I nominate Swan as the Climate Debate winner

Im a BM wrote:
My mom says your "earlier hotter Earth" hypothesis is pretty far fetched.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, you're saying that there were regional climatic regimes of precipitation, wind, humidity, etc. BEFORE there were any bodies of standing liquid water?

Im a BM wrote:
It took a while for the Earth to be cool enough to make any kind of solid "rock" material we would recognize today as rocks.

I'm sure that your secret source of information knows more than I ever will.

I'm so ignorant, I didn't even know that Bush was in charge of the CIA at the time of the JKF assassination. Your secret sources know more than I do.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My mom says your "earlier hotter Earth" hypothesis is pretty far fetched.

Must've been your mom that taught you that religion is 'science'.
A hypothesis is not a theory.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, you're saying that there were regional climatic regimes of precipitation, wind, humidity, etc. BEFORE there were any bodies of standing liquid water?

Climate has no precipitation. It has no wind speed or direction. It has no measure of humidity. It is not water.

There is a windy climate, but it has no wind speed or direction.
There is a humid climate, but it has no measure of humidity.
There is a rainy climate, but it has no rain gauge.
There is a hot climate, but it has no temperature.

Im a BM wrote:
It took a while for the Earth to be cool enough to make any kind of solid "rock" material we would recognize today as rocks.

I'm sure that your secret source of information knows more than I ever will.

I'm so ignorant, I didn't even know that Bush was in charge of the CIA at the time of the JKF assassination. Your secret sources know more than I do.

So what is your secret source of information?

Im a BM wrote:
I almost feel bad for you, YARP. (Yellow And Red Parrot)

IBdaMann DITCHED you again!

GasGuzzler almost never comes around, nor does gfm####.

Harvey isn't coming back after having his intelligence repeatedly insulted.

Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Harvey just didn't get "science", did he?

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Im a BM wrote: You told me that I had been "politely asked" to make a statement about whether alligators are AMPHIBIOUS, because that means science calls them "amphibians".

Im a BM wrote: There are salamanders that are amphibians, but they are not amphibious.

Im a BM wrote: They will die if taken out of the water, as some species of salamanders have adults with no lungs and only gills.

Im a BM wrote: They are amphibians because they are vertebrates in the amphibian family.

Im a BM wrote: The "amphi bios" (two lives) refers to the two stage life cycle, not the aquatic versus land environment.

Im a BM wrote: "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann

Im a BM wrote: Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science.

Im a BM wrote: He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Not me, personally, but others already do it on an industrial scale.

They call it shale oil, and they squeeze it out of rocks.

Spongy Iris wrote:Are you sure about that?

I thought they squeezed it out of the kerogen in the rocks, not directly out of the rocks.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Not me, personally, but others already do it on an industrial scale.

They call it shale oil, and they squeeze it out of rocks.

Are you sure about that?

I thought they squeezed it out of the kerogen in the rocks, not directly out of the rocks.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Not me, personally, but others already do it on an industrial scale.

They call it shale oil, and they squeeze it out of rocks.

Are you sure about that?

I thought they squeezed it out of the kerogen in the rocks, not directly out of the rocks.

The sedimentary "rock" that is shale stone has petroleum, or something close enough to it, in pore spaces. The rock fragments eroded off the land and got deposited on to the sea floor organic ooze as it was all getting laid down together. Oil can migrate into the pore spaces of adjacent sedimentary rock fragments in other layers. If you separate one of the maybe sand size fragments and clean it off, there is no oil whatsoever INSIDE it. Only in the pore spaces between rock fragments.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Not me, personally, but others already do it on an industrial scale.

They call it shale oil, and they squeeze it out of rocks.

Are you sure about that?

I thought they squeezed it out of the kerogen in the rocks, not directly out of the rocks.

The sedimentary "rock" that is shale stone has petroleum, or something close enough to it, in pore spaces. The rock fragments eroded off the land and got deposited on to the sea floor organic ooze as it was all getting laid down together. Oil can migrate into the pore spaces of adjacent sedimentary rock fragments in other layers. If you separate one of the maybe sand size fragments and clean it off, there is no oil whatsoever INSIDE it. Only in the pore spaces between rock fragments.

Ok, but my point is the oil doesn't come from the rocks, but the kerogen.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Not me, personally, but others already do it on an industrial scale.

They call it shale oil, and they squeeze it out of rocks.

Are you sure about that?

I thought they squeezed it out of the kerogen in the rocks, not directly out of the rocks.

The sedimentary "rock" that is shale stone has petroleum, or something close enough to it, in pore spaces. The rock fragments eroded off the land and got deposited on to the sea floor organic ooze as it was all getting laid down together. Oil can migrate into the pore spaces of adjacent sedimentary rock fragments in other layers. If you separate one of the maybe sand size fragments and clean it off, there is no oil whatsoever INSIDE it. Only in the pore spaces between rock fragments.

Ok, but my point is the oil doesn't come from the rocks, but the kerogen.

Quite right.

The organic carbon all came from formerly-living organisms.

The technical point of what is "inside" a rock. The entire sediment deposit becomes "rock", but it is loaded with pore space between mineral rock fragments. That pore space may already be occupied by organic matter from dead organisms when the sediment was originally deposited. The porous nature allows stuff to migrate into it or out of it.

If "magic petroleum" really does originate multiple kilometers deep, with no need for input from dead organisms, and it gets pushed up toward the surface under pressure... That too could explain shale oil if it pushed up into a nicely permeable layer of the stuff. It would be trapped beneath a more impermeable layer of rock before it will pop up out of the ground near Jed Clampett's pond, as in the Beverly Hillbillies.

Im a BM wrote:
The sedimentary "rock" that is shale stone has petroleum, or something close enough to it, in pore spaces. The rock fragments eroded off the land and got deposited on to the sea floor organic ooze as it was all getting laid down together. Oil can migrate into the pore spaces of adjacent sedimentary rock fragments in other layers. If you separate one of the maybe sand size fragments and clean it off, there is no oil whatsoever INSIDE it. Only in the pore spaces between rock fragments.

Im a BM wrote:
The organic carbon all came from formerly-living organisms.

The technical point of what is "inside" a rock. The entire sediment deposit becomes "rock", but it is loaded with pore space between mineral rock fragments. That pore space may already be occupied by organic matter from dead organisms when the sediment was originally deposited. The porous nature allows stuff to migrate into it or out of it.

If "magic petroleum" really does originate multiple kilometers deep, with no need for input from dead organisms, and it gets pushed up toward the surface under pressure... That too could explain shale oil if it pushed up into a nicely permeable layer of the stuff. It would be trapped beneath a more impermeable layer of rock before it will pop up out of the ground near Jed Clampett's pond, as in the Beverly Hillbillies.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science. He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Isn't soil the remnants of dead organisms?

Riddle me this, how hard and long do you have to squeeze a clump of soil before it turns into oil?

Since you used the term "oil" rather than petroleum, the question isn't pure nonsense. And since you didn't specify what kind of "soil", let's make the only kind of soil in the world you could really squeeze oil out of.

The soil to give us oil is a HISTOSOL. Comprised of pure organic matter in the surface of a wetland.

Not all wetland soils are Histosols by a long shot. Most of them get too much input of sediment carried in the water from upstream, and are extremely rich in organic matter, but not pure.

Histosols form where it always stays wet, but doesn't get any material washed down into it from upstream.

Being always waterlogged, the low oxygen conditions prevent aerobic decomposition. Undecomposed (or only partially decomposed) peat piles up, year after year.

If you are patient enough, leave the Histosol intact in the field and wait tens of millions of years. You won't get any oil, but it will turn into coal. Well, the coal has "oil" in it. But peat won't turn into petroleum. That comes from dead marine plankton, algae, etc.

Okay, you want to squeeze oil from a handful of soil.

It's a Histosol, so there won't be any mineral contaminants in the oil.

In a famous old experiment, some "scientists" showed how few hours it takes to turn a barrel of dead vegetation into a barrel of oil. I say "scientists" in quotation marks because their goal was to prove a very young Earth.

Unlike my hand, that barrel they used was under high pressure and a lot of heat.

So, to answer the riddle.. oh, good! I see it isn't supposed to happen in my hand. So, I get to "squeeze" that soil any way I want?

Give me a couple of days. But the "oil" you get will only have a few things in common with petroleum.

I bet you couldn't squeeze any oil out of a rock could you?

Not me, personally, but others already do it on an industrial scale.

They call it shale oil, and they squeeze it out of rocks.

Are you sure about that?

I thought they squeezed it out of the kerogen in the rocks, not directly out of the rocks.

The sedimentary "rock" that is shale stone has petroleum, or something close enough to it, in pore spaces. The rock fragments eroded off the land and got deposited on to the sea floor organic ooze as it was all getting laid down together. Oil can migrate into the pore spaces of adjacent sedimentary rock fragments in other layers. If you separate one of the maybe sand size fragments and clean it off, there is no oil whatsoever INSIDE it. Only in the pore spaces between rock fragments.

Ok, but my point is the oil doesn't come from the rocks, but the kerogen.

Quite right.

The organic carbon all came from formerly-living organisms.

The technical point of what is "inside" a rock. The entire sediment deposit becomes "rock", but it is loaded with pore space between mineral rock fragments. That pore space may already be occupied by organic matter from dead organisms when the sediment was originally deposited. The porous nature allows stuff to migrate into it or out of it.

If "magic petroleum" really does originate multiple kilometers deep, with no need for input from dead organisms, and it gets pushed up toward the surface under pressure... That too could explain shale oil if it pushed up into a nicely permeable layer of the stuff. It would be trapped beneath a more impermeable layer of rock before it will pop up out of the ground near Jed Clampett's pond, as in the Beverly Hillbillies.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science.

Harvey did not have a profound belief in geology. His belief was in the human soul and in the emergence of life. He believed that the dead-organism myth validated his theory. Learning the truth was injurious to his faith.

Im a BM wrote: He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Too funny! A person who insists that he is some sort of chemist openly denies actual Fischer-Tropsh science in favor of proselytizing the need for hydrocarbons to have biological sources. Too funny!

I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist. You might have better luck if you were to accept chemistry.

You just don't get science, do you?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science.

Harvey did not have a profound belief in geology. His belief was in the human soul and in the emergence of life. He believed that the dead-organism myth validated his theory. Learning the truth was injurious to his faith.

Im a BM wrote: He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Too funny! A person who insists that he is some sort of chemist openly denies actual Fischer-Tropsh science in favor of proselytizing the need for hydrocarbons to have biological sources. Too funny!

I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist. You might have better luck if you were to accept chemistry.

You just don't get science, do you?

Im a BM wrote:

Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

Im a BM wrote:
I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

The best part of "magic petroleum" is the we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

Im a BM wrote:
No, I can't say that I am.

Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

I can offer some clues if you are curious.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Harvey was just too "gullible" in his belief in geologic science.

Harvey did not have a profound belief in geology. His belief was in the human soul and in the emergence of life. He believed that the dead-organism myth validated his theory. Learning the truth was injurious to his faith.

Im a BM wrote: He didn't even believe that magic petroleum forms way deep down without ANY input from dead organisms or any organic carbon derived from them.

Too funny! A person who insists that he is some sort of chemist openly denies actual Fischer-Tropsh science in favor of proselytizing the need for hydrocarbons to have biological sources. Too funny!

I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist. You might have better luck if you were to accept chemistry.

You just don't get science, do you?

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process again? Won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Petroleum is not magic. It IS a renewable form of energy.

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Lie. Denial. You are completely baffled why no one here recognizes you as a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

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

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I also know that bugs the hell out of you.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

He IS recognized as a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Such as what? Denial?

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

He didn't.

Im a BM wrote:
"I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I know that bugs the hell out of you."- Into the Night.

"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night


Well, those 1267 citations don't represent 1267 individual chemists. Some of those papers had half a dozen authors or more.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process again? Won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Petroleum is not magic. It IS a renewable form of energy.

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Lie. Denial. You are completely baffled why no one here recognizes you as a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

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

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I also know that bugs the hell out of you.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

He IS recognized as a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Such as what? Denial?

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

He didn't.

Im a BM wrote:
Who is the "winner" of the "debate" at climate-debate.com?

Between IBdaMann and Into the Night, more than 4 in 10 of ALL posts ever put up by ALL 1743 members.

"You won't be here long..", IBdaMann would warn them in response to their first post to include the term "climate change". ("You scientifically illiterate moron..")

Then Into the Night would follow up with relentless heckling, "No, it's not." "No such thing." "Buzzwords!"

Between the two of them it was relentless harassment.

How DARE you say "climate change" without first satisfying "the Board" with an "unambiguous definition" that they feel does not violate some vague reference to "thermodynamics".

They should split the prize. IBdaMann is obviously the intellectually dominant one, able to craft a word game that almost sounds plausible to someone with little or no scientific training. But Into the Night puts in the work, post after post, denial after denial, relentlessly... He KNOWS that just "bugs the hell out of you". Either one alone would have been unable to accomplish what the pair did.

When they arrived more than ten years ago, there were more than a handful of posters. A LOT more. And most of the threads were directly related to climate.

Never underestimate the power of a pair of tenacious trolls.
____________________________________________
"I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I know that bugs the hell out of you."- Into the Night.

"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night


Well, those 1267 citations don't represent 1267 individual chemists. Some of those papers had half a dozen authors or more.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process again? Won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Petroleum is not magic. It IS a renewable form of energy.

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Lie. Denial. You are completely baffled why no one here recognizes you as a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

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

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I also know that bugs the hell out of you.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

He IS recognized as a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Such as what? Denial?

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

He didn't.

sealover wrote:
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

And it's obvious who the King of climate-debate.com has been for the past decade. The guy who made it his personal playground, while his more prolific partner was merely a second rate sidekick.

Obviously, IBdaMann is the climate-debate.com Climate Debate winner.

He drove away more members than anyone else. Probably more than all the other trolls combined.

I was being deceptive when I suggested that Into the Night and IBdaMann might even be in the same league as competitors for the prize.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process again? Won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Petroleum is not magic. It IS a renewable form of energy.

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Lie. Denial. You are completely baffled why no one here recognizes you as a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

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

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I also know that bugs the hell out of you.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

He IS recognized as a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Such as what? Denial?

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

He didn't.

Im a BM wrote:
I nominate Into the Night for LOSER of the climate-debate.com "debate"

Check out his posts-to-replies ratio.

He has to put up more than five posts to get even one reply, on average.

That is the HIGHEST posts-to-replies ratio of anyone here besides the New Messiah or TEMU coupon salesmen.

My OWN posts-to-replies ratio has been to get at least three replies for any one post I put up.

Maybe ITN's posts are so perfect, there is no need to acknowledge them.


--------------------------------------------------------

Who is the "winner" of the "debate" at climate-debate.com?

Between IBdaMann and Into the Night, more than 4 in 10 of ALL posts ever put up by ALL 1743 members.

"You won't be here long..", IBdaMann would warn them in response to their first post to include the term "climate change". ("You scientifically illiterate moron..")

Then Into the Night would follow up with relentless heckling, "No, it's not." "No such thing." "Buzzwords!"

Between the two of them it was relentless harassment.

How DARE you say "climate change" without first satisfying "the Board" with an "unambiguous definition" that they feel does not violate some vague reference to "thermodynamics".

They should split the prize. IBdaMann is obviously the intellectually dominant one, able to craft a word game that almost sounds plausible to someone with little or no scientific training. But Into the Night puts in the work, post after post, denial after denial, relentlessly... He KNOWS that just "bugs the hell out of you". Either one alone would have been unable to accomplish what the pair did.

When they arrived more than ten years ago, there were more than a handful of posters. A LOT more. And most of the threads were directly related to climate.

Never underestimate the power of a pair of tenacious trolls.
____________________________________________
"I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I know that bugs the hell out of you."- Into the Night.

"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night


Well, those 1267 citations don't represent 1267 individual chemists. Some of those papers had half a dozen authors or more.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process again? Won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Petroleum is not magic. It IS a renewable form of energy.

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Lie. Denial. You are completely baffled why no one here recognizes you as a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

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

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I also know that bugs the hell out of you.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

He IS recognized as a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Such as what? Denial?

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

He didn't.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I nominate Into the Night for LOSER of the climate-debate.com "debate"

Check out his posts-to-replies ratio.

He has to put up more than five posts to get even one reply, on average.

That is the HIGHEST posts-to-replies ratio of anyone here besides the New Messiah or TEMU coupon salesmen.

My OWN posts-to-replies ratio has been to get at least three replies for any one post I put up.

Maybe ITN's posts are so perfect, there is no need to acknowledge them.


--------------------------------------------------------

Who is the "winner" of the "debate" at climate-debate.com?

Between IBdaMann and Into the Night, more than 4 in 10 of ALL posts ever put up by ALL 1743 members.

"You won't be here long..", IBdaMann would warn them in response to their first post to include the term "climate change". ("You scientifically illiterate moron..")

Then Into the Night would follow up with relentless heckling, "No, it's not." "No such thing." "Buzzwords!"

Between the two of them it was relentless harassment.

How DARE you say "climate change" without first satisfying "the Board" with an "unambiguous definition" that they feel does not violate some vague reference to "thermodynamics".

They should split the prize. IBdaMann is obviously the intellectually dominant one, able to craft a word game that almost sounds plausible to someone with little or no scientific training. But Into the Night puts in the work, post after post, denial after denial, relentlessly... He KNOWS that just "bugs the hell out of you". Either one alone would have been unable to accomplish what the pair did.

When they arrived more than ten years ago, there were more than a handful of posters. A LOT more. And most of the threads were directly related to climate.

Never underestimate the power of a pair of tenacious trolls.
____________________________________________
"I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I know that bugs the hell out of you."- Into the Night.

"The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night


Well, those 1267 citations don't represent 1267 individual chemists. Some of those papers had half a dozen authors or more.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really have no regrets that you drove Harvey away?

I was impressed by how articulate he was when he elucidated how you worship a false idol based purely on faith. No evidence required if you just BELIEVE hard enough that this is what OUGHT to be happening deep underground.

Trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process again? Won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The best part of "magic petroleum" is that we will NEVER RUN OUT!

Petroleum is not magic. It IS a renewable form of energy.

Im a BM wrote:
My favorite IBdaMann quote from THIS post is:

"I bet you are baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist."

No, I can't say that I am.

Lie. Denial. You are completely baffled why no one here recognizes you as a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Just for reassurance, I Googled my own name with that very question.

You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Does anyone recognize (my full name) as a 'chemist'?"

Once again, Google directly contradicts the assertions of IBdaMann and ITN.

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

Im a BM wrote:
It also begs the question of whether or not anyone "recognizes" Into the Night as the "chemist" he pretends to be. I know that I do not.

I am recognized as a chemist, Robert. I also know that bugs the hell out of you.

Im a BM wrote:
So, IBdaMann, are you baffled as to why no one recognizes you as a chemist or scientist of ANY kind?

He IS recognized as a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
I can offer some clues if you are curious.

Such as what? Denial?

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you actually DO regret driving Harvey away, even if it was his own damn fault because he couldn't handle the truth.

I think you had far more respect for Harvey than you ever did for Into the Night.

I believe that deep down, you wish you didn't drive Harvey away.

He didn't.

The FBI nominated me for the same title, ask em how it worked out

Im a BM wrote:

Me and Kash Patel aren't on speaking terms ever since I stepped too hard on the coke before I passed it on to him last time...

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Me and Kash Patel aren't on speaking terms ever since I stepped too hard on the coke before I passed it on to him last time...

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Me and Kash Patel aren't on speaking terms ever since I stepped too hard on the coke before I passed it on to him last time...

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Me and Kash Patel aren't on speaking terms ever since I stepped too hard on the coke before I passed it on to him last time...

Kash Patel's face is EASY to make fun of.

This photo hardly does him justice.

There are pictures of the guy where he appears to be fully SPUN from meth, or where he seems to be having a terrifying psychotic episode, some where he just looks coked to the gills, and others have "hangover" written all over his face.

But his CRIMES are not funny at all.

If Jack Smith had been allowed to go forward, we would have learned in trial about the schemes with Kash Patel in the Pentagon to seize voting machines and put troops with battle gear on the streets. He played a key role to prevent any National Guard from being available to quell the unrest at the Capitol, Jan 6.

And now he heads the FBI where his crime spree continues.

He sure looks funny, but there is nothing funny about what he DOES.

Im a BM wrote:
Kash Patel's face is EASY to make fun of.

Im a BM wrote:
This photo hardly does him justice.

There are pictures of the guy where he appears to be fully SPUN from meth, or where he seems to be having a terrifying psychotic episode, some where he just looks coked to the gills, and others have "hangover" written all over his face.

Im a BM wrote:
But his CRIMES are not funny at all.

Im a BM wrote:
If Jack Smith had been allowed to go forward, we would have learned in trial about the schemes with Kash Patel in the Pentagon to seize voting machines and put troops with battle gear on the streets.

Im a BM wrote:
He played a key role to prevent any National Guard from being available to quell the unrest at the Capitol, Jan 6.

Im a BM wrote:
And now he heads the FBI where his crime spree continues.

Im a BM wrote:
He sure looks funny, but there is nothing funny about what he DOES.