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

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted gay swirl...

Is is just "sealioning", or is it possible that the local trolls honestly don't know what the terms "fossil fuel" or "climate change" refer to?

Im a BM wrote:
After discussing it here for about 11 years now, you would think they might have learned what everyone else in the world believes these common terms refer to.

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, Hg, Pb, As, Cd, etc, to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive CH4 as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than O2 as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than CO2 as the waste product.

Im a BM wrote:
For example, CH4 could be fed to SO4(2-) reducing bacteria bred in sea H2O under low O2 conditions to generate alkalinity (as CO3[2-]) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic C 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 CH4 oxidizing, SO4(2-) reducing bacteria.
...deleted remaining spam...

Into the Night wrote: You really suck at pretending to be a chemist.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You really suck at pretending to be a chemist.

So, I'm not the only one who noticed.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You really suck at pretending to be a chemist.

So, I'm not the only one who noticed.

Im a BM wrote:
Go to the top of the this page for on-topic post

As the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick jerk each other off, some of my favorite quotes (to me) from Into the Night and IBdaMann are:

"You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."

"You are not a chemist, a scientist, or an 'expert' of any kind."

"Nature is a shit rag."

"The idiots who cite your work aren't really scientists."

"You are a scientifically illiterate moron."

"Your religion is stupid."

"You came here to preach non-science gibber babble."

"You won't be here long."

That LAST one is my favorite because that's what IBdaMann tells ALL the girls.

And he almost succeeded at driving me away, as he drove away everyone else.

It really sucked when IBdaMann posted my son's personal information (name, address, phone number, photo of and map to our apartment). It was enough to really spook him, and he insisted that I stop posting. A couple of months later, I finally convinced my son that IBdaMann isn't as dangerous as he pretends to be.

Now, I stick around out of spite, because I resent the hell out of the trolls.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You really suck at pretending to be a chemist.

So, I'm not the only one who noticed.

You aren't.

Poor Robert. I think he's getting worse. He thinks he is Google now.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, the irony!

Apparently, these two trolls don't even read each other's posts.

IBdaMann commented on my quote from Google.

He indicated suspicion that what I claimed was said by Google was actually MY "writing style", "diction" and "tone of voice"

And I QUOTE IBdaMann directly from the "Climate Change is Dead" thread, bottom of page 1, where IBdaMann responds to my Google quote.

"Interesting! When did Google adopt your writing style, diction, and tone of voice?"

For context, what I copied from Google AI was the bot's reply to my inquiry:
"Why do people hate the internet troll known as 'IBdaMann' at climate discussion websites?"

That was all I asked of Google. I copied her reply exactly, word for word.

So, WHO thinks I'm Google?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, the irony!

Apparently, these two trolls don't even read each other's posts.

IBdaMann commented on my quote from Google.

He indicated suspicion that what I claimed was said by Google was actually MY "writing style", "diction" and "tone of voice"

And I QUOTE IBdaMann directly from the "Climate Change is Dead" thread, bottom of page 1, where IBdaMann responds to my Google quote.

"Interesting! When did Google adopt your writing style, diction, and tone of voice?"

For context, what I copied from Google AI was the bot's reply to my inquiry:
"Why do people hate the internet troll known as 'IBdaMann' at climate discussion websites?"

That was all I asked of Google. I copied her reply exactly, word for word.

So, WHO thinks I'm Google?

You are not Google, Robert.
You cannot become Google.
Whining does nothing.

Im a BM wrote:
For reasons known only to Into the Night, he keeps adding, ".., Robert." to the end of his sentences.

Im a BM wrote:
Assuming you continue your habit of relentless trolling, you will soon have 25,000 posts on this website.

What do you feel you have accomplished, other than killing every attempt by others to discuss the website topic?

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann will certainly never be remembered for any scientific discovery, insight, or contribution of value to advance human knowledge. But at least Google knows about his trolling at climate-debate.com. It has a pretty accurate characterization of how he operates as an anti scientific, contrarian troll.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I'll try other search word combinations to see if you have had any discernable impact that registers for a Google search.

Im a BM wrote:
So far, Google seems to think "Into the Night" is a nothing.

I'll bet if I make the search words explicit and focused enough, you MIGHT have done something here that wasn't immediately forgotten.

I'll try again with something like "Internet persona known as 'Into the Night' who knows what science is NOT, and what is NOT a chemical"

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Give me a minute...

Well, no internet figure has made any impact this way under such a name...

How about "Climate discussion forum Internet persona known as 'Into the Night' who knows what science is NOT, and what is NOT a chemical."?

YES! It turns out that Into the Night isn't a total nothing/nobody!

Google say: "'Into the Night' is a persistent poster on Usernet climate discussion groups (like sci.environment and alt.global-warming) known for contrarian arguments regarding climate science and basic chemistry.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
The Persona's Arguments

* Redefining Science: The poster argues that consensus-driven climate projections or computer models are not real science, claiming true science relies exclusively on direct, rigid empirical falsification rather than statistical modeling.

Im a BM wrote:

* Redefining Chemicals: The user often engages in semantic debates about what constitutes a 'chemical', at times asserting that naturally occurring or pure elemental substances (or specific atmospheric components) do not fit standard laymen definitions of manufactured chemicals.

Im a BM wrote:

Scientific Reality

* What is Science: Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge through testable explanations, observations, and peer-reviewed modeling. Climate science uses empirical data, ice cores, and physical laws (like thermodynamics) to measure planetary changes.

Im a BM wrote:

* What is a Chemical: In chemistry, any substance with a definite chemical composition - including water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide - is a chemical substance, regardless of whether its man-made or naturally occurring."[/b]
[quote]Im a BM wrote:

So, YOU BAD, dude!

You're not just a nothing!

You are known as the guy who tries to redefine science and chemicals!

Im a BM wrote:

You are not God, Google, or even good. STOP SPAMMING!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
For reasons known only to Into the Night, he keeps adding, ".., Robert." to the end of his sentences.

Hilarious! You are trying to deny who you are now!

Im a BM wrote:
Assuming you continue your habit of relentless trolling, you will soon have 25,000 posts on this website.

What do you feel you have accomplished, other than killing every attempt by others to discuss the website topic?

You aren't discussing any topic.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann will certainly never be remembered for any scientific discovery, insight, or contribution of value to advance human knowledge. But at least Google knows about his trolling at climate-debate.com. It has a pretty accurate characterization of how he operates as an anti scientific, contrarian troll.

Science is not a discovery.
Science is not a 'contribution'.
Science is not an advance.
Science is not Google.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I'll try other search word combinations to see if you have had any discernable impact that registers for a Google search.

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.

Im a BM wrote:
So far, Google seems to think "Into the Night" is a nothing.

I'll bet if I make the search words explicit and focused enough, you MIGHT have done something here that wasn't immediately forgotten.

I'll try again with something like "Internet persona known as 'Into the Night' who knows what science is NOT, and what is NOT a chemical"

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Give me a minute...

Well, no internet figure has made any impact this way under such a name...

How about "Climate discussion forum Internet persona known as 'Into the Night' who knows what science is NOT, and what is NOT a chemical."?

YES! It turns out that Into the Night isn't a total nothing/nobody!

Google say: "'Into the Night' is a persistent poster on Usernet climate discussion groups (like sci.environment and alt.global-warming) known for contrarian arguments regarding climate science and basic chemistry.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
The Persona's Arguments

* Redefining Science: The poster argues that consensus-driven climate projections or computer models are not real science, claiming true science relies exclusively on direct, rigid empirical falsification rather than statistical modeling.

There is no 'consensus drive climate projection'.
Climate cannot change.
Climate does not use consensus.
Climate is not a projection.
Climate is not a prediction.
Climate is not a random number generator.
Climate is not science.
True Scotsman fallacy.
You deny many theories of science.
Science is not statistical math.
Statistical math is incapable of prediction.

Im a BM wrote:

* Redefining Chemicals: The user often engages in semantic debates about what constitutes a 'chemical', at times asserting that naturally occurring or pure elemental substances (or specific atmospheric components) do not fit standard laymen definitions of manufactured chemicals.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:

Scientific Reality

* What is Science: Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge through testable explanations, observations, and peer-reviewed modeling. Climate science uses empirical data, ice cores, and physical laws (like thermodynamics) to measure planetary changes.

Redefinition fallacy.
Science is not an observation.
Science does not prove any theory True.
Science does not use consensus.
Science is not climate.
Science is not data.
Science is not ice cores.
You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You deny statistical mathematics.
There is no global climate.
Climate cannot change.

Im a BM wrote:

* What is a Chemical: In chemistry, any substance with a definite chemical composition - including water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide - is a chemical substance, regardless of whether its man-made or naturally occurring."[/b]
[quote]Im a BM wrote:

So, YOU BAD, dude!

You're not just a nothing!

You are known as the guy who tries to redefine science and chemicals!

Circular definition fallacy.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:

You are not God, Google, or even good. STOP SPAMMING!

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Go to top of page for on-topic thread post.


Most hilarious quote extracted from below:

"You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy." - Into the Night

Such a line is standard fare for ITN, but in response to what this time?

In response to a direct quote from Google about Into the Night!

One of the things that Google AI said about the internet persona known as "Into the Night" in climate discussion websites was:

"* Redefining Chemicals: The user often engages in semantic debates about what constitutes a 'chemical'..."

That was Google's explicit response to an inquiry about Into the Night.

Anyone familiar with this website knows that Into the Night often posts long lists of sentences that all end with the words, "...is not a chemical."

In response to seeing Google's words about Into the Night (unless ITN truly believes that I AM Google), Into the Night says, "You are describing yourself."!

Im a BM wrote: Is is just "sealioning", or is it possible that the local trolls honestly don't know what the terms "fossil fuel" or "climate change" refer to?

Im a BM wrote:This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about [undefined] [undefined], Hg, Pb, As, Cd, etc, to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: Topics ranging from ... a substitute for coal in power plants,

Im a BM wrote: For example, CH4 could be fed to SO4(2-) reducing bacteria bred in sea H2O under low O2 conditions to generate alkalinity (as CO3[2-]) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic C product.

Im a BM wrote:In terms of bang for the buck on calories, CH4 gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Is is just "sealioning", or is it possible that the local trolls honestly don't know what the terms "fossil fuel" or "climate change" refer to?

It absolutely has been established that you don't know what either of those terms mean. Every attempt to get you to unambiguously define the terms had you fleeing to the hills admid a host of the lamest excuses and attempts to blame others for your science illiteracy.

Im a BM wrote:This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about [undefined] [undefined], Hg, Pb, As, Cd, etc, to the atmosphere.

This is as good as anything ever gets with you.

Im a BM wrote: Topics ranging from ... a substitute for coal in power plants,

There was no explanation of why coal needed a substitute, i.e. there was never any problem statement.

All of your discussions amount to inventing "solutions" that don't solve any problem.

Im a BM wrote: For example, CH4 could be fed to SO4(2-) reducing bacteria bred in sea H2O under low O2 conditions to generate alkalinity (as CO3[2-]) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic C product.

One could do this, but no one should do this.

Im a BM wrote:In terms of bang for the buck on calories, CH4 gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed.

But since there is no problem to solve, every dollar spent on useless crap is a dollar wasted.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted gay rainbow swirle...
Is is just "sealioning", or is it possible that the local trolls honestly don't know what the terms "fossil fuel" or "climate change" refer to?

After discussing it here for about 11 years now, you would think they might have learned what everyone else in the world believes these common terms refer to.

Im a BM wrote:
Did I forget to mention that N2O and NO are very powerful greenhouse gases?

Im a BM wrote:
It is such a shame that IBdaMann never learned to read very well.

Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, is there ANY reason to want to use something other than COAL?

Im a BM wrote:
Well, about half the total mercury floating in the atmosphere (estimated at about 4000 metric tons on any given day) is emitted from coal burning power plants. The other half is emitted from gold mining or mercury mining.

Im a BM wrote:
If that wasn't in the thread's very first post, it was there by the second or third.

It was kind of implied in the thread title that potentially toxic elements such as mercury, arsenic, lead, and cadmium in emissions could be reduced by substituting something better than coal.

IBdaMann, you are too stupid to have a worthwhile discussion with.