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 15

Page 15 of 16

14-01-2026 06:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: 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". Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert. 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
14-01-2026 20:46
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: 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". Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert. Chemistry is not a marketing label. "Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert." - Into the Night Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that "vegetable oil is a carbohydrate". ITN, you are delusional if you really believe that lignin, tannin, and terpenes are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that you are a "chemist".
14-01-2026 22:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: "Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert." - Into the Night Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that "vegetable oil is a carbohydrate". ITN, you are delusional if you really believe that lignin, tannin, and terpenes are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that you are a "chemist". You can't change what they are with your stupid buzzword, Robert. They are all carbohydrates. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-01-2026 00:36
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: "Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert." - Into the Night Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that "vegetable oil is a carbohydrate". ITN, you are delusional if you really believe that lignin, tannin, and terpenes are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that you are a "chemist". You can't change what they are with your stupid buzzword, Robert. They are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, will you EVER reveal your SECRET definition for the term "carbohydrate"? You won't because you cannot. You never did and never will. RQAA!
15-01-2026 00:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: "Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert." - Into the Night Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that "vegetable oil is a carbohydrate". ITN, you are delusional if you really believe that lignin, tannin, and terpenes are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that you are a "chemist". You can't change what they are with your stupid buzzword, Robert. They are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, will you EVER reveal your SECRET definition for the term "carbohydrate"? You won't because you cannot. You never did and never will. RQAA! It is no secret, Robert. I already know you don't know what a carbohydrate is. You don't have to keep proving it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-01-2026 01:00
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: "Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate, Robert." - Into the Night Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that "vegetable oil is a carbohydrate". ITN, you are delusional if you really believe that lignin, tannin, and terpenes are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, you are DELUSIONAL if you really believe that you are a "chemist". You can't change what they are with your stupid buzzword, Robert. They are all carbohydrates. Into the Night, will you EVER reveal your SECRET definition for the term "carbohydrate"? You won't because you cannot. You never did and never will. RQAA! It is no secret, Robert. I already know you don't know what a carbohydrate is. You don't have to keep proving it. Actually, I DO know what a carbohydrate is. But you don't have to take my word for it. Google has access to accurate information about basic organic chemistry. Let's ask GOOGLE! Google, please tell me, "In organic chemistry, what is the definition of a 'carbohydrate'?" Google gives me the answer that I already knew. Google says: "In organic chemistry, a carbohydrate is a biomolecule made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, often with a 1:2:1 ratio (Cn(H2O)n), meaning 'hydrated carbons', that functions as a primary energy source (like glucose, starch) and structural component (like cellulose) in living organisms, existing as simple sugars (monosaccharides) or complex polymers." Google = SMART! Into the Night = dumbass LIAR troll who is so delusional he thinks he's a "chemist" Google says,
15-01-2026 03:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Actually, I DO know what a carbohydrate is. You have already shown you don't. Im a BM wrote: But you don't have to take my word for it. Why would I? You have already shown you don't know what a carbohydrate is. Im a BM wrote: Google has access to accurate information about basic organic chemistry. You are not Google. You don't know organic chemistry either/ Im a BM wrote: Let's ask GOOGLE! Google, please tell me, "In organic chemistry, what is the definition of a 'carbohydrate'?" Google gives me the answer that I already knew. Google says: "In organic chemistry, a carbohydrate is a biomolecule made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, often with a 1:2:1 ratio (Cn(H2O)n), meaning 'hydrated carbons', that functions as a primary energy source (like glucose, starch) and structural component (like cellulose) in living organisms, existing as simple sugars (monosaccharides) or complex polymers." Google = SMART! You are not Google. You are not smart either. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night = dumbass LIAR troll who is so delusional he thinks he's a "chemist" Google says, You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, 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
24-04-2026 20:05
sealover ★★★★★ (2037)	I love the way IBdaMann justifies posting a Google map to the location that he incorrectly believes is the home of a rival member. It turns out that the member "doxed himself" by providing enough information to allow IBdaMann to guess where they might live. I'll pull up the post by IBdaMann where you can see a photo of a house I used to live in in Oakland. Im a BM wrote: "Doxing is a real problem." - Into the Night "If you wondered what 100 "Robert R. Northup"s looks like, here you go:" - IBdaMann And if you wondered what MENTAL ILLNESS looks like, here you go: IBdaMann wrote: 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." [b]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. [/b] 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.
24-04-2026 23:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	sealover wrote: I love the way IBdaMann justifies posting a Google map to the location that he incorrectly believes is the home of a rival member. It turns out that the member "doxed himself" by providing enough information to allow IBdaMann to guess where they might live. I'll pull up the post by IBdaMann where you can see a photo of a house I used to live in in Oakland. You doxed yourself. It was your house. 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
26-04-2026 16:21
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: I love the way IBdaMann justifies posting a Google map to the location that he incorrectly believes is the home of a rival member. It turns out that the member "doxed himself" by providing enough information to allow IBdaMann to guess where they might live. I'll pull up the post by IBdaMann where you can see a photo of a house I used to live in in Oakland. You doxed yourself. It was your house. Yellow and red parrot say what? YARP Yellow And Red Parrot YARP Yellow And Red Parrot YARP
26-04-2026 21:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Yellow and red parrot say what? YARP Yellow And Red Parrot YARP Yellow And Red Parrot YARP YARP. Redefinition 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
01-05-2026 15:35
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann
02-05-2026 00:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	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. Science is not buzzwords. You deny science. You have already denied the 1st law of thermodynamics, Henry's law, and Black's law. Fossils are not used as fuel. Mercury is not used as fuel. CO2 is not used as fuel. Lead is not used as fuel. Arsenic is not used as fuel. Cadmium is not used as fuel. 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. Methane is already used as fuel. You can't substitute methane for coal. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Only oxygen is an oxidant. Why are you afraid of carbon dioxide. The gas is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth. 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. Methane has no sulfur. Sulfate is not a chemical. Methane is not seawater. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not inorganic. The oceans are not acidic. There is nothing to counteract. Cows eat grass. Diesel is not bacteria. Methane is not oxygen. Bacteria do not reduce your buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: As for the picture that another member kindly posted... Deleted. 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
02-05-2026 01:18
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	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. Science is not buzzwords. You deny science. You have already denied the 1st law of thermodynamics, Henry's law, and Black's law. Fossils are not used as fuel. Mercury is not used as fuel. CO2 is not used as fuel. Lead is not used as fuel. Arsenic is not used as fuel. Cadmium is not used as fuel. 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. Methane is already used as fuel. You can't substitute methane for coal. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Only oxygen is an oxidant. Why are you afraid of carbon dioxide. The gas is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth. 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. Methane has no sulfur. Sulfate is not a chemical. Methane is not seawater. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not inorganic. The oceans are not acidic. There is nothing to counteract. Cows eat grass. Diesel is not bacteria. Methane is not oxygen. Bacteria do not reduce your buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: As for the picture that another member kindly posted... Deleted. Stop spamming. "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - Into The Night Apparently, there are very few thing that you do NOT know.
02-05-2026 02:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - Into The Night Apparently, there are very few thing that you do NOT know. This is actually fairly true. I don't know everything, of course (no one does!), but I know quite a lot about a wide variety of subjects. Now...let's look at just ONE important theory of science you deny. The 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time). Carbon dioxide is not a force, and is not work. Methane is not a force, and is not work. Therefore, using them in this equation results in U being zero. Therefore, E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. No gas or vapor can create energy by it's mere presence. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Carbon dioxide cannot warm the Earth. Methane cannot warm the Earth. Water vapor cannot warm the Earth. Your Magick Bacteria cannot warm the Earth. 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
05-05-2026 02:07
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. Im a BM wrote: 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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann Edited on 05-05-2026 02:24
05-05-2026 02:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. ...deleted spam... 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
05-05-2026 22:20
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. 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. In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Aerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon (e.g. combustion or respiration) employs oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor and produces carbon dioxide, CO2, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product: CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O Anaerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon by anaerobic bacteria can employ oxyanions such as sulfate, SO4(2-), nitrate, NO3-, nitrite, arsenate, AsO4(3-), phosphate, PO4(3-), borate, molybdate, selenate, nitrite, sulfite, arsenite, and many others as terminal electron electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions. Such anaerobic metabolism produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), Generic reaction: CH4 + XOn(y-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + (H2X, XO(n-1), X2, XH3) CH4 + SO4(2-) + = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S CH4 + 2NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + N2 CH4 + NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + NH4+ CH4 + AsO4(3-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + AsO2- As for the picture of the colorful spiral 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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann Edited on 05-05-2026 23:18
05-05-2026 23:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. The periodic table is not a signpost, Robert. Lanthanide is not a chemical. Actinide is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: 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 for fuel. There is no substitute for something that doesn't exist. CO2 is not a fossil. Mercury is not a fossil. Lead is not a fossil. Arsenic is not a fossil. Cadmium is not a fossil. No gas or vapor has the capabiliy to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. 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. Methane cannot be used in a coal power plant. The current price of methane is $2.77/MBTU. The current price of coal is $1.10/MBTU. [b]Im a BM wrote: [/b] 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. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO2 is not carbon. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not a product. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Diesel fuel is not a bacterium. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Methane is not livestock feed. Livestock is not cold blooded unless you are raising snakes or alligators. Not much market for frogs or lizards. Sulfate is not a chemical. Biomass is a buzzword. Cattle are not cold blooded. The current price of beef tallow is $12800/ton. The current price of paraffin is $600/ton. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted spam... 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
05-05-2026 23:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. The periodic table is not a signpost, Robert. Lanthanide is not a chemical. Actinide is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: 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 for fuel. There is no substitute for something that doesn't exist. CO2 is not a fossil. Mercury is not a fossil. Lead is not a fossil. Arsenic is not a fossil. Cadmium is not a fossil. No gas or vapor has the capabiliy to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. 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. Methane cannot be used in a coal power plant. The current price of methane is $2.77/MBTU. The current price of coal is $1.10/MBTU. [b]Im a BM wrote: [/b] 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. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO2 is not carbon. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not a product. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Diesel fuel is not a bacterium. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Methane is not livestock feed. Livestock is not cold blooded unless you are raising snakes or alligators. Not much market for frogs or lizards. Sulfate is not a chemical. Biomass is a buzzword. Cattle are not cold blooded. The current price of beef tallow is $12800/ton. The current price of paraffin is $600/ton. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted spam... 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
06-05-2026 15:12
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. 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. In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Aerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon (e.g. combustion or respiration) employs oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor and produces carbon dioxide, CO2, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product: CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O Anaerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon by anaerobic bacteria can employ oxyanions such as sulfate, SO4(2-), nitrate, NO3-, nitrite, arsenate, AsO4(3-), phosphate, PO4(3-), borate, molybdate, selenate, nitrite, sulfite, arsenite, and many others as terminal electron electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions. Such anaerobic metabolism produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), Generic reaction: CH4 + XOn(y-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + (H2X, XO(n-1), X2, XH3) CH4 + SO4(2-) + = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S CH4 + 2NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + N2 CH4 + NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + NH4+ CH4 + AsO4(3-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + AsO2- As for the picture of the colorful spiral 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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann
06-05-2026 19:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? ...deleted irrelevancy, repetition, and spamming... Stop spamming. Repetition 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 Edited on 06-05-2026 19:43
06-05-2026 23:49
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? ...deleted irrelevancy, repetition, and spamming... Stop spamming. Repetition fallacy. I notice that you failed to rise to the challenge to display your chemistry competency. Because you don't have the slightest clue what information the Periodic Table actually coveys to people who understand it. There is a genuinely "controversial" assertion made in the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties regarding the position of "signposts". A less-than-fraudulent "chemist" would see it and know how to criticize it. But you would first have to understand the Periodic Table of Elements. Which Into the Night obviously does NOT.
07-05-2026 21:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted irrelevant material... Irrelevance fallacy. Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Describe what is 'changing' in climate. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. 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
08-05-2026 18:04
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted irrelevant material... Irrelevance fallacy. Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. Describe what is 'changing' in climate. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YARP! "YARP" (Yellow And Red Parrot) YARP says what? SQUAWK... Climate CANNOT change... SQUAWK... NO SUCH THING!... SQAWK... Meaningless buzzwords!... SQUAWK... It's NOT a chemical!... SQUAWK... Science isn't THAT!... SQUAWK... No, it's NOT!... SQUAWK... It is NOT possible to measure that... SQUAWK... NOT POSSIBLE... SQUAWK... Not a chemical... SQUAWK... That's not science either... SQUAWK
08-05-2026 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: YARP says what? Mockery gets you nowhere fast, Robert. You STILL haven't described what is 'changing' in climate. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2026 20:59
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. 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. In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Aerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon (e.g. combustion or respiration) employs oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor and produces carbon dioxide, CO2, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product: CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O Anaerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon by anaerobic bacteria can employ oxyanions such as sulfate, SO4(2-), nitrate, NO3-, nitrite, arsenate, AsO4(3-), phosphate, PO4(3-), borate, molybdate, selenate, nitrite, sulfite, arsenite, and many others as terminal electron electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions. Such anaerobic metabolism produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), Generic reaction: CH4 + XOn(y-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + (H2X, XO(n-1), X2, XH3) CH4 + SO4(2-) + = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S CH4 + 2NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + N2 CH4 + NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + NH4+ CH4 + AsO4(3-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + AsO2- As for the picture of the colorful spiral 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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann
15-05-2026 23:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted repetitious spam... Stop spamming, 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
16-05-2026 07:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15223)	Im a BM wrote: As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. You were supposed to go first. You were challenged to show some competency in some branch of science, and you have yet to do so. * You failed utterly with the concept of unambiguously defining your terms. * You failed utterly when it came to distinguishing your WACKY religion from science. * You failed in even knowing what science is. * You failed to understand that water evaporates * You failed to identify thriving coral reefs, claiming that they had met their demise. * You have failed to rationally discuss any topic, swerving instantly into spamming. * You failed to take responsibility for including your name "Robert R. Northup" to your gay pride pinwheel, blaming me instead. Yeah, you need to demonstrate some competence in something before you "challenge" someone else to explain why fireworks are cooler than polyphenols. Im a BM wrote: This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, Nope. This thread was intended to be a place of religious discussion about the evils of science and of the Dark Ages need for your religion to subvert science in your Marxist quest to kill "capitalism." You never bother to explain your religious dogma because you know how ridiculously absurd it is. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who has worked with ecologists, and who thinks that qualifies him to call himself a chemist, except the word you made up is "biogynachemist".
19-05-2026 15:23
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	"You are a scientifically illiterate moron.." - IBdaMann "You are describing yourself." - YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) aka ITN IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. You were supposed to go first. You were challenged to show some competency in some branch of science, and you have yet to do so. * You failed utterly with the concept of unambiguously defining your terms. * You failed utterly when it came to distinguishing your WACKY religion from science. * You failed in even knowing what science is. * You failed to understand that water evaporates * You failed to identify thriving coral reefs, claiming that they had met their demise. * You have failed to rationally discuss any topic, swerving instantly into spamming. * You failed to take responsibility for including your name "Robert R. Northup" to your gay pride pinwheel, blaming me instead. Yeah, you need to demonstrate some competence in something before you "challenge" someone else to explain why fireworks are cooler than polyphenols. Im a BM wrote: This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, Nope. This thread was intended to be a place of religious discussion about the evils of science and of the Dark Ages need for your religion to subvert science in your Marxist quest to kill "capitalism." You never bother to explain your religious dogma because you know how ridiculously absurd it is. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who has worked with ecologists, and who thinks that qualifies him to call himself a chemist, except the word you made up is "biogynachemist".
26-05-2026 20:00
sealover ★★★★★ (2037)	Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. 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. In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Aerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon (e.g. combustion or respiration) employs oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor and produces carbon dioxide, CO2, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product: CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O Anaerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon by anaerobic bacteria can employ oxyanions such as sulfate, SO4(2-), nitrate, NO3-, nitrite, arsenate, AsO4(3-), phosphate, PO4(3-), borate, molybdate, selenate, nitrite, sulfite, arsenite, and many others as terminal electron electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions. Such anaerobic metabolism produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), Generic reaction: CH4 + XOn(y-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + (H2X, XO(n-1), X2, XH3) CH4 + SO4(2-) + = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S CH4 + 2NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + N2 CH4 + NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + NH4+ CH4 + AsO4(3-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + AsO2- As for the picture of the colorful spiral 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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann Please do not ever stop spamming.
26-05-2026 20:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	sealover wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? ...deleted remaining spam... 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
04-06-2026 14:42
sealover ★★★★★ (2037)	Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? As this thread is relentlessly trolled by Into the Night, I challenge him to display some minimal competency as a "chemist" he claims to be. Does the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties commit "signpost error"? College level chemistry students will know how to find the answer! But I'll simplify it and tell you what KIND of signpost error. Even high school graduates with minimal literacy can look up "Periodic Table of Elements, signpost error for lanthanides and actinides" to figure out the answer. An actual chemist might even weigh in on the controversy. We could even debate about the chemical principles behind the "controversial" choice of signpost position. 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. In terms of bang for the buck on calories, methane gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing bicarbonate ions. The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some methane as well. Aerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon (e.g. combustion or respiration) employs oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor and produces carbon dioxide, CO2, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product: CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O Anaerobic oxidation of (CH4 methane) organic carbon by anaerobic bacteria can employ oxyanions such as sulfate, SO4(2-), nitrate, NO3-, nitrite, arsenate, AsO4(3-), phosphate, PO4(3-), borate, molybdate, selenate, nitrite, sulfite, arsenite, and many others as terminal electron electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions. Such anaerobic metabolism produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), Generic reaction: CH4 + XOn(y-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + (H2X, XO(n-1), X2, XH3) CH4 + SO4(2-) + = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S CH4 + 2NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + N2 CH4 + NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + NH4+ CH4 + AsO4(3-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + AsO2- As for the picture of the colorful spiral 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. "There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'." - Into the Night AND IBdaMann
04-06-2026 16:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	sealover wrote: Chemistry Competency Challenge - "Signpost Error"? ...deleted spam... Stop spamming. RAAA. 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
04-06-2026 17:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15223)	Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. RAAA. Hey, @Into the Night, I was just curious as to whether you had ever considered making a similar symbol for your "Continuum" theory, e.g. the mathematical continuum symbol overlaid with a spiral LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag? Would that work? You could interweave other supremacies as well without necessarily having to virtue-signal them. Edited on 04-06-2026 17:47
04-06-2026 17:58
sealover ★★★★★ (2037)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. RAAA. Hey, @Into the Night, I was just curious as to whether you had ever considered making a similar symbol for your "Continuum" theory, e.g. the mathematical continuum symbol overlaid with a spiral LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag? Would that work? You could interweave other supremacies as well without necessarily having to virtue-signal them. I love the way Patricio schooled Into the Night about organic carbon and inorganic carbon Presenting it as the basic thing they teach every student in any college level introductory chemistry course. The ABSURDITY of the claim that there is no such thing as organic carbon or inorganic carbon! Patricio didn't self identify as a "chemist" but his understanding of chemistry is FAR SUPERIOR to the local Chemistry Clown who simply declares "No such thing". Man, I was impressed by how WELL Patricio schooled ITN, not just correcting the absurd anti scientific assertions, but exposing the absolute HOLLOWNESS of the "debate" argument that depended so much on a private, secret definition of the term "chemical" that was all important. It is a refreshing reality check to see how a scientifically literate person person responds to ITN's assertions in the first encounter. Patricio did a damn good job of showing why scientists know that carbonate IS a chemical. ITN cowered away from addressing ANY of it directly, with the usual evasions.
04-06-2026 18:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15223)	sealover wrote:I love the way Patricio schooled Into the Night about organic carbon and inorganic carbon That Patricio dude didn't school anyone. His posts were completely devoid of any science whatsoever. sealover wrote: The ABSURDITY of the claim that there is no such thing as organic carbon or inorganic carbon! The ABSUDITY of the claim that carbon atoms have metadata tags distinguishing the "organic" carbon from the "inorganic" carbon. All high school students know that carbon atoms are non-distinct. There are no organic carbon atoms. sealover wrote:Patricio didn't self identify as a "chemist" Kudos to him. sealover wrote:... but his understanding of chemistry is FAR SUPERIOR to the local Chemistry Clown who simply declares "No such thing". ... not if he thinks that carbon atoms come with metadata tags for distinguishing the organic ones from the inorganic ones. Hey, we should ask Patricio if he thinks water evaporates. sealover wrote: It is a refreshing reality check to see how a scientifically literate person person responds to ITN's assertions in the first encounter. How would you ever know? sealover wrote:Patricio did a damn good job of showing why scientists know that carbonate IS a chemical. Carbonate is a category, not a chemical.
04-06-2026 18:43
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:I love the way Patricio schooled Into the Night about organic carbon and inorganic carbon That Patricio dude didn't school anyone. His posts were completely devoid of any science whatsoever. sealover wrote: The ABSURDITY of the claim that there is no such thing as organic carbon or inorganic carbon! The ABSUDITY of the claim that carbon atoms have metadata tags distinguishing the "organic" carbon from the "inorganic" carbon. All high school students know that carbon atoms are non-distinct. There are no organic carbon atoms. sealover wrote:Patricio didn't self identify as a "chemist" Kudos to him. sealover wrote:... but his understanding of chemistry is FAR SUPERIOR to the local Chemistry Clown who simply declares "No such thing". ... not if he thinks that carbon atoms come with metadata tags for distinguishing the organic ones from the inorganic ones. Hey, we should ask Patricio if he thinks water evaporates. sealover wrote: It is a refreshing reality check to see how a scientifically literate person person responds to ITN's assertions in the first encounter. How would you ever know? sealover wrote:Patricio did a damn good job of showing why scientists know that carbonate IS a chemical. Carbonate is a category, not a chemical. You could learn a lot if you actually READ what Patricio posted. He explained very clearly the definition of "chemical", what the carbonate ion is, and how carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is most certainly a chemical. Carbonates are not the same as carbonate. Phenol is not the same as phenols. Enjoy THAT word game. But Patricio explains the inorganic versus organic carbon thing very well. No metadata tags because the carbon atom can change its status from inorganic to organic, or visa versa, through spontaneous oxidation reduction reactions. It's about what the carbon atom is bonded to and its oxidation state. Inorganic carbon is oxidized carbon. Organic carbon is reduced carbon. Organic carbon atoms are bonded to hydrogen and/or other carbon atoms. Inorganic carbon atoms are bonded to oxygen. I doubt that you will be able to comprehend this. Patricio clearly DOES comprehend this. He and I could have "gibber babble" conversations and understand each other. He is what they call "scientifically literate".
04-06-2026 19:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: You could learn a lot if you actually READ what Patricio posted. He learned that Patricio ignores the same theories of science you do, that he was totally unprepared to deal with the theories of science he ignored, and that he was yet another 'warmazombie', or believer in the Church of Global Warming. Im a BM wrote: He explained very clearly the definition of "chemical", what the carbonate ion is, and how carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is most certainly a chemical. Carbonates are not the same as carbonate. Phenol is not the same as phenols. Enjoy THAT word game. Carbonate is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: But Patricio explains the inorganic versus organic carbon thing very well. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. Im a BM wrote: No metadata tags because the carbon atom can change its status from inorganic to organic, or visa versa, through spontaneous oxidation reduction reactions. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. There is no such change of state. Carbon is stable. It does not spontaneously combust. Im a BM wrote: It's about what the carbon atom is bonded to and its oxidation state. Inorganic carbon is oxidized carbon. Organic carbon is reduced carbon. Organic carbon atoms are bonded to hydrogen and/or other carbon atoms. Inorganic carbon atoms are bonded to oxygen. [quote]Im a BM wrote: I doubt that you will be able to comprehend this. Patricio clearly DOES comprehend this. He and I could have "gibber babble" conversations and understand each other. He is what they call "scientifically literate". The same gibber babble. Even the same quoting problems. I suspect Patricio is really just another one of your socks. 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 04-06-2026 19:01
05-06-2026 18:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: You could learn a lot if you actually READ what Patricio posted. He learned that Patricio ignores the same theories of science you do, that he was totally unprepared to deal with the theories of science he ignored, and that he was yet another 'warmazombie', or believer in the Church of Global Warming. Im a BM wrote: He explained very clearly the definition of "chemical", what the carbonate ion is, and how carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is most certainly a chemical. Carbonates are not the same as carbonate. Phenol is not the same as phenols. Enjoy THAT word game. Carbonate is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: But Patricio explains the inorganic versus organic carbon thing very well. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. Im a BM wrote: No metadata tags because the carbon atom can change its status from inorganic to organic, or visa versa, through spontaneous oxidation reduction reactions. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. There is no such change of state. Carbon is stable. It does not spontaneously combust. Im a BM wrote: It's about what the carbon atom is bonded to and its oxidation state. Inorganic carbon is oxidized carbon. Organic carbon is reduced carbon. Organic carbon atoms are bonded to hydrogen and/or other carbon atoms. Inorganic carbon atoms are bonded to oxygen. [quote]Im a BM wrote: I doubt that you will be able to comprehend this. Patricio clearly DOES comprehend this. He and I could have "gibber babble" conversations and understand each other. He is what they call "scientifically literate". The same gibber babble. Even the same quoting problems. I suspect Patricio is really just another one of your socks. My "sock" is doing a better job than I was ever able to. Maybe my "sock" and I should run off and get married, so we can co-author a book together and live happily ever after. My "sock" would have to be first author because his writing skills put mine to shame.

Page 15 of 16

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

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Easiest Way To Remove Bad Politicians Is By Gambling Knowledge About Global Warming & CO2 Emissio	9	12-06-2026 19:43
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?	1096	27-04-2026 21:42
There is "No such thing" as "Fossil fuel"?	92	28-12-2025 00:54
Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?	176	31-07-2025 19:11
What happened to all the CO2 doomsday posts?	84	03-06-2025 04:34