| 23-12-2025 05:51 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(23455) |
Stop spamming. |
| 23-12-2025 21:31 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
"You can drill for oil in Hawaii." - Into the Night
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Where to drill for magic petroleum.
Let's pretend that the fairy tale is true.
It tells us exactly where to drill for oil.
Anywhere. It is best to drill (and/or frack) where oil is trapped near the surface.
Im a BM wrote:
Three of the best places would be Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone.
Not necessarily. Oil is formed there, yes. It is not trapped near the surface there in large quantities.
Im a BM wrote:
Hawaii sits on a massive plate of sea floor, where a "hot spot" brings magma to the surface. All that magic petroleum, trapped under the sea floor, would have the perfect place to escape. The laws of physics would drive it there. A shallow well should be able to siphon it off as it rises to the surface. Wildcatters should be heading to Hawaii for easy pickings.
You can drill for oil in Hawaii.
Im a BM wrote:
Iceland is above sea level where the sea floor is spreading wide open. Magic petroleum trapped under the sea floor could not help but be driven to the surface there. Shallow wells in Iceland should be able to catch that magic stuff, as the magma rises to the surface there.
People already drill along that ocean ridge. See the North Sea oil projects.
Im a BM wrote:
Yellowstone sits above a massive continental plate that presumably trapped a bunch of magic petroleum beneath it. Hydrogen is still emitted to the surface there. Magic petroleum, presumably formed from some of that hydrogen should be rising up along with it, as it is squeezed out under pressure toward the only flow path up and out. Wildcatters shouldn't have to dig very deep to find it.
There are oil wells already around Yellowstone (not in Yellowstone itself, being a national park).
Im a BM wrote:
NOT!
But in the real world, on a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change in the real world, perhaps we should focus on real world fossil fuel.
Like the thread title suggests.
Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel.
Blatant lie. I can NOT "drill for oil in Hawaii".
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL to claim, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii."
Wait for the "RQAA" rebuttal/explanation.
Just say "No!" to SPAM! |
| 23-12-2025 23:58 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Im a BM wrote:
"You can drill for oil in Hawaii." - Into the Night
Is that TRUE? There is only one way to find out. Ask GOOGLE!
"Is it true that 'you can drill for oil in Hawaii'?"
Google's reply is gentle, but firm:
"No, you cannot drill for oil in Hawaii because the islands lack.."
Google is absolutely right.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Where to drill for magic petroleum.
Let's pretend that the fairy tale is true.
It tells us exactly where to drill for oil.
Anywhere. It is best to drill (and/or frack) where oil is trapped near the surface.
Im a BM wrote:
Three of the best places would be Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone.
Not necessarily. Oil is formed there, yes. It is not trapped near the surface there in large quantities.
Im a BM wrote:
Hawaii sits on a massive plate of sea floor, where a "hot spot" brings magma to the surface. All that magic petroleum, trapped under the sea floor, would have the perfect place to escape. The laws of physics would drive it there. A shallow well should be able to siphon it off as it rises to the surface. Wildcatters should be heading to Hawaii for easy pickings.
You can drill for oil in Hawaii.
Im a BM wrote:
Iceland is above sea level where the sea floor is spreading wide open. Magic petroleum trapped under the sea floor could not help but be driven to the surface there. Shallow wells in Iceland should be able to catch that magic stuff, as the magma rises to the surface there.
People already drill along that ocean ridge. See the North Sea oil projects.
Im a BM wrote:
Yellowstone sits above a massive continental plate that presumably trapped a bunch of magic petroleum beneath it. Hydrogen is still emitted to the surface there. Magic petroleum, presumably formed from some of that hydrogen should be rising up along with it, as it is squeezed out under pressure toward the only flow path up and out. Wildcatters shouldn't have to dig very deep to find it.
There are oil wells already around Yellowstone (not in Yellowstone itself, being a national park).
Im a BM wrote:
NOT!
But in the real world, on a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change in the real world, perhaps we should focus on real world fossil fuel.
Like the thread title suggests.
Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel.
Blatant lie. I can NOT "drill for oil in Hawaii".
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL to claim, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii."
Wait for the "RQAA" rebuttal/explanation.
Just say "No!" to SPAM! |
| 24-12-2025 05:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Blatant lie. I can NOT "drill for oil in Hawaii".
Never said you could.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL to claim, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii."
You are deluded. I never made any such claim. YOU DID.
Im a BM wrote:
Wait for the "RQAA" rebuttal/explanation.
Just say "No!" to SPAM!
You can't blame your spamming on anybody else. It is YOUR spamming.
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 |
| 24-12-2025 07:03 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
page 3 of this thread, just over 1/3 way down, August 31, 2022, 19:43
Honesty has never been your strong suit, Into the Night.
You deny that you claimed, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii", you LIAR.
Anyone can go to page three of this thread and see your original post.
It is also right here below, about half way into the post. YOUR assertion.
"You can drill for oil in Hawaii"
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Where to drill for magic petroleum.
Let's pretend that the fairy tale is true.
It tells us exactly where to drill for oil.
Anywhere. It is best to drill (and/or frack) where oil is trapped near the surface.
Im a BM wrote:
Three of the best places would be Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone.
Not necessarily. Oil is formed there, yes. It is not trapped near the surface there in large quantities.
Im a BM wrote:
Hawaii sits on a massive plate of sea floor, where a "hot spot" brings magma to the surface. All that magic petroleum, trapped under the sea floor, would have the perfect place to escape. The laws of physics would drive it there. A shallow well should be able to siphon it off as it rises to the surface. Wildcatters should be heading to Hawaii for easy pickings.
You can drill for oil in Hawaii.
Im a BM wrote:
Iceland is above sea level where the sea floor is spreading wide open. Magic petroleum trapped under the sea floor could not help but be driven to the surface there. Shallow wells in Iceland should be able to catch that magic stuff, as the magma rises to the surface there.
People already drill along that ocean ridge. See the North Sea oil projects.
Im a BM wrote:
Yellowstone sits above a massive continental plate that presumably trapped a bunch of magic petroleum beneath it. Hydrogen is still emitted to the surface there. Magic petroleum, presumably formed from some of that hydrogen should be rising up along with it, as it is squeezed out under pressure toward the only flow path up and out. Wildcatters shouldn't have to dig very deep to find it.
There are oil wells already around Yellowstone (not in Yellowstone itself, being a national park).
Im a BM wrote:
NOT!
But in the real world, on a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change in the real world, perhaps we should focus on real world fossil fuel.
Like the thread title suggests.
Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel. |
| 24-12-2025 10:38 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
page 3 of this thread, just over 1/3 way down, August 31, 2022, 19:43
Honesty has never been your strong suit, Into the Night.
You deny that you claimed, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii", you LIAR.
Anyone can go to page three of this thread and see your original post.
It is also right here below, about half way into the post. YOUR assertion.
"You can drill for oil in Hawaii"
You also claimed that "the North Sea oil projects" were "along the ocean ridge". Actually... well I'll let Google spell it out for you.
Question to Google: "Are the North Sea oil fields on the continental shelf or on the ocean ridge?"
Google says: "The North Sea oil fields are on the continental shelf, the submerged extension of the European landmass, not on deep ocean ridges; this shallow sediment-rich area provides the perfect conditions.. for oil and gas to form and accumulate beneath the seabed, making it a prime location for exploration and extraction."
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Where to drill for magic petroleum.
Let's pretend that the fairy tale is true.
It tells us exactly where to drill for oil.
Anywhere. It is best to drill (and/or frack) where oil is trapped near the surface.
Im a BM wrote:
Three of the best places would be Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone.
Not necessarily. Oil is formed there, yes. It is not trapped near the surface there in large quantities.
Im a BM wrote:
Hawaii sits on a massive plate of sea floor, where a "hot spot" brings magma to the surface. All that magic petroleum, trapped under the sea floor, would have the perfect place to escape. The laws of physics would drive it there. A shallow well should be able to siphon it off as it rises to the surface. Wildcatters should be heading to Hawaii for easy pickings.
You can drill for oil in Hawaii.
Im a BM wrote:
Iceland is above sea level where the sea floor is spreading wide open. Magic petroleum trapped under the sea floor could not help but be driven to the surface there. Shallow wells in Iceland should be able to catch that magic stuff, as the magma rises to the surface there.
People already drill along that ocean ridge. See the North Sea oil projects.
Im a BM wrote:
Yellowstone sits above a massive continental plate that presumably trapped a bunch of magic petroleum beneath it. Hydrogen is still emitted to the surface there. Magic petroleum, presumably formed from some of that hydrogen should be rising up along with it, as it is squeezed out under pressure toward the only flow path up and out. Wildcatters shouldn't have to dig very deep to find it.
There are oil wells already around Yellowstone (not in Yellowstone itself, being a national park).
Im a BM wrote:
NOT!
But in the real world, on a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change in the real world, perhaps we should focus on real world fossil fuel.
Like the thread title suggests.
Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel. |
| 24-12-2025 23:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
page 3 of this thread, just over 1/3 way down, August 31, 2022, 19:43
Honesty has never been your strong suit, Into the Night.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You deny that you claimed, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii", you LIAR.
Fake quote.
Im a BM wrote:
Anyone can go to page three of this thread and see your original post.
It is also right here below, about half way into the post. YOUR assertion.
"You can drill for oil in Hawaii"
Fake quote.
Im a BM wrote:
You also claimed that "the North Sea oil projects" were "along the ocean ridge". Actually... well I'll let Google spell it out for you.
Fake quote.
Im a BM wrote:
Question to Google: "Are the North Sea oil fields on the continental shelf or on the ocean ridge?"
Google says: "The North Sea oil fields are on the continental shelf, the submerged extension of the European landmass, not on deep ocean ridges; this shallow sediment-rich area provides the perfect conditions.. for oil and gas to form and accumulate beneath the seabed, making it a prime location for exploration and extraction."
Fake quote.
It ain't gonna work, 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 |
| 24-12-2025 23:33 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
ANYONE can fact check this one independently.
Step one, you open up Google and ask "Are the North Sea oil fields on the continental shelf or on the ocean ridge?"
Step two, you discover whether or not my methodology and results are reproducible, as per the Scientific Method.
You too should the same response from Google that I did.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
page 3 of this thread, just over 1/3 way down, August 31, 2022, 19:43
Honesty has never been your strong suit, Into the Night.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You deny that you claimed, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii", you LIAR.
Fake quote.
Im a BM wrote:
Anyone can go to page three of this thread and see your original post.
It is also right here below, about half way into the post. YOUR assertion.
"You can drill for oil in Hawaii"
Fake quote.
Im a BM wrote:
You also claimed that "the North Sea oil projects" were "along the ocean ridge". Actually... well I'll let Google spell it out for you.
Fake quote.
Im a BM wrote:
Question to Google: "Are the North Sea oil fields on the continental shelf or on the ocean ridge?"
Google says: "The North Sea oil fields are on the continental shelf, the submerged extension of the European landmass, not on deep ocean ridges; this shallow sediment-rich area provides the perfect conditions.. for oil and gas to form and accumulate beneath the seabed, making it a prime location for exploration and extraction."
Fake quote.
It ain't gonna work, Robert. |
| 25-12-2025 10:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
ANYONE can fact check this one independently.
Step one, you open up Google and ask "Are the North Sea oil fields on the continental shelf or on the ocean ridge?"
YARP
[b]Im a BM wrote:
Step two, you discover whether or not my methodology and results are reproducible, as per the Scientific Method. Science is not a method.
Im a BM wrote:
You too should the same response from Google that I did.
Science is not Google or any other website.
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 |
| 25-12-2025 17:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
ANYONE can fact check this one independently.
Step one, you open up Google and ask "Are the North Sea oil fields on the continental shelf or on the ocean ridge?"
YARP
[b]Im a BM wrote:
Step two, you discover whether or not my methodology and results are reproducible, as per the Scientific Method. Science is not a method.
Im a BM wrote:
You too should the same response from Google that I did.
Science is not Google or any other website.
Science is not this, that, OR the other thing that science is not.
However, the North Sea oil field are, in fact, on the CONTINENTAL SHELF.
They do not yield magic petroleum that forms abiotically from inorganic carbon of geologic origin.
The mechanisms of biological origin for petroleum in continental shelves is very well understood, and consistent throughout the world.
The fairy tale of magic petroleum forming deep in the crust with no need for photosynthesis to provide organic carbon is actually kind of STUPID. |
| 25-12-2025 23:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Science is not this, that, OR the other thing that science is not.
Frustrated? It's only borne out of your own illiteracy.
Im a BM wrote:
However, the North Sea oil field are, in fact, on the CONTINENTAL SHELF.
Irrelevance fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
They do not yield magic petroleum that forms abiotically from inorganic carbon of geologic origin.
Yes it does. Carbon is not organic. You are attempting to deny the Fischer-Tropsche process again.
Im a BM wrote:
The mechanisms of biological origin for petroleum in continental shelves is very well understood, and consistent throughout the world.
There is no 'biological origin for petroleum'.
Im a BM wrote:
The fairy tale of magic petroleum forming deep in the crust with no need for photosynthesis to provide organic carbon is actually kind of STUPID.
Carbon is not organic. You are attempting to deny the Fischer-Tropsche process again.
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 |
| 26-12-2025 21:03 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
"There is no 'biological origin for petroleum'" - Into the Night
This must be an absolute fact, if ITN declares it to be so.
Then again, who knows what the terms really mean?
Maybe photosynthesis isn't really "biological".
It would not persuade him to be shown references from textbooks or scientific papers about the reality of biological origin for petroleum.
He will keep his sources of knowledge as a closely guarded secret.
Something about "Fischer-Tropsche process" and "RQAA", with no need to cite any source other than personal omniscience as absolute irrefutable proof.
The same way he knows that VEGETABLE OIL is a CARBOHYDRATE, because he knows that plants simply cannot synthesize hydrocarbons. "RQAA", dumbass, so don't argue about it.
My FAVORITE quote from Into the Night to me is:
"You are NOT a chemist, a scientist, or an 'expert' of any kind."
My second most favorite quote from Into the Night is:
"You are describing yourself."
Many candidates for third place, but I'll go with:
"You deny science."
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Science is not this, that, OR the other thing that science is not.
Frustrated? It's only borne out of your own illiteracy.
Im a BM wrote:
However, the North Sea oil field are, in fact, on the CONTINENTAL SHELF.
Irrelevance fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
They do not yield magic petroleum that forms abiotically from inorganic carbon of geologic origin.
Yes it does. Carbon is not organic. You are attempting to deny the Fischer-Tropsche process again.
Im a BM wrote:
The mechanisms of biological origin for petroleum in continental shelves is very well understood, and consistent throughout the world.
There is no 'biological origin for petroleum'.
Im a BM wrote:
The fairy tale of magic petroleum forming deep in the crust with no need for photosynthesis to provide organic carbon is actually kind of STUPID.
Carbon is not organic. You are attempting to deny the Fischer-Tropsche process again. |
| 27-12-2025 08:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
"There is no 'biological origin for petroleum'" - Into the Night
This must be an absolute fact, if ITN declares it to be so.
Then again, who knows what the terms really mean?
Chemists...Germans...anybody that has studied WW2...
Im a BM wrote:
Maybe photosynthesis isn't really "biological".
What 'photosynthesis'???
Im a BM wrote:
It would not persuade him to be shown references from textbooks or scientific papers about the reality of biological origin for petroleum.
Science isn't a book. Science isn't a paper. The Fischer-Tropsche process requires no biological sources for the synthesis of petroleum.
Im a BM wrote:
He will keep his sources of knowledge as a closely guarded secret.
Nothing closely guarded about this process.
Im a BM wrote:
Something about "Fischer-Tropsche process" and "RQAA", with no need to cite any source other than personal omniscience as absolute irrefutable proof.
RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
The same way he knows that VEGETABLE OIL is a CARBOHYDRATE, because he knows that plants simply cannot synthesize hydrocarbons. "RQAA", dumbass, so don't argue about it.
Plants contain no hydrocarbons. Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate.
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 |
| 05-01-2026 22:32 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
"You are a moron." - IBdaMann
"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons.
Amber is not a hydrocarbon and alone is not a fossil either.
Im a BM wrote:Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito.
The mosquito was the fossil, not the amber.
Im a BM wrote:Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago.
You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing.
There is no such thing as "remains of hydrocarbon resin.". There is no such thing as "fossilized hydrocarbons."
Im a BM wrote:Many trees produce polyterpene resin to protect themselves from wood-boring herbivores, and this often traps small insects and other organisms.
Terpenes are hydrocarbons with the basic formula C(5n)H(8n)
Amber is not a hydrocarbon.
Unlike hydrocarbons (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), amber's chemical structure is not homogeneous and includes oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:Is amber a "fossil"?
Typically not. More information needs to be provided.
Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?
Does the term "dog food" mean food for a dog?
Does the term "baby formula" mean formula for a baby?
Does the term "car alarm" mean an alarm for a car?
Does the term "jet fuel" mean fuel for a jet?
Does the term "cheese grater"mean a grater for cheese?
Is the goal of the word game obsession to confuse and derail discussions that run against the Marxist agenda ?
Amber is not a hydrocarbon, it is not a fossil and it is not burned for fuel...
"You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing. There is no such thing as 'remains of hydrocarbon resin'."
Shut up. Just shut up. You had me at "moron"! You had me at "moron". |
| 06-01-2026 00:26 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
"You are a moron." - IBdaMann
"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons.
Amber is not a hydrocarbon and alone is not a fossil either.
Im a BM wrote:Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito.
The mosquito was the fossil, not the amber.
Im a BM wrote:Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago.
You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing.
There is no such thing as "remains of hydrocarbon resin.". There is no such thing as "fossilized hydrocarbons."
Im a BM wrote:Many trees produce polyterpene resin to protect themselves from wood-boring herbivores, and this often traps small insects and other organisms.
Terpenes are hydrocarbons with the basic formula C(5n)H(8n)
Amber is not a hydrocarbon.
Unlike hydrocarbons (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), amber's chemical structure is not homogeneous and includes oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:Is amber a "fossil"?
Typically not. More information needs to be provided.
Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?
Does the term "dog food" mean food for a dog?
Does the term "baby formula" mean formula for a baby?
Does the term "car alarm" mean an alarm for a car?
Does the term "jet fuel" mean fuel for a jet?
Does the term "cheese grater"mean a grater for cheese?
Is the goal of the word game obsession to confuse and derail discussions that run against the Marxist agenda ?
Amber is not a hydrocarbon, it is not a fossil and it is not burned for fuel...
"You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing. There is no such thing as 'remains of hydrocarbon resin'."
Shut up. Just shut up. You had me at "moron"! You had me at "moron".
Amber is not a fossil. It is most similar to plastic. It is not a hydrocarbon. Tree sap was never a hydrocarbon.
While it does burn, it makes a lousy fuel, due to it's expense and low BTU.
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 06-01-2026 00:27 |
| 06-01-2026 00:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You are a moron." - IBdaMann
"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons.
Amber is not a hydrocarbon and alone is not a fossil either.
Im a BM wrote:Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito.
The mosquito was the fossil, not the amber.
Im a BM wrote:Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago.
You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing.
There is no such thing as "remains of hydrocarbon resin.". There is no such thing as "fossilized hydrocarbons."
Im a BM wrote:Many trees produce polyterpene resin to protect themselves from wood-boring herbivores, and this often traps small insects and other organisms.
Terpenes are hydrocarbons with the basic formula C(5n)H(8n)
Amber is not a hydrocarbon.
Unlike hydrocarbons (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), amber's chemical structure is not homogeneous and includes oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:Is amber a "fossil"?
Typically not. More information needs to be provided.
Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?
Does the term "dog food" mean food for a dog?
Does the term "baby formula" mean formula for a baby?
Does the term "car alarm" mean an alarm for a car?
Does the term "jet fuel" mean fuel for a jet?
Does the term "cheese grater"mean a grater for cheese?
Is the goal of the word game obsession to confuse and derail discussions that run against the Marxist agenda ?
Amber is not a hydrocarbon, it is not a fossil and it is not burned for fuel...
"You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing. There is no such thing as 'remains of hydrocarbon resin'."
Shut up. Just shut up. You had me at "moron"! You had me at "moron".
Amber is not a fossil. It is most similar to plastic. It is not a hydrocarbon. Tree sap was never a hydrocarbon.
While it does burn, it makes a lousy fuel, due to it's expense and low BTU.
Trees produce terpenes, which are HYDROCARBONS with chemical formula C(5n)H(8n). Polyterpenes are what comprise the resin that becomes amber.
By the time it becomes amber, the hydrocarbon structure gets "oxygenated" and much of it is no longer in its original hydrocarbon form.
Resinite seams found in coal, comprised of amber, often contain little trapped insects. This suggests that coal might have formed from dead biomass, with dead insects trapped in dead tree hydrocarbon polyterpene resin.
I'm sure you "RQAA"d some definition for "hydrocarbon" that excludes terpenes.
Knowing that terpenes are produced by vegetation, that can ONLY mean they are "carbohydrates", unless they are protein. Right?
Will ITN EVER reveal the secret definitions behind his "no such thing" assertions?
Vegetable oil and polyterpenes are "carbohydrates", right?
The FAKE "chemists" behind the "Nutrition Facts" labels are LYING when the label says that vegetable oil contains ZERO grams of "carbohydrate". They need ITN to go tell them that they don't even know what carbohydrates ARE. They can't possibly know what "hydrocarbons" are either, if they think that PLANTS can make them (vegetable oil, terpenes, etc.). Right, ITN? |
| 07-01-2026 02:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Trees produce terpenes, which are HYDROCARBONS with chemical formula C(5n)H(8n). Polyterpenes are what comprise the resin that becomes amber.
Terpenes are not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
By the time it becomes amber, the hydrocarbon structure gets "oxygenated" and much of it is no longer in its original hydrocarbon form.
Amber is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Resinite seams found in coal, comprised of amber, often contain little trapped insects. This suggests that coal might have formed from dead biomass, with dead insects trapped in dead tree hydrocarbon polyterpene resin.
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. Coal is not a terpene either.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure you "RQAA"d some definition for "hydrocarbon" that excludes terpenes.
Terpenes are not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Knowing that terpenes are produced by vegetation, that can ONLY mean they are "carbohydrates", unless they are protein. Right?
They are carbohydrates.
Im a BM wrote:
Will ITN EVER reveal the secret definitions behind his "no such thing" assertions?
Nonsense random words ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
Vegetable oil and polyterpenes are "carbohydrates", right?
Yup.
Im a BM wrote:
The FAKE "chemists" behind the "Nutrition Facts" labels are LYING when the label says that vegetable oil contains ZERO grams of "carbohydrate". They need ITN to go tell them that they don't even know what carbohydrates ARE. They can't possibly know what "hydrocarbons" are either, if they think that PLANTS can make them (vegetable oil, terpenes, etc.). Right, ITN?
Chemistry is not a marketing label.
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 |
| 07-01-2026 02:23 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Google is MUCH smarter than Into the Night
I asked God... errr, I asked GOOGLE this question:
"Are terpenes classified in organic chemistry as 'carbohydrate'?"
Unlike that Chemistry Clown, Google knows how chemicals are classified.
Google's answer was:
"No, terpenes are not classified as carbohydrate in organic chemistry; they are hydrocarbons (or oxygenated derivatives known as terpenoids) built from isoprene units... distinct from carbohydrates which are polyhydroxy aldehydes or ketones (sugars)."
Since I add my vote to Google's (her answer is the same as mine) that makes us the WINNER, and Into the Night is the LOSER!
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Trees produce terpenes, which are HYDROCARBONS with chemical formula C(5n)H(8n). Polyterpenes are what comprise the resin that becomes amber.
Terpenes are not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
By the time it becomes amber, the hydrocarbon structure gets "oxygenated" and much of it is no longer in its original hydrocarbon form.
Amber is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Resinite seams found in coal, comprised of amber, often contain little trapped insects. This suggests that coal might have formed from dead biomass, with dead insects trapped in dead tree hydrocarbon polyterpene resin.
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. Coal is not a terpene either.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure you "RQAA"d some definition for "hydrocarbon" that excludes terpenes.
Terpenes are not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Knowing that terpenes are produced by vegetation, that can ONLY mean they are "carbohydrates", unless they are protein. Right?
They are carbohydrates.
Im a BM wrote:
Will ITN EVER reveal the secret definitions behind his "no such thing" assertions?
Nonsense random words ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
Vegetable oil and polyterpenes are "carbohydrates", right?
Yup.
Im a BM wrote:
The FAKE "chemists" behind the "Nutrition Facts" labels are LYING when the label says that vegetable oil contains ZERO grams of "carbohydrate". They need ITN to go tell them that they don't even know what carbohydrates ARE. They can't possibly know what "hydrocarbons" are either, if they think that PLANTS can make them (vegetable oil, terpenes, etc.). Right, ITN?
Chemistry is not a marketing label. |
| 07-01-2026 03:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Google is MUCH smarter than Into the Night
I asked God... errr, I asked GOOGLE this question:
You are not Google. Chemistry is not a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
"Are terpenes classified in organic chemistry as 'carbohydrate'?"
Unlike that Chemistry Clown, Google knows how chemicals are classified.
Google's answer was:
"No, terpenes are not classified as carbohydrate in organic chemistry; they are hydrocarbons (or oxygenated derivatives known as terpenoids) built from isoprene units... distinct from carbohydrates which are polyhydroxy aldehydes or ketones (sugars)."
Google doesn't 'answer'. Google is a search engine. You are not Google. Terpenes are not hydrocarbons.
Im a BM wrote:
Since I add my vote to Google's (her answer is the same as mine) that makes us the WINNER, and Into the Night is the LOSER!
You are not Google. Chemistry is not a search engine.
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 |
| 07-01-2026 03:49 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Google is MUCH smarter than Into the Night
I asked God... errr, I asked GOOGLE this question:
You are not Google. Chemistry is not a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
"Are terpenes classified in organic chemistry as 'carbohydrate'?"
Unlike that Chemistry Clown, Google knows how chemicals are classified.
Google's answer was:
"No, terpenes are not classified as carbohydrate in organic chemistry; they are hydrocarbons (or oxygenated derivatives known as terpenoids) built from isoprene units... distinct from carbohydrates which are polyhydroxy aldehydes or ketones (sugars)."
Google doesn't 'answer'. Google is a search engine. You are not Google. Terpenes are not hydrocarbons.
Im a BM wrote:
Since I add my vote to Google's (her answer is the same as mine) that makes us the WINNER, and Into the Night is the LOSER!
You are not Google. Chemistry is not a search engine.
ITN, you are too chicken shit SCARED to find out what happens if you open Google to verify whether or not it will "answer" a keyword inquiry ending with a question mark.
Yes, it is a search engine. Its "search" will create a list of websites one can click on, to open a page related to the inquiry.
Google ALSO gives you its OWN "answer" in the upper left.
Go ahead and insist that it is not so.
You're too chicken shit scared to find out how WRONG you are.
RQAA.
Something is not something else that it is not.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming. |
| 07-01-2026 07:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
ITN, you are too chicken shit SCARED to find out what happens if you open Google to verify whether or not it will "answer" a keyword inquiry ending with a question mark.
Yes, it is a search engine. Its "search" will create a list of websites one can click on, to open a page related to the inquiry.
Google ALSO gives you its OWN "answer" in the upper left.
Go ahead and insist that it is not so.
You're too chicken shit scared to find out how WRONG you are.
RQAA.
Something is not something else that it is not.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are NOT Google, Robert!
Chemistry is not a search engine!
You can't blame me for 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
Edited on 07-01-2026 07:33 |
| 07-01-2026 09:33 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
ITN, you are too chicken shit SCARED to find out what happens if you open Google to verify whether or not it will "answer" a keyword inquiry ending with a question mark.
Yes, it is a search engine. Its "search" will create a list of websites one can click on, to open a page related to the inquiry.
Google ALSO gives you its OWN "answer" in the upper left.
Go ahead and insist that it is not so.
You're too chicken shit scared to find out how WRONG you are.
RQAA.
Something is not something else that it is not.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are NOT Google, Robert!
Chemistry is not a search engine!
You can't blame me for YOUR problems!
HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO,HO, HO, HO!
You are funny.
Science is not a chemical.
God is not a chemical.
You are not God.
Stop spamming. |
| 07-01-2026 20:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO,HO, HO, HO!
You are funny.
Science is not a chemical.
God is not a chemical.
You are not God.
Stop spamming.
YARP
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 |
| 07-01-2026 21:37 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO,HO, HO, HO!
You are funny.
Science is not a chemical.
God is not a chemical.
You are not God.
Stop spamming.
YARP
Into the Night is a SECRET "chemist".
He has a SECRET definition for "hydrocarbon" that you will not find in textbooks.
Plants make terpenes, therefore terpenes cannot be hydrocarbons, according to the SECRET "chemist".
With a chemical formula C(5n)H(8n), terpenes PRETEND to be hydrocarbons.
But they are really just CARBOHYDRATES, according to the SECRET "chemist". |
| 08-01-2026 08:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO,HO, HO, HO!
You are funny.
Science is not a chemical.
God is not a chemical.
You are not God.
Stop spamming.
YARP
Into the Night is a SECRET "chemist".
He has a SECRET definition for "hydrocarbon" that you will not find in textbooks.
Plants make terpenes, therefore terpenes cannot be hydrocarbons, according to the SECRET "chemist".
With a chemical formula C(5n)H(8n), terpenes PRETEND to be hydrocarbons.
But they are really just CARBOHYDRATES, according to the SECRET "chemist". Not the chemical formula for any terpene, moron. They are not hydrocarbons.
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 |
| 08-01-2026 18:24 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO,HO, HO, HO!
You are funny.
Science is not a chemical.
God is not a chemical.
You are not God.
Stop spamming.
YARP
Into the Night is a SECRET "chemist".
He has a SECRET definition for "hydrocarbon" that you will not find in textbooks.
Plants make terpenes, therefore terpenes cannot be hydrocarbons, according to the SECRET "chemist".
With a chemical formula C(5n)H(8n), terpenes PRETEND to be hydrocarbons.
But they are really just CARBOHYDRATES, according to the SECRET "chemist". Not the chemical formula for any terpene, moron. They are not hydrocarbons.
Same old BLUFF. The SECRET definition of "hydrocarbon" cannot be revealed, while TERPENES are claimed NOT to be hydrocarbon.
Check out the basic terpene formula C(5n)H(8n). "Carbohydrate"? where's the oxygen, ITN?
Into the Night will never reveal the SECRET definitions that lead him to the conclusion that TERPENES are CARBOHDRATES. Vegetable oil too!
The SECRET "chemist" knows more than organic chemistry textbooks about what "hydrocarbons" and "carbohydrates" are!
Maybe if someone has the patience to read all 23400 ITN posts, they'll find one where he actually DEFINED HIS TERMS. "RQAA"! |
| 09-01-2026 06:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night will never reveal the SECRET definitions that lead him to the conclusion that TERPENES are CARBOHDRATES. Vegetable oil too!
The SECRET "chemist" knows more than organic chemistry textbooks about what "hydrocarbons" and "carbohydrates" are!
Maybe if someone has the patience to read all 23400 ITN posts, they'll find one where he actually DEFINED HIS TERMS. "RQAA"!
You are still making shit up.
Chemistry is not a textbook.
It is YOU that doesn't know what a hydrocarbon or a carbohydrate is. You can't blame YOUR problems on me. Inversion fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacies.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 09-01-2026 06:32 |
| 09-01-2026 08:51 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night will never reveal the SECRET definitions that lead him to the conclusion that TERPENES are CARBOHDRATES. Vegetable oil too!
The SECRET "chemist" knows more than organic chemistry textbooks about what "hydrocarbons" and "carbohydrates" are!
Maybe if someone has the patience to read all 23400 ITN posts, they'll find one where he actually DEFINED HIS TERMS. "RQAA"!
You are still making shit up.
Chemistry is not a textbook.
It is YOU that doesn't know what a hydrocarbon or a carbohydrate is. You can't blame YOUR problems on me. Inversion fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacies.
You are not God.
You are not Google. |
| 09-01-2026 10:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
You are not God.
You are not Google.
YARP
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 |
| 09-01-2026 22:40 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.
NO!
YOU stop spamming. |
| 10-01-2026 04:16 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.
NO!
YOU stop spamming.
LIF. Grow up.
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 |
| 11-01-2026 23:02 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.
As for the picture that another member kindly posted...
I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.
The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.
The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.
One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.
This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)
To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.
When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.
Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.
The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.
I later developed it into a teaching tool.
A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.
The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.
The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.
Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.
One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.
For God's sake, please just STOP SPAMMING! |
| 12-01-2026 04:36 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.
Fossils aren't used as fuel. Mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium are not in the atmosphere. Why are you so scared of CO2? No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.
Burning methane also produces CO2. It is not a substitute for coal. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Methane contains no oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.
...deleted spam...
Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Acidification is not a chemical. Bacteria is not a practical power source.
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 |
| 12-01-2026 19:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.
Fossils aren't used as fuel. Mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium are not in the atmosphere. Why are you so scared of CO2? No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.
Burning methane also produces CO2. It is not a substitute for coal. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Methane contains no oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.
...deleted spam...
Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Acidification is not a chemical. Bacteria is not a practical power source.
Something is NOT something else that it is not. Duh!
Do you know what anything IS?
You provide exhaustive listings of things that are NOT something else, in your unsupported assertions.
Here is something that is NOT something else that it is not.
Into the Night is NOT a "chemist" by ANY definition of the term. |
| 12-01-2026 21:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
Something is NOT something else that it is not. Duh!
Do you know what anything IS?
You provide exhaustive listings of things that are NOT something else, in your unsupported assertions.
Here is something that is NOT something else that it is not.
Into the Night is NOT a "chemist" by ANY definition of the term.
More sour grapes. RQAA.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 12-01-2026 23:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Something is NOT something else that it is not. Duh!
Do you know what anything IS?
You provide exhaustive listings of things that are NOT something else, in your unsupported assertions.
Here is something that is NOT something else that it is not.
Into the Night is NOT a "chemist" by ANY definition of the term.
More sour grapes. RQAA.
I think I understand why you are so AFRAID of GOOGLE.
It illustrates the difference between you and I.
I can ask Google a question about chemistry and have great confidence that I know what the answer will be.
I can use Google to confirm that my prior knowledge is correct.
Into the Night has no prior knowledge for Google to confirm.
Google will only give him meaningless buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that doesn't even mean anything.
Google does not have access to the SECRET database of definitive scientific assertions employed by Into the Night.
Science is not a secret. |
| 13-01-2026 03:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
I think I understand why you are so AFRAID of GOOGLE.
It illustrates the difference between you and I.
I can ask Google a question about chemistry and have great confidence that I know what the answer will be.
I can use Google to confirm that my prior knowledge is correct.
Into the Night has no prior knowledge for Google to confirm.
Google will only give him meaningless buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that doesn't even mean anything.
Google does not have access to the SECRET database of definitive scientific assertions employed by Into the Night.
Science is not a secret.
You are not Google. Chemistry is not you, a search engine, or a website.
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 |
| 13-01-2026 19:34 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I think I understand why you are so AFRAID of GOOGLE.
It illustrates the difference between you and I.
I can ask Google a question about chemistry and have great confidence that I know what the answer will be.
I can use Google to confirm that my prior knowledge is correct.
Into the Night has no prior knowledge for Google to confirm.
Google will only give him meaningless buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that doesn't even mean anything.
Google does not have access to the SECRET database of definitive scientific assertions employed by Into the Night.
Science is not a secret.
You are not Google. Chemistry is not you, a search engine, or a website.
So far, not ONE of the 1737 site members has come forward to acknowledge you as some kind of "chemist", rather than just an obnoxious troll.
You used to have a whole gang to join in the chant of "Define Your Terms!"
But after Google stopped directing new members to think this was a legitimate discussion site, there were no new tree huggers to ambush anymore.
They usually gave up after just one post, although a few new members posted more than a dozen times before getting too disgusted with the troll activity.
It has been about two years now since Google stopped showing climate-debate.com in a prominent way for searches such as "climate discussion sites"
Virtually the only "new" member in two years has been some new version of the New Messiah, GodOfGods, SaviorLegendHero... all the same mentally ill guy.
Meanwhile, the increase in how many "views" some of these threads get has increased by one or two orders of magnitude.
When Branner finally removes the threads from PresidentOfAll, GodOfGods, etc., the slate will be clear to bump all the biogeochemistry threads back up to the home page. |
| 13-01-2026 20:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23455) |
Im a BM wrote:
So far, not ONE of the 1737 site members has come forward to acknowledge you as some kind of "chemist", rather than just an obnoxious troll.
You used to have a whole gang to join in the chant of "Define Your Terms!"
But after Google stopped directing new members to think this was a legitimate discussion site, there were no new tree huggers to ambush anymore.
They usually gave up after just one post, although a few new members posted more than a dozen times before getting too disgusted with the troll activity.
It has been about two years now since Google stopped showing climate-debate.com in a prominent way for searches such as "climate discussion sites"
Virtually the only "new" member in two years has been some new version of the New Messiah, GodOfGods, SaviorLegendHero... all the same mentally ill guy.
Meanwhile, the increase in how many "views" some of these threads get has increased by one or two orders of magnitude.
When Branner finally removes the threads from PresidentOfAll, GodOfGods, etc., the slate will be clear to bump all the biogeochemistry threads back up to the home page.
Chemistry is not a vote.
You are not Google.
Inversion 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 |
| 13-01-2026 23:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2835) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
So far, not ONE of the 1737 site members has come forward to acknowledge you as some kind of "chemist", rather than just an obnoxious troll.
You used to have a whole gang to join in the chant of "Define Your Terms!"
But after Google stopped directing new members to think this was a legitimate discussion site, there were no new tree huggers to ambush anymore.
They usually gave up after just one post, although a few new members posted more than a dozen times before getting too disgusted with the troll activity.
It has been about two years now since Google stopped showing climate-debate.com in a prominent way for searches such as "climate discussion sites"
Virtually the only "new" member in two years has been some new version of the New Messiah, GodOfGods, SaviorLegendHero... all the same mentally ill guy.
Meanwhile, the increase in how many "views" some of these threads get has increased by one or two orders of magnitude.
When Branner finally removes the threads from PresidentOfAll, GodOfGods, etc., the slate will be clear to bump all the biogeochemistry threads back up to the home page.
Chemistry is not a vote.
You are not Google.
Inversion fallacy.
What about your LIE that vegetable oil is a CARBOHYDRATE?
Don't you even know how to read the "Nutrition Facts" labels on food products?
They spell out how many grams of carbohydrates are contained in a "serving".
Vegetable oil contains ZERO grams of carbohydrate.
Where the heck did you study chemistry, Into the Night?
Because I'm pretty sure that the answer is "nowhere".
You are quite delusional to call yourself a "chemist". |
