over and over. Branner will be very concerned about all the spamming, because he cares so much about this website. Branner must be very pleased by how much this site improved after the most scientifically skilled trolls joined, 7, 8, or 9 years ago. Gosh, I hope he intervenes to stop the self-doxing spammer fake scientist.
05-06-2024 19:32
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Robert Northup has resumed spamming this site again. Is this a precursor to his becoming banned? I hope he'll stop before he gets the boot. So, what would be a line that a malignant narcissist would say in THIS situation? "Look what you are making me do!" or maybe "You brought this on yourself!" Forcing IBdaMann to dox him is basically the same as doxing himself.
07-06-2024 00:01
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. Uploading this picture is one of the very few good things that IBdaMann has done in more than 9 years and 14-15 thousand posts on this website. I never learned how to upload anything here. IBdaMann almost certainly had malicious intentions for doxing, but what was inadvertently accomplished turned out to be a good thing. If you look close enough and squint, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.

11-06-2024 18:20
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. Uploading this picture is one of the very few good things that IBdaMann has done in more than 9 years and 14-15 thousand posts on this website. I never learned how to upload anything here. IBdaMann almost certainly had malicious intentions for doxing, but what was inadvertently accomplished turned out to be a good thing. If you look close enough and squint, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
15-06-2024 23:22
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	In the hope that Branner will allow me to have this thread in a moderated sub forum. Uploading the "Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties" to this website, as IBdaMann did, would not qualify as "doxing" to me, as a moderator. That is, uploading just the image. It would have been a welcomed response to my suggesting that trolls would be afraid to Google "Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties". Finding and uploading the image can hardly be described as a malicious effort to find personal information about someone else in order to publish it. I am delighted that the image is available already on the website, as I never learned how to upload ANYTHING on to the site. On the other hand, posting a Google map to someone's possible home is obviously straight up DOXING. And within the context of THIS post, IBdaMann did a bit more than make the image available for viewing. He wrote out the name of the member being doxed in three different places on the post. Rather than display any knowledge of science with commentary about the spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements, he simply declares that I don't have any knowledge of chemistry or other science. Point of comedy: The assertions within the post by Into the Night are laughably absurd. He insists that petroleum does not contain coke. Anyone who wants can Google "Petroleum coke" "Pet coke" or just "coke". He insists that natural gas does not occur along with coal or petroleum as a product of the fossil fuel formation process. Anyone who wants can Google how much methane is released from coal mines or flared off from oil wells. And if I get to moderate a sub forum, the discussion won't get cluttered up with absurd, unsupported anti scientific assertions and insults. And doxing posts will be considered totally uncool. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke. Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting] WRONG. You are still denying chemistry. At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ... ... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry. It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either. Uploading this picture is one of the very few good things that IBdaMann has done in more than 9 years and 14-15 thousand posts on this website. I never learned how to upload anything here. IBdaMann almost certainly had malicious intentions for doxing, but what was inadvertently accomplished turned out to be a good thing. If you look close enough and squint, you can sort of see the author name in very small letters on the picture. But it is easier to see it where IBdaMann wrote it out in big bold letters. Some might call it a beautiful picture being used to dox a site member.
16-06-2024 01:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14988)	sealover wrote: In the hope that Branner will allow me to have this thread in a moderated sub forum. I share your hope. sealover wrote: Uploading the "Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties" to this website, as IBdaMann did, would not qualify as "doxing" to me, as a moderator. That is, uploading just the image. It would have been a welcomed response to my suggesting that trolls would be afraid to Google "Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties". Now I'm confused. That is what has your name on it. That is what allows everyone to get all the other information about you, and you directed everyone to where it sits, just as plain as day, on the internet. sealover wrote: Finding and uploading the image can hardly be described as a malicious effort to find personal information about someone else in order to publish it. What if the "continuum" image with the artist's name were accompanied by an image of the artist, taken from the internet? Would you be delighted that the image is available on the website? sealover wrote: I am delighted that the image is available already on the website, ... I'll take that as a "yes." sealover wrote: On the other hand, posting a Google map to someone's possible home is obviously straight up DOXING. How? It's on the internet. Do you even know what the word "doxxing" means? I'll presume not. Allow me to explain. Doxxing is the divulging of information that has not been made public by the doxxed individual. For example, if I were to abscond with some of your medications and then publish that information with your other PII, that would be doxxing. On the other hand, if you publish that information on a medical topics internet board and I merely copy-paste what you made available, that is not doxxing. Similarly, if someone else copy-pastes what I copy-paste, he isn't doxxing you either. Copy-pasting from one internet site to another is not doxxing. You are the original source of that information out there on the internet. You doxxed yourself. sealover wrote: And within the context of THIS post, IBdaMann did a bit more than make the image available for viewing. Actually, all I can do with an image is make it available for viewing. sealover wrote: He wrote out the name of the member being doxed in three different places on the post. I can write "Robert R. Northup" a hundred times. There is no sufficiency of quantity that equates to doxxing. If you wondered what 100 "Robert R. Northup"s looks like, here you go: Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup Robert R. Northup It's still not doxxing. sealover wrote: Rather than display any knowledge of science with commentary about the spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements, he simply declares that I don't have any knowledge of chemistry or other science. Incorrect. You challenged everyone to go look at it, and you specified how to find it. I looked at it and posted it so that nobody would have to search for it. You put your name on it. Your name was included on what you made available to the public on the internet and on what you challenged everyone to see. sealover wrote: The assertions within the post by Into the Night are laughably absurd. He insists that petroleum does not contain coke. Petroleum can't possibly contain coke. Coke is a byproduct of a petroleum refining process, ... ergo coke is, by definition, something that is extracted from the petroleum. Anything still contained in the petroleum has not been extracted and is not yet coke. If you were a scientist and understood the importance of definitions, you wouldn't have made yourself look like an idiot who cannot follow basic logic. Also, "petcoke" is a solid. Chemists know what "solid" means and sadly, I don't have time to explain it to you right now. Petroleum is not a solid. Ask any chemist whether there is any solid material in a 100% liquid. What do you think a chemist will say? C'mon, what's your guess? Do you have any idea at all? No? sealover wrote: Anyone who wants can Google "Petroleum coke" "Pet coke" or just "coke". Were you unable to Google it or did you simply not want to? sealover wrote: He insists that natural gas does not occur along with coal or petroleum as a product of the fossil fuel formation process. There is no such thing as fuel for fossils, ergo there is no formation process for fuel for fossils. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Chemists know what hydrocarbons are. Chemists know that no fossils are sold commercially as fuel and that no fossils require any fuel. What kind of person is somehow confused about all of this? sealover wrote: And if I get to moderate a sub forum, the discussion won't get cluttered up with absurd, unsupported anti scientific assertions and insults. Are you saying that you will no longer be posting anything? I can't imagine you pulling an instant-180 and immediately ditching your Climate faith and its science denialism. sealover wrote: And doxing posts will be considered totally uncool. So internet links are out under your censorship? They're "uncool"? Well, I can see how not having "holy links" can be a positive.
19-06-2024 22:43
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	This thread really is intended to be about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, without reducing our beneficial use of fossil fuel energy. This picture is off topic, but I am glad that someone added it to the thread. Perhaps a new member, or a returning old member, who was able to actually pass high school chemistry, would know how to comment on this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements. For example, does it or does it not commit "signpost error" regarding where the lanthanides and actinides begin or end? Perhaps a new member, or a returning member, who was able to actually pass high school chemistry would want to discuss ways to produce just as much energy as before from fossil fuel combustion while reducing emission of greenhouse gases. Presumably, someone with minimal education knows what the terms "fossil fuel" and "greenhouse gas" mean in the actual common language that people use for communication. The kind of thing a DICTIONARY would agree virtually everyone else about.
20-06-2024 00:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	sealover wrote: ...removing your doxing of yourself... This thread really is intended to be about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, without reducing our beneficial use of fossil fuel energy. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' (except as a religious artifact). No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Fossils are not fuel. Fossils don't burn. A chemist knows better, which shows you aren't a chemist. sealover wrote: Perhaps a new member, or a returning member, who was able to actually pass high school chemistry would want to discuss ways to produce just as much energy as before from fossil fuel combustion while reducing emission of greenhouse gases. Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. sealover wrote: Presumably, someone with minimal education knows what the terms "fossil fuel" and "greenhouse gas" mean in the actual common language that people use for communication. Fossils are not used as fuel. 'Greenhouse gas' is a meaningless buzzword. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. sealover wrote: The kind of thing a DICTIONARY would agree virtually everyone else about. Try English. It works better. Dictionaries do not define any word. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. False authority fallacy. Buzzword fallacies. Your religion is not science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-06-2024 18:13
sealover ★★★★☆ (1818)	As the recipient of the "Gullible Moron" award, I am in a special position to administer the newest GULLIBILITY TEST. ARE YOU SO INCREDIBLY GULLIBLE THAT YOU CAN BE CONVINCED THAT... 1. There is no such thing as fossil fuel. 2. Coal does not form from dead vegetation of ancient wetlands. 3. Petroleum does not form from dead marine microorganisms buried in what were shallow seas of the ancient continental shelf. 4. Petroleum was actually formed by a process that has never been observed under conditions that have never been observed, deep beneath the surface by purely abiotic processes. And continues to be formed today EVERYWHERE, from below the sea floor to below the Himalayas, by the same magic process. 5. Petroleum contains NO coke. 6. Natural gas is NOT found along with coal and petroleum. 7. There is no value even allowing discussion of how to use fossil fuel in a way that provides the desired energy with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
29-06-2024 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (23078)	sealover wrote: ARE YOU SO INCREDIBLY GULLIBLE THAT YOU CAN BE CONVINCED THAT... 1. There is no such thing as fossil fuel. There isn't. Fossils don't burn. sealover wrote: 2. Coal does not form from dead vegetation of ancient wetlands. The origin of coal is unknown. sealover wrote: 3. Petroleum does not form from dead marine microorganisms buried in what were shallow seas of the ancient continental shelf. It doesn't. sealover wrote: 4. Petroleum was actually formed by a process that has never been observed under conditions that have never been observed, It has been observed. We use the process on an industrial scale. sealover wrote: deep beneath the surface by purely abiotic processes. No biology here. sealover wrote: And continues to be formed today EVERYWHERE, from below the sea floor to below the Himalayas, by the same magic process. I realize you consider chemistry magick, but that's because you do not understand any of it. You are so enamored by it that you spam lengthy buzzwords to try to show your 'expertise'. sealover wrote: 5. Petroleum contains NO coke. It doesn't. sealover wrote: 6. Natural gas is NOT found along with coal and petroleum. It is, but it's also found in numerous other sources, such as swamps, manure piles, farts, rotting vegetation, landfills, and can even by synthesized using the same process that produces oil (the Fischer-Tropsche process). sealover wrote: 7. There is no value even allowing discussion of how to use fossil fuel in a way that provides the desired energy with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. No such thing as 'fossil fuels'. No energy there! There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Hmmmmm. The gullibility is YOURS! You actually believe: * You can create energy out of nothing! * You can convince anyone that you know any chemistry by using buzzwords! * You can convince anyone by spamming! * You can somehow burn a fossil! * You can describe events millions of years ago as an eyewitness! It is YOU that believes in magick, ya gullible bozo. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 29-06-2024 22:22
30-06-2024 03:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14988)	sealover wrote:ARE YOU SO INCREDIBLY GULLIBLE THAT YOU CAN BE CONVINCED THAT.. This is going to be awesome. sealover wrote: 1. There is no such thing as fossil fuel. You still have not identified any fossils that require fuel. How long have you had to research one? sealover wrote: 2. Coal does not form from dead vegetation of ancient wetlands. When were you going to show this? sealover wrote: 3. Petroleum does not form from dead marine microorganisms buried in what were shallow seas of the ancient continental shelf. You still have yet to show how any life form can possibly decay into a higher form of usable energy, in clear violation of thermodynamics, and also show that the Fischer-Tropsh process is not how hydrocarbons actually form. sealover wrote: 4. Petroleum was actually formed by a process that has never been observed under conditions that have never been observed, You were going to explain how all of the Fischer-Tropsh processes that have been undertaken were somehow never observed. sealover wrote: 5. Petroleum contains NO coke. You were going to explain how something extracted from petroleum can still reside within the petroleum. sealover wrote: 6. Natural gas is NOT found along with coal and petroleum. Nobody claimed that natural gas is not found with petroleum. sealover wrote: 7. There is no value even allowing discussion of how to use fossil fuel in a way that provides the desired energy with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. You still haven't defined "greenhouse effect" in any way that doesn't violate physics. Once you do that, we can discuss definition of "greenhouse gas."
02-07-2024 18:16
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2293)	This thread really is intended to be about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, without reducing our beneficial use of fossil fuel energy. This picture is off topic, but I am glad that someone added it to the thread. Perhaps a new member, or a returning old member, who was able to actually pass high school chemistry, would know how to comment on this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements. For example, does it or does it not commit "signpost error" regarding where the lanthanides and actinides begin or end? Perhaps a new member, or a returning member, who was able to actually pass high school chemistry would want to discuss ways to produce just as much energy as before from fossil fuel combustion while reducing emission of greenhouse gases. Presumably, someone with minimal education knows what the terms "fossil fuel" and "greenhouse gas" mean in the actual common language that people use for communication. The kind of thing a DICTIONARY would agree with virtually everyone else about. WORD GAME FUN! Milk does not contain butter. Because petroleum does not contain coke. Butter can be extracted from milk. Coke can be extracted from petroleum. But as the two trolls responsible for more than one third of ALL posts on this website have made clear: Petroleum does not contain coke. Therefore, milk does not contain butter. So what? Science is not a word game. Trolls are not scientists. Not even close.
03-07-2024 10:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14988)	Im a BM wrote: Milk does not contain butter. Correct. Milk does not contain butter. Butter can be made from the cream. Coal does not contain diamond. Diamond can be made from the carbon. Petroleum does not contain coke. Coke can be made from refining oil. Why do I have to teach you this stuff?

Page 11 of 13

Join the debate Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..:

Threads	Replies	Last post
What happened to all the CO2 doomsday posts?	84	03-06-2025 04:34
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	112	07-04-2025 19:09
There is "No such thing" as "Fossil fuel"?	6	31-05-2024 21:10
Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?	33	04-02-2024 08:12
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16