How to solve climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, your posts...deleted remaining cross thread spam...

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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Of course I never said that lipids are categorized as hydrocarbons. But the fatty acids generally have a long hydrocarbon tail attached to a carboxylic group. Consequently, they have very low carbon to hydrogen ratio, and very high carbon to oxygen ratio. Under conditions of geologic metamorphism, there is very little oxygen in them to consume any hydrogen via formation of H2O. There is little oxygen attached to the carbon, which consumes some of the hydrogen attached to carbon to form H2O. After the water gets generated by being baked and squeezed out of them, what lipids leave behind is pure hydrocarbon. As in petroleum deposits.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
"Carbonic acid gas" is the actual term that chemists used for CO2 more than a century ago. CO2 is, indeed, the gas that forms carbonic acid upon contact with water.

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Nothing I ever published here can be rationally construed as claiming that "entire categories" are "one specific chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
No, my religious clergy never told me I was a chemist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
"Chemistry" is just a subset of the broader field of science called "physics".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Of course I never said that lipids are categorized as hydrocarbons. But the fatty acids generally have a long hydrocarbon tail attached to a carboxylic group. Consequently, they have very low carbon to hydrogen ratio, and very high carbon to oxygen ratio. Under conditions of geologic metamorphism, there is very little oxygen in them to consume any hydrogen via formation of H2O. There is little oxygen attached to the carbon, which consumes some of the hydrogen attached to carbon to form H2O. After the water gets generated by being baked and squeezed out of them, what lipids leave behind is pure hydrocarbon. As in petroleum deposits.

Don't try to deny your own posts.
Lipid is not a chemical.
Fatty acid is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.
Hydrogen is not oxygen.
Carbon is not oxygen.
You cannot 'squeeze' anything out of a chemical.
You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
"Carbonic acid gas" is the actual term that chemists used for CO2 more than a century ago. CO2 is, indeed, the gas that forms carbonic acid upon contact with water.

Carbonic acid is not a gas.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallac.
Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water.
Carbon dioxide vents from water.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

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

You have claimed exactly that. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Water is a buffer for all acids.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Nothing I ever published here can be rationally construed as claiming that "entire categories" are "one specific chemical".

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Fluoride is not a chemical.
SO4(2-) is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical.
You cannot precipitate sulfate.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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-).

Sulfate is not a chemical.
SO4(2-) is not a chemical.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
No, my religious clergy never told me I was a chemist.

Yes they did.
You are no chemist. You deny chemistry and physics.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Science is not a paper.
Science is not a conference.
Science is not a tradeshow.
Science does not use consesnsus.
Science is not a cite.
Science is not a publication.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

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

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
You deny science.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
"Chemistry" is just a subset of the broader field of science called "physics".

You deny science.

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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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 and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, do you honestly believe that you have accomplished something of value with your nearly 25,000 posts at this website?

Speaking strictly for MYSELF, I don't believe that you have accomplished ANYTHING of value with your nearly 25,000 posts over about ELEVEN YEARS of trolling this website.

But let me ask Google:

"Has the internet persona known as 'Into the Night' accomplished anything of value with nearly 25,000 posts and 11 years of obnoxious trolling at the climate-debate.com website?"


Google AI provides an interesting reply:
"No, prolific contrarian posting campaigns of that nature generally function as a form of digital endurance exhaustion rather than a producer of substantive or constructive value.

From a practical standpoint, spending over a decade and amassing tens of thousands of comments on a niche forum typically results in:

* Amplified Noise: Drowning out nuanced or evidence-based scientific discourse.

* Confirmation Loops: Reinforcing existing ideological echo chambers rather than shifting mainstream or academic consensus.

* Atypical Persistence: Standing as an outlier example of hyper-fixated online behavior rather than an influential contribution to public policy or science."