How to solve climate change.

Anders wrote:
It would be nicer to all if you could disguss in a more friendly tone, you are all obviously high IQ people all of you, you should have better manners right.

Let us show how we can change things instead of just argue about small details.

I know this is people with knowledge, please tell the world how you will improve the world, dont argue about stuff noone can ever change...

IBdaMann wrote:

Nielsenbr56 wrote:No a fact is NOT what people agree on.

A fact is what people agree on. I gave you the court case example. Perhaps you are too stupid to learn.

If you and I were to agree that Corn Flakes is the best creation mankind has ever made, then it is a fact in our discussion. However, the moment GasGuzzler joins our discussion and claims that Fruit Loops is clearly the best creation mankind has ever made, then all of our positions become our claims and our rationales become our arguments. Intellectual cowards who cannot support their positions but who nonetheless need their positions to be accepted as "facts" try to create breakout rooms in which they ban anyone who does not also agree to their positions.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Just because people agree an old man lives in the sky called god, or that they live on after dying, does not a fact make.

Yes. That is what makes it a fact. Whenever Into the Night and gfm7175 engage in a discussion, that supposition is very much a fact. However, the moment you join such a discussion, that supposition ceases to be a fact, and becomes a claim.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: A fact in SCIENCE is a theory established as accurate through measurement

This is gibber-babble nonsense. You clearly do not know what science is.

All of science is a fact because everybody agrees to all of it ... by virtue of nobody showing any of it to be false. All of science has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method and nobody has, as of yet, shown any of it to be false. If anyone does show any science to be false, it is discarded

Nielsenbr56 wrote:- and, yes, that 'truth' changes with new measurements, moving us from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics and will change again, but those are refinements towards establishing a truth independent of opinion (belief).

There is so much wrong with this statement above that I will have to unpack it.

1. If the new measurements differ from the old measurements, then someone screwed up on the measurements somewhere.
2. No, we have not abandoned classical physics.
3. Science does not establish truth and it never confirms anything as "true." Yes, we presume science is true, but with the understanding that we could be mistaken and that tomorrow it could be shown to be false.
4. You are trying to get your speculations relabelled as "fact" and not your mere opinion.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:What is pretty stupid is your non-sequitur that because all substances absorb IR are therefore gases.

That is your position. You defined greenhouse gases as IR-absorbing substances. That was not my definition; it was yours. I will remind you that all substances absorb IR. This means that your position is that all substances are greenhouse gas. I will again remind you that this is a stupid position for you to have.

I will presume that you are not very good at formal logic.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: You asked for a SPECIFIC fact that identifies what GHGs are

Nope. That doesn't make any sense and is nothing I would ever request.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: - and that is, GHGs absorb IR

All substances absorb IR, therefore by your definition all substances are GHGs. You really aren't following your own logic, are you?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I just forgot you're a troll.

I just forgot, you are a scientifically illiterate intellectual coward who cannot support his stupid positions so he needs a safe space in which to post so that I can't pop his delicate delusion bubbles with my science and/or differing positions.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I can only presume you also have difficulty using a book to read how to measure gas composition in the air?

I can only presume that you are now realizing that what you wrote previously was terribly stupid, that you are embarrassed, that you realize you will never be accepted as any sort of expert in this forum, and that you must now dedicate your efforts to portraying your stupid claim of knowing earth's quantity of atmospheric CO2 as somehow being my fault.
.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
So another interesting fact about trolls - seems they are needy - they keep wanting others to engage with them - I guess it is their only source of engagement - must be lonely. Here they are begging for me to engage. Still didn't get the message that intelligent people are not here to waste time engaging with their ignorance.

Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining. Stop spamming. You accomplish nothing.

Go learn English. Go learn mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy. Your own illiteracy is your own problem. Only you can do something about it.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
You can't really use WATER as a "buffer for acid", by the way.
...deleted whining...

Im a BM wrote: You can't really use WATER as a "buffer for acid", by the way.

Im a BM wrote: You are a relentless TROLL.

Im a BM wrote:

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
So another interesting fact about trolls - seems they are needy - they keep wanting others to engage with them - I guess it is their only source of engagement - must be lonely. Here they are begging for me to engage. Still didn't get the message that intelligent people are not here to waste time engaging with their ignorance.

This was his 32nd and LAST post at climate-debate.com

The trolls never seemed to grasp that nobody was required to join, and no new member agreed to be obliged to respond to aggressive interrogation, combined with personal attacks and false accusations.

It wasn't like at school where the bullies had victims who were unable to just leave to a place where no bullies were allowed.

It is actually rather rare for a website to have an absentee moderator who allows things to run amok to the extent that it happened here.

The trolls drove all the scientists away before I got here, and there were more than a few actual SCIENTISTS participating before IBdaMann made them "flee to the hills" because they couldn't handle the truth of his scientific insights.

The members who "fled" weren't the kind who were about to get banned as soon as they joined a discussion with a conscious moderator. They had more attractive options where respectful and rational discussion could take place.

More than ten years of trolling here left IBdaMann and Into the Night with a very small remaining fan base who enjoy engaging with them. Indiscernibly small.

Patricio wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
I'm new here, but I get the distinct impression that's exactly what has happened to this forum.

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
I'm new here, but I get the distinct impression that's exactly what has happened to this forum.

You are not new here. You have three socks.
You are a whiner.

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
I'm new here, but I get the distinct impression that's exactly what has happened to this forum.

You are not new here. You have three socks.
You are a whiner.

Thank you, Mr Dunning-Kruger

I defer to your infinite wisdom!

Beijinhos,

Patricio

Spongy Iris wrote:

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
I'm new here, but I get the distinct impression that's exactly what has happened to this forum.

You are not new here. You have three socks.
You are a whiner.

Thank you, Mr Dunning-Kruger

I defer to your infinite wisdom!

Beijinhos,

Patricio

Oh no

was I fooled into thinking Patricio was actually a new commenter?

Sealover tried to hide his writing style with AI...

Patricio wrote: This is a problem common to internet forums going all the way back to the days of Usenet and BBSes.

Patricio wrote: A new community gets started, people arrive with genuine interest and expertise, and then the trolls move in and begin driving everyone away.

Patricio wrote: They stink up the place with smug certitude and boundless confidence despite a profound lack of understanding

Patricio wrote: Dunning and Kruger on steroids.

Patricio wrote: Before long, the people with real knowledge, curiosity, and something worthwhile to contribute decide it's simply not worth the aggravation.

Im a BM wrote: I should have known I couldn't fool you guys.

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
I'm new here, but I get the distinct impression that's exactly what has happened to this forum.

You are not new here. You have three socks.
You are a whiner.

Thank you, Mr Dunning-Kruger

I defer to your infinite wisdom!

Beijinhos,

Patricio

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
I'm new here, but I get the distinct impression that's exactly what has happened to this forum.

You are not new here. You have three socks.
You are a whiner.

Thank you, Mr Dunning-Kruger

I defer to your infinite wisdom!

Beijinhos,

Patricio

Psychoquackery.

IBdaMann wrote:

Patricio wrote: This is a problem common to internet forums going all the way back to the days of Usenet and BBSes.

You were mistaken back then as well?

Patricio wrote: A new community gets started, people arrive with genuine interest and expertise, and then the trolls move in and begin driving everyone away.

Only site administrators can ban people. Anyone who wants to stay, stays. Anyone who wants to leave, leaves. There is no "driving away" possible, except in the form of a denial-of-service attack, e.g. spam.

Patricio wrote: They stink up the place with smug certitude and boundless confidence despite a profound lack of understanding

So you're a troll all of a sudden? I don't find that you have any power to drive me away.

Patricio wrote: Dunning and Kruger on steroids.

The "Dunning-Kruger" insult is a staple of all those who know absolutely nothing.

Patricio wrote: Before long, the people with real knowledge, curiosity, and something worthwhile to contribute decide it's simply not worth the aggravation.

It's more of a case of losers who are desperate to roleplay thmart perthonth discover that they can't very well fake being thmart on a website full of actually smart people who are actually proficient in science, math and logic.

Rather than have their delicate fantasy delusions destroyed, the desperate, undereducated leftists seek other communities, hopefully ones comprised exclusively of truly stupid people who are just as desperate to roleplay thmart perthonth. Of course, the moment an actual smart person arrives, the undereducated leftists arch their backs, they hiss, they become defensive and eventually leave that place as well, looking for fresh new communities of stupid people.

.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, it is. One of those losers tries to roleplay as some kind of "chemist", and the bluff is transparently hollow. The senior troll roleplays as a "scientist".

Im a BM wrote:
There was a time when many people who actually CARED about climate change and wanted to discuss the REALITY of it were posting here.

Im a BM wrote:
They were driven away by scientifically illiterate, arrogant, obnoxious, and VERY DISHONEST members who I can only describe as "trolls".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, it is. One of those losers tries to roleplay as some kind of "chemist", and the bluff is transparently hollow. The senior troll roleplays as a "scientist".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
There was a time when many people who actually CARED about climate change and wanted to discuss the REALITY of it were posting here.

Climate cannot change.
Go learn what 'reality' means.

Im a BM wrote:
They were driven away by scientifically illiterate, arrogant, obnoxious, and VERY DISHONEST members who I can only describe as "trolls".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Magick Words (climate change, reality, troll). Buzzword fallacies.

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, it is. One of those losers tries to roleplay as some kind of "chemist", and the bluff is transparently hollow. The senior troll roleplays as a "scientist".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
There was a time when many people who actually CARED about climate change and wanted to discuss the REALITY of it were posting here.

Climate cannot change.
Go learn what 'reality' means.

Im a BM wrote:
They were driven away by scientifically illiterate, arrogant, obnoxious, and VERY DISHONEST members who I can only describe as "trolls".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Magick Words (climate change, reality, troll). Buzzword fallacies.

Says the guy with MORE than TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND posts over the last DECADE.

Yes, you have created a discussion that is SO ATTRACTIVE that it's hard to get a word in edgewise, with all the active posters clamoring to be heard.

1745 members with a TOTAL of 112,372 posts.

Just ONE TROLL accounts for more than one in five of ALL POSTS EVER here.

Stop whining that there is nobody who wants to play with you anymore.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, it is. One of those losers tries to roleplay as some kind of "chemist", and the bluff is transparently hollow. The senior troll roleplays as a "scientist".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
There was a time when many people who actually CARED about climate change and wanted to discuss the REALITY of it were posting here.

Climate cannot change.
Go learn what 'reality' means.

Im a BM wrote:
They were driven away by scientifically illiterate, arrogant, obnoxious, and VERY DISHONEST members who I can only describe as "trolls".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Magick Words (climate change, reality, troll). Buzzword fallacies.

Let me offer you a montage of some of YOUR quotes to me. Don't try to deny your own posts!

Each and every line a direct quote of what you said to ME:

"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

Which side of the mirror am I on here?

More whining. Useless.

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, it is. One of those losers tries to roleplay as some kind of "chemist", and the bluff is transparently hollow. The senior troll roleplays as a "scientist".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
There was a time when many people who actually CARED about climate change and wanted to discuss the REALITY of it were posting here.

Climate cannot change.
Go learn what 'reality' means.

Im a BM wrote:
They were driven away by scientifically illiterate, arrogant, obnoxious, and VERY DISHONEST members who I can only describe as "trolls".

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Magick Words (climate change, reality, troll). Buzzword fallacies.

Let me offer you a montage of some of YOUR quotes to me. Don't try to deny your own posts!

Each and every line a direct quote of what you said to ME:

"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

Which side of the mirror am I on here?

Im a BM wrote:"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

Here's the updated list:

1. What is the formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics, math, logic and economics? You have been unable to define your core term for your entire tenure at this site.

2. What fuels do fossils burn, and what fossils are burned as fuels?

3. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow changing to any discernible extent?

4. Why do you deny the carbon cycle, and instead preach that CO2 simply accumulates in the ocean due to water never evaporating?

5. Why do you claim that lipids are hydrocarbons?

6. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature somehow spontaneously increases in temperature in violation of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann?

7. Why do you claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed?

8. How can one distinguish "man-made" carbon from wholesome, Climate-formed carbon that is meticulously hand-crafted naturally in the loving warmth of Global Warming?

9. "Power" has meaning in science. In what way, exactly, is N2O somehow 200 to 300 times "more powerful" than CO2, and what is the exact coefficient?


These are the questions that remain outstanding; you have an obligation to answer them thoroughly.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

Here's the updated list:

1. What is the formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics, math, logic and economics? You have been unable to define your core term for your entire tenure at this site.

2. What fuels do fossils burn, and what fossils are burned as fuels?

3. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow changing to any discernible extent?

4. Why do you deny the carbon cycle, and instead preach that CO2 simply accumulates in the ocean due to water never evaporating?

5. Why do you claim that lipids are hydrocarbons?

6. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature somehow spontaneously increases in temperature in violation of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann?

7. Why do you claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed?

8. How can one distinguish "man-made" carbon from wholesome, Climate-formed carbon that is meticulously hand-crafted naturally in the loving warmth of Global Warming?

9. "Power" has meaning in science. In what way, exactly, is N2O somehow 200 to 300 times "more powerful" than CO2, and what is the exact coefficient?


These are the questions that remain outstanding; you have an obligation to answer them thoroughly.

IBdaMann, why do you ask so many "questions"?

Im a BM wrote:
Why should any rational adult voluntarily choose to engage with you?

Why should any rational adult tolerate your insults and false accusations?

Why should any rational adult respond to your unsupported assertions?

Why should any rational adult dignify your stupid "questions" with a reply?

Why should any rational adult believe you have the slightest comprehension of any area of science?

Why should any rational adult characterize you as anything other than an arrogant, obnoxious, scientifically-illiterate TROLL who feels powerful and important in a place where there are no restrictions to malignant narcissism?

Why should any rational adult respond to your Internet TROLL behavior with anything other than revulsion, disgust, and contempt?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

Here's the updated list:

1. What is the formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics, math, logic and economics? You have been unable to define your core term for your entire tenure at this site.

2. What fuels do fossils burn, and what fossils are burned as fuels?

3. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow changing to any discernible extent?

4. Why do you deny the carbon cycle, and instead preach that CO2 simply accumulates in the ocean due to water never evaporating?

5. Why do you claim that lipids are hydrocarbons?

6. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature somehow spontaneously increases in temperature in violation of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann?

7. Why do you claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed?

8. How can one distinguish "man-made" carbon from wholesome, Climate-formed carbon that is meticulously hand-crafted naturally in the loving warmth of Global Warming?

9. "Power" has meaning in science. In what way, exactly, is N2O somehow 200 to 300 times "more powerful" than CO2, and what is the exact coefficient?


These are the questions that remain outstanding; you have an obligation to answer them thoroughly.

IBdaMann, why do you ask so many "questions"?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:QUOTES from Into the Night -"You are describing yourself. You don't even know what science is. You deny science. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You are a nothing. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind. You are a liar. You have never set foot in a laboratory. You think science is buzzwords. Inversion fallacy."

Here's the updated list:

1. What is the formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics, math, logic and economics? You have been unable to define your core term for your entire tenure at this site.

2. What fuels do fossils burn, and what fossils are burned as fuels?

3. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow changing to any discernible extent?

4. Why do you deny the carbon cycle, and instead preach that CO2 simply accumulates in the ocean due to water never evaporating?

5. Why do you claim that lipids are hydrocarbons?

6. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature somehow spontaneously increases in temperature in violation of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann?

7. Why do you claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed?

8. How can one distinguish "man-made" carbon from wholesome, Climate-formed carbon that is meticulously hand-crafted naturally in the loving warmth of Global Warming?

9. "Power" has meaning in science. In what way, exactly, is N2O somehow 200 to 300 times "more powerful" than CO2, and what is the exact coefficient?


These are the questions that remain outstanding; you have an obligation to answer them thoroughly.

Im a BM wrote:
"They are all your assertions. Won't you make an effort to support them, or at least clarify them?" - IBdaMann

IBdaMann, starting from your very first post in reply to me more than four years ago, you characterized my assertions as "non science gibber babble".

Im a BM wrote:

The clarity was already there, but you were too scientifically illiterate to even know the definitions of any of the terms.

Im a BM wrote:
You have no idea what my assertions were, because they were written in a language you never learned to read.

Im a BM wrote:

The straw man positions you attribute to me have nothing to do with my own assertions. For example, nothing I have ever posted here could be interpreted by a any rational adult as suggesting that "water does not evaporate".

Im a BM wrote:

It's too bad you never studied enough science to understand "gibber babble".

It's too bad that you and your second rate side kick don't even know where to FIND the definitions for terms used in science.

Im a BM wrote:

The outside viewer, and they FAR outnumber the handful of active posters, could read my posts and draw their own conclusions about my assertions.

I know that on MULTIPLE occasions I clarified that "global climate" isn't a term being used by anyone other than Internet trolls, as a straw man for "debate".

Im a BM wrote:

If you STILL can't figure out that "fossil fuel" is the term people use to refer to petroleum, coal, and natural gas mined from underground, I can't help you.

Im a BM wrote:
It is unfortunate that you can't wrap you head around the term "alkalinity" as something that "you cannot measure" with a pH meter. One must first know what alkalinity IS to understand how its depletion is quantified.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann's straw man is the only one here to "deny the carbon cycle" or claim the "water never evaporating" bullshit.

Im a BM wrote:
My claim regarding "lipids" is that they have very LOW C:H (carbon to hydrogen) ratio from their hydrocarbon chains, and HIGH C

(carbon to oxygen) ratio, causing them to metamorphize into HYDROCARBON petroleum, rather than just nearly pure carbon coal. The high lipid content of dead plankton that become petroleum, versus the high cellulose, lignin, and tannin content of the HIGH C:H ratio, LOW C

ratio swamp vegetation that can become coal.

Im a BM wrote:
Rational adults can believe anything they want about "the Earth's average global equilibrium temperature" or "thermodynamics and Stephan-Boltzman". None of my own posts make reference to any such things.

Im a BM wrote:
My description of one particular small pocket of coral reef at Bayhibe showing damage from bleaching" was not a "claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed."

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann's straw man claim about "manmade carbon" has nothing to do with anything that I posted. It is unfortunate that neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night is willing to learn the definition of "organic carbon" versus "inorganic carbon". If they did, they would realize that a carbon atom can switch from being "organic" to "inorganic" just by changing which atom(s) it is bonded to. Hydrocarbons are "organic" carbon because every carbon atom is bonded to either carbon or hydrogen. Carbonates are "inorganic" carbon because the carbon atoms are bonded only to oxygen.

Im a BM wrote:

"Power" has MANY meanings in science, depending on the context. Regarding the relative "power" of different greenhouse gases, it is a combined mathematical term "global warming potential". Part of the term is the half life of the gas in the atmosphere. It can only behave as a greenhouse gas during the time it is actually present in the atmosphere. Part of the term is the "radiative efficiency" or inherent capacity to absorb infrared light. For "global warming potential", carbon dioxide is set as the standard for comparison of all other greenhouse gases.

Im a BM wrote:
If nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide had exactly the same average residence time in the atmosphere, the 200-300 fold difference in global warming potential would be strictly on the basis of N2O absorbing infrared 200-300 times more "efficiently" than CO2. Such things can be measured with extreme precision.

Im a BM wrote:

N2O molecules are estimated to hang around in the atmosphere an average of about 120 years after their emission. CO2 molecules cycle at a very different rate, with about half of them removed within 30 years of emission.

Im a BM wrote:
Because nitrous oxide, N2O has longer mean residence time than CO2 in the atmosphere, and absorbs much more infrared than CO2, molecule per molecule, it has MUCH greater "global warming potential" or "power" as a greenhouse gas.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann, I know that you are not capable of understanding any of this, or you would have understood it the FIRST ten times I explained it to you.

Im a BM wrote:

Scientifically illiterate Internet TROLLS were never my "target audience".

Im a BM wrote:

My posts would only be of value or interest to someone who actually studied enough science to read "gibber babble", or at least know how to look up the definition for the "meaningless buzzwords" used in science.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"They are all your assertions. Won't you make an effort to support them, or at least clarify them?" - IBdaMann

IBdaMann, starting from your very first post in reply to me more than four years ago, you characterized my assertions as "non science gibber babble".

They are.

Im a BM wrote:

The clarity was already there, but you were too scientifically illiterate to even know the definitions of any of the terms.

Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert.
You cannot blame your denial of science on anybody else. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
You have no idea what my assertions were, because they were written in a language you never learned to read.

Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

The straw man positions you attribute to me have nothing to do with my own assertions. For example, nothing I have ever posted here could be interpreted by a any rational adult as suggesting that "water does not evaporate".

Fallacy fallacy.
Inversion fallacy.
DO NOT TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM wrote:

It's too bad you never studied enough science to understand "gibber babble".

It's too bad that you and your second rate side kick don't even know where to FIND the definitions for terms used in science.

Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert.
You deny theories of science.
Buzzword fallacies.

Im a BM wrote:

The outside viewer, and they FAR outnumber the handful of active posters, could read my posts and draw their own conclusions about my assertions.

I know that on MULTIPLE occasions I clarified that "global climate" isn't a term being used by anyone other than Internet trolls, as a straw man for "debate".

There is no such thing as a global climate.
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM wrote:

If you STILL can't figure out that "fossil fuel" is the term people use to refer to petroleum, coal, and natural gas mined from underground, I can't help you.

Fossils aren't used as fuel.
Fossils don't burn.
Petroleum isn't a fossil.
Coal isn't a fossil.
Natural gas isn't a fossil.

Carbon is not a fossil.
A fossil is not a liquid or gas.

Im a BM wrote:
It is unfortunate that you can't wrap you head around the term "alkalinity" as something that "you cannot measure" with a pH meter. One must first know what alkalinity IS to understand how its depletion is quantified.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.
You still don't understand pH.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann's straw man is the only one here to "deny the carbon cycle" or claim the "water never evaporating" bullshit.

Carbon is not a cycle.
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM wrote:
My claim regarding "lipids" is that they have very LOW C:H (carbon to hydrogen) ratio from their hydrocarbon chains, and HIGH C

(carbon to oxygen) ratio, causing them to metamorphize into HYDROCARBON petroleum, rather than just nearly pure carbon coal. The high lipid content of dead plankton that become petroleum, versus the high cellulose, lignin, and tannin content of the HIGH C:H ratio, LOW C

ratio swamp vegetation that can become coal.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Entropy can never decrease.
You are also ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process.

Im a BM wrote:
Rational adults can believe anything they want about "the Earth's average global equilibrium temperature" or "thermodynamics and Stephan-Boltzman". None of my own posts make reference to any such things.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM wrote:
My description of one particular small pocket of coral reef at Bayhibe showing damage from bleaching" was not a "claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed."

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Word games can't help you.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann's straw man claim about "manmade carbon" has nothing to do with anything that I posted. It is unfortunate that neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night is willing to learn the definition of "organic carbon" versus "inorganic carbon". If they did, they would realize that a carbon atom can switch from being "organic" to "inorganic" just by changing which atom(s) it is bonded to. Hydrocarbons are "organic" carbon because every carbon atom is bonded to either carbon or hydrogen. Carbonates are "inorganic" carbon because the carbon atoms are bonded only to oxygen.

Carbon is not organic.
Carbon is not inorganic.
Carbon is not a hydrocarbon.
Carbon is not a compound.
Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:

"Power" has MANY meanings in science, depending on the context. Regarding the relative "power" of different greenhouse gases, it is a combined mathematical term "global warming potential". Part of the term is the half life of the gas in the atmosphere. It can only behave as a greenhouse gas during the time it is actually present in the atmosphere. Part of the term is the "radiative efficiency" or inherent capacity to absorb infrared light. For "global warming potential", carbon dioxide is set as the standard for comparison of all other greenhouse gases.

Power has only one meaning in science.
You are ignoring Watt's Law, Sieman's Law, and the definition of a watt.
Power is measured in watts or horsepower.
The presence of a gas is not work.
The presence of a gas is not energy.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot decrease entropy...ever.

Im a BM wrote:
If nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide had exactly the same average residence time in the atmosphere, the 200-300 fold difference in global warming potential would be strictly on the basis of N2O absorbing infrared 200-300 times more "efficiently" than CO2. Such things can be measured with extreme precision.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Argument from randU fallacy.
It is not possible to measure that which does not exist.

Im a BM wrote:

N2O molecules are estimated to hang around in the atmosphere an average of about 120 years after their emission. CO2 molecules cycle at a very different rate, with about half of them removed within 30 years of emission.

Argument from randU fallacy.
Denial of biology.

Im a BM wrote:
Because nitrous oxide, N2O has longer mean residence time than CO2 in the atmosphere, and absorbs much more infrared than CO2, molecule per molecule, it has MUCH greater "global warming potential" or "power" as a greenhouse gas.

Argument from randU fallacy.
It is not possible to measure that which does not exist.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
Go learn what 'power' means in science (and engineering).

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann, I know that you are not capable of understanding any of this, or you would have understood it the FIRST ten times I explained it to you.

He completely understands your religion.

Im a BM wrote:

Scientifically illiterate Internet TROLLS were never my "target audience".

They certainly are.

Im a BM wrote:

My posts would only be of value or interest to someone who actually studied enough science to read "gibber babble", or at least know how to look up the definition for the "meaningless buzzwords" used in science.

Holy Word (science).
Science is not buzzwords.
Science is not gibber babble.
You deny theories of science.
You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Seiman's Law,Watt's Law, Black's Law, and Henry's Law.

This is YOUR problem. You cannot blame anybody else for it.
This is YOUR illiteracy. You cannot blame anybody else for it.
This is YOUR religion. You cannot blame anybody else for it.

Im a BM wrote:
Hey, did you know that they used to call CO2 "carbonic acid gas"?

Of course you didn't.

Im a BM wrote:
You never actually studied chemistry anywhere, ever.

But that isn't MY "problem", is it?

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

"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night

Indeed, you are.

Too bad you never learned what any of those "meaningless buzzwords" mean.

You MIGHT have something to say about chemistry if you ever learned any.

Meanwhile, you are just a PEST trolling the threads you don't understand.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Hey, did you know that they used to call CO2 "carbonic acid gas"?

Of course you didn't.

Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
You never actually studied chemistry anywhere, ever.

But that isn't MY "problem", is it?

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

"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night

Indeed, you are.

Too bad you never learned what any of those "meaningless buzzwords" mean.

You MIGHT have something to say about chemistry if you ever learned any.

Meanwhile, you are just a PEST trolling the threads you don't understand.

Inversion fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Childish mockery. Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
Once again, I will give GOOGLE the opportunity to show that she is WAY less SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE than our FRAUD "chemist", Into the Night.

Google inquiry: "What is 'carbonic acid gas'?"

Im a BM wrote:
And because Google is WAY MORE scientifically literate than Into the Night, she already knows that:

[b]Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonic acid gas is an archaic or alternative term for carbon dioxide (CO2). It specifically refers to the gaseous form that produces carbonic acid (H2CO3) when dissolved in water."

Im a BM wrote:
Google doesn't call herself a "chemist", but she understands a SHITLOAD more chemistry than Into the Night can fit into his tiny little mind.

Im a BM wrote:
And, in fact, carbon dioxide IS an acid. And it's also a CHEMICAL, in case that needed to be disputed for some delusional reason.

Im a BM wrote:
Hey, are you calling me a LIAR?

You don't pHucking BELIEVE me?

Well, Google can prove again how much smarter she is, compared to the scientifically illiterate, troll, FRAUD "chemist" who hides behind the FAKE ID of "Into the Night".

Im a BM wrote:
Google inquiry: "Is carbon dioxide an acid?"[/b]

Google is SO MUCH SMARTER than that pHucking IDIOT "chemist" FRAUD, ITN.

Im a BM wrote:
Google say: "Yes, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is considered an acidic compound."[/b]
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Okay, what about carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Is that also considered an acid? Heck, is it even a CHEMICAL?

Im a BM wrote:
Google, you are SO MUCH SMARTER about chemistry than Into the Night, please answer the following question:

Im a BM wrote:
"Is the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) considered to be a chemical? Is it considered to be an acid?"[

Im a BM wrote:
Damn, Google knows how to make Into the Night look STUPID!

Im a BM wrote:
Google say: "The carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is a chemical because it is a specific particle of matter. It is not an acid. Instead, it is considered a base."

Im a BM wrote:
That is the kind of ACCURATE information about chemistry you can get from Google to "debunk" the FRAUD "chemist" scientifically illiterate TROLL, ITN.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Once again, I will give GOOGLE the opportunity to show that she is WAY less SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE than our FRAUD "chemist", Into the Night.

Google inquiry: "What is 'carbonic acid gas'?"

Science is not Google.
Google is not sentient.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And because Google is WAY MORE scientifically literate than Into the Night, she already knows that:

Google is not sentient.
inversion fallacy.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonic acid gas is an archaic or alternative term for carbon dioxide (CO2). It specifically refers to the gaseous form that produces carbonic acid (H2CO3) when dissolved in water."

There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Carbonic acid is not a gas.
Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Google doesn't call herself a "chemist", but she understands a SHITLOAD more chemistry than Into the Night can fit into his tiny little mind.

Google is not sentient.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And, in fact, carbon dioxide IS an acid. And it's also a CHEMICAL, in case that needed to be disputed for some delusional reason.

Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Hey, are you calling me a LIAR?

You don't pHucking BELIEVE me?

Well, Google can prove again how much smarter she is, compared to the scientifically illiterate, troll, FRAUD "chemist" who hides behind the FAKE ID of "Into the Night".

Google is not sentient.
You are not Google.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Google inquiry: "Is carbon dioxide an acid?"[/b]

Google is SO MUCH SMARTER than that pHucking IDIOT "chemist" FRAUD, ITN.

Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Google is not sentient.
You are not Google.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Google say: "Yes, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is considered an acidic compound."[/b]
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Okay, what about carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Is that also considered an acid? Heck, is it even a CHEMICAL?

Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Google is not sentient.
You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
Google, you are SO MUCH SMARTER about chemistry than Into the Night, please answer the following question:

Google is not sentient.
You are not Google.
You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
"Is the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) considered to be a chemical? Is it considered to be an acid?"[

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Damn, Google knows how to make Into the Night look STUPID!

Google is not sentient.
Assumption of victory fallacy.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Google say: "The carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is a chemical because it is a specific particle of matter. It is not an acid. Instead, it is considered a base."

Carbonate is not a chemical.
A buzzword is not an acid or an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
That is the kind of ACCURATE information about chemistry you can get from Google to "debunk" the FRAUD "chemist" scientifically illiterate TROLL, ITN.

You deny chemistry.
You deny science.
Google is not science.
Google is not chemistry.
Google is not sentient.
You are not Google.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't worry, Google knows the answer!

Im a BM wrote:
Google inquiry: "What is 'carbonic acid gas'?"

So much smarter than Into the Night, Google really knows her shit about science and stuff.

Google say: "'Carbonic acid gas' is an older historical term for carbon dioxide (CO2). It refers to the gas that forms a weak, unstable acid (carbonic acid, H2CO3) when dissolved in water.."

And this experiment made me aware that Google can give two different answers to the exact same inquiry done on different days!

RenaissanceMan wrote:
1,275 views and this is the first reply. Absolutely inconceivable that such stuff as the opening post is ignored.

1. THE most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Its concentration is ~15,000 ppmv.
2. Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation far better than CO2 does.
3. One cannot "add" formulas and get a new compound. That is childishness.

This post by Lol Dude does NOT rely on science.

Im a BM wrote: Google is SO MUCH SMARTER than that pHucking IDIOT "chemist" FRAUD, ITN.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Google is SO MUCH SMARTER than that pHucking IDIOT "chemist" FRAUD, ITN.

CO₂ is not an acid
CO₂ has:
no dissociable proton
no ability to donate H⁺
no ability to accept an electron pair without reacting
no aqueous phase (as a pure substance)
no pH
no acid–base behavior on its own

So the statement "CO₂ is an acid" is simply false.
CO₂(g) is a neutral covalent oxide.

Look, Google and the internet agrees with Into the Night. Is that what you meant by saying that he's a chemist and you aren't?

Refresh my memory, why is it not possible for water to evaporate?

One more time, why are lipids hydrocarbons?

Please explain why you treat entire categories as one specific chemical?

Who told you that you were somehow a "chemist"? Your religious clergy?

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, your posts generally are not worthy of any response.

Im a BM wrote:
Can't even attract another troll to comment on them.

Im a BM wrote:
But you offer a couple of teachable moments here.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course I never said that lipids are categorized as hydrocarbons.

Im a BM wrote:
But the fatty acids generally have a long hydrocarbon tail attached to a carboxylic group.
Carboxylic is not a chemical.
Lipid is not a chemical.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Consequently, they have very low carbon to hydrogen ratio, and very high carbon to oxygen ratio.

Im a BM wrote:
Under conditions of geologic metamorphism,

Im a BM wrote:
there is very little oxygen in them to consume any hydrogen via formation of H2O.

Im a BM wrote:
After the water gets generated by being baked and squeezed out of them,

Im a BM wrote:
what lipids leave behind is pure hydrocarbon. As in petroleum deposits.

Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonic acid gas" is the actual term that chemists used for CO2 more than a century ago.

Im a BM wrote:
CO2 is, indeed, the gas that forms carbonic acid upon contact with water.

Im a BM wrote:
Nothing I ever posted could be rationally construed to be a claim that water does not evaporate.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, invoking the evaporation of water as if it were a mechanism the maintains alkalinity in the sea is just plain STUPID.

Im a BM wrote:
It is on the same level of stupidity as claiming that water is a buffer for acid, and dilution is an effective mechanism for pH buffering.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Nothing I ever published here can be rationally construed as claiming that "entire categories" are "one specific chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
As most chemists who publish anything do, I refer simply to "carbonate", "sulfate", "bicarbonate", or "fluoride" ions dissolved in solution by their first name. "Sulfate", the sulfate anion, SO4(2-), has a very specific chemical formula regardless of the cation is may be temporarily associated with.

Im a BM wrote:
Dissolved sulfate ions in sea water can be quantified very precisely. A simple test is to add barium, and precipitate all sulfate out as BaSO4. It tells you the total dissolved sulfate ion content, but does not tell you which cations the sulfate was associated with before exchanging with barium and precipitating out.

Im a BM wrote:
It is certainly possible to speciate sulfate in solution and say how much was (during that brief moment at analysis) associated with sodium, versus calcium, potassium, magnesium, etc. But it is kind of pointless. The important data is the total amount of sulfate ion, SO4(2-), a "CHEMICAL" by most chemists' definition. It is then reported as moles per liter SO4(2-), or ppm, which is milligrams per liter SO4(2-).

Im a BM wrote:
I love that term "neutral covalent oxide". You won't find it anywhere else! Only a scientifically-illiterate troll would think they could bluff an actual chemist with a fake chemistry term they just made up.

Im a BM wrote:
No, my religious clergy never told me I was a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, every paper I published and every presentation I gave at a conference was categorized in the "chemistry" section. Chemists were used as peer reviewers to judge it. More than a thousand different scientists who all have the title "chemist" cited it in their own peer reviewed publications.

Im a BM wrote:
But labels like "biogeochemistry" or even just "chemistry" are already just specializations in the only REAL field of natural science that there is.

Im a BM wrote:
"Chemistry" is just a subset of the broader field of science called "physics".

Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry is the specialized area within physics that only pays attention to hadrons (visible matter) and visible energy. That already excludes most of the mass and energy in the universe.

Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, chemistry only pays attention to the physical interactions between the outermost electron orbitals of atoms. That excludes nuclear reactions. That excludes freezing, thawing, boiling... perhaps with the exception of the hydrogen bonds that are formed or broken during phase change.

Call me what you want, but they let me teach "chemistry" to college students and they let me publish "chemistry" articles. They even invited me to give "chemistry" presentations at some very prestigious conferences.

Im a BM wrote:
I can cope with the shame of not getting recognition as a "chemist" from an arrogant, obnoxious, scientifically-illiterate TROLL who never could pass that first college level class in chemistry.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Google is SO MUCH SMARTER than that pHucking IDIOT "chemist" FRAUD, ITN.

CO₂ is not an acid
CO₂ has:
no dissociable proton
no ability to donate H⁺
no ability to accept an electron pair without reacting
no aqueous phase (as a pure substance)
no pH
no acid–base behavior on its own

So the statement "CO₂ is an acid" is simply false.
CO₂(g) is a neutral covalent oxide.

Look, Google and the internet agrees with Into the Night. Is that what you meant by saying that he's a chemist and you aren't?

Refresh my memory, why is it not possible for water to evaporate?

One more time, why are lipids hydrocarbons?

Please explain why you treat entire categories as one specific chemical?

Who told you that you were somehow a "chemist"? Your religious clergy?