Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95) > Page 4

Page 4 of 4

08-06-2023 21:22
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: This is the line that caught my attention. [quote]incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality. Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change? What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model. If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math." Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers. Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality. You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories. For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is: * practical to conduct. * available to conduct. * is specific (this is where the math comes in). * produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in). As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science. In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence. Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself. Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given. So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion. The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ POP QUIZ 1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist? Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in? How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.? 2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology? Where are they published and how are they being applied? 3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer? 4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees? Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from? 5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change? 6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of? 7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist? Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz. DON'T WORRY! You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is. You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning..
08-06-2023 21:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Im a BM wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote I see you're back to spread more bitterness. Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus. Science isn't 'contributions'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal. Science is not a degree or university. Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning. Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it. Science is not a 'legacy'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. ________________________________________________________ "Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is." The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago. Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is. HOW do I go and learn some science?. It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is. It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science is. It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is. Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is. Is science therefore a "nothing"? Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear. "Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more." Okay, that is something, at least. Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain? Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories? Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.
08-06-2023 21:24
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Im a BM wrote: Im a BM wrote: This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years. Then Professor Parrot says: The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians." Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians. [quote] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory. There are multiple ways to apply thermodynamics to calculate how much energy is released. But the simplest approach is to view it as a transformation of fuels, both of which can release energy upon combustion: Hydrogen versus methane. Using the same oxidant (O2) for both: H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 286 kJ/mol CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + 890 kJ/mol Molecule per molecule, more energy is released from oxidation of methane than from oxidation of hydrogen. About three times as much. Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule. 4 molecules of hydrogen are oxidized to yield one molecule of methane. (4x 286 kJ/mol) CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + 254 kJ/mol (exothermic) 4 x 286 kJ/mol (reactant fuel energy content) = 1144 kJ/mol released from hydrogen oxidation But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane. (890 kJ/mol CONSUMED, not released.) Without invoking thermodynamics, think of a fuel processing facility that consumes four molecules of hydrogen to generate just one molecule of methane. Then do the math and see if it is a good investment. Or consider the converse. If this is NOT an exothermic reaction, someone can get a Nobel prize by discovering how methanogens survive, as it has been long believed that this is their sole source of energy. Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis. To get the exact number you have to apply the thermodynamics knowing the energies of all products and reactants in their "standard states". It is still exothermic, but not exactly 254 kJ/mol. It is more intuitively obvious if one thinks of the energy content of hydrogen fuel on one side of the equation and the methane fuel on the other. Methanogenic bacteria are autotrophic, meaning they take inorganic carbon and transform it to organic carbon (chemically oxidized versus chemically reduced C). Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon monoxide. Organic carbon includes the other 100,000 compounds of carbon, in chemically reduced form, that comprise what is studied in the field of "organic" chemistry. Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed. "Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane. Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry." Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries. But I could never fool a true scientific genius. The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." WTF???
08-06-2023 21:25
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis is a biochemical process during which bacteria combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane. It goes back at least 4000 million years to a time when the earth's crust was constantly emitting hydrogen. Methanogenesis made a major contribution to climate change, facilitating beneficial global warming during the first 1000 million years or so of evolution. 4000 million years ago, the earth's crust frequently spewed out hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The two reactants were widely available. If oxygen had been around, the most ancient line of bacteria would probably have been hydrogen oxidizers using oxygen as oxidant. But there was no oxygen. Very few chemical oxidants of any kind, in fact. But carbon dioxide can act as a very weak oxidant for a strong enough reductant, such as hydrogen. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + biochemical energy. Methanogens transformed carbon dioxide, a relatively weak greenhouse gas, into methane, which has 20-30 times more global warming potential. 4000 million years ago, the sun was much less luminous than it is today. It wasn't bright enough to heat a planet much further from the sun than venus. Nearly all the liquid water at the surface was frozen. But through the action of methanogenic bacteria, atmospheric concentrations of methane increased and increased, facilitating enough warming to melt some seas along the equator. This enabled life to thrive. The sun is much more luminous today. We want to minimize methane emissions now. His second rate sidekick says it is endothermic. Perhaps some knowledge of thermodynamics can be displayed to provide a number. Or at least provide a falsifiable theory that leads to the endothermic conclusion.
08-06-2023 21:28
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Swan wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. How do you know? Were you there? It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. How do you know? Were you there? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-science gibber babble contamination prevention. I hope that, unlike me, you are one of the smart ones. I hope that you knew better than to let them brainwash you with all the non-science gibber babble. I hope that you refused to read the scientific textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. I hope that you refused to attend the natural science classes at the institutions of higher learning. I hope that you knew better than to pay attention to any of the non-science gibber babble found with Internet search engines. Don't make the mistake that I did. I have so much brainwashing to unlearn. Perhaps I'm just jealous. I'm not free to explore baseless speculation about the atmosphere without the impediment of all those pesky scientific "facts" limiting the horizons of my imagination. I am handicapped by brainwashing, and can't contribute much to a brainstorming session that includes more than one true scientific genius. A true warmazombie, my brainwashing has constrained what I can imagine about the age of the ozone layer. They indoctrinated me to believe that it first began to form very minimally about 600 million years ago. They exploited my gullibility to make me believe that by 500 million years ago, a robust enough ozone layer had established to enable photosynthesis to rise out of the sea and colonize the land without UV damage and death. They pushed this myth about some "Cambrian explosion" about 540 million years ago, when all the lines of oxygen-consuming multicellular animals rose at once. They said that before this, there wasn't enough oxygen in sea water to support it. How do they know? Were they there? They claimed that photosynthesis first evolved 4000 million years ago, but that the kind of photosynthesis that produces oxygen didn't evolve until about 3000 million years ago. Supposedly, it took about 2000 million years of oxygenic photosynthesis to rust away all the ferrous iron in the land and sea before any free oxygen could exist at higher than negligible concentrations in the atmosphere. The claim about very high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and methane in the primordial atmosphere is consistent with what I was taught. What's up with hydrogen sulfide, anyway? They say that when it is emitted to the atmosphere, it lasts less than 24 hours before it is oxidized to sun-blocking aerosol SOx. Photooxidation of sulfide to sulfate, sulfite, SO2, SO3, etc., even with the UV shielding of the ozone layer. As I said, I may just be jealous. It's too late for me to get rid of this meaningless PhD and unlearn all the brainwashing I was subjected to during my decades in the Ivory Tower. But it is NOT too late for you. Stay pure, Brothers!

08-06-2023 21:30
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: 11. Have your published discoveries been cited in more than a hundred different peer reviewed scientific papers or textbooks specifically because of their relevance to climate change research? This thread has comedy value. Two scientifically illiterate trolls discuss the true nature of science. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Credibility Quiz 1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist? Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in? How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.? 2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology? Where are they published and how are they being applied? 3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer? 4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees? Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from? 5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change? 6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of? 7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist? 8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change? 9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change? 10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science? If so, how would they know? Does it take one to know one?
08-06-2023 21:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:11. Have your published discoveries been cited in more than a hundred different peer reviewed scientific papers or textbooks specifically because of their relevance to climate change research? Was the citing of "your" documents merely a technicality because the authors of actual insight allowed you to add your name to the paper? By the way, you rug-pull your own claims by referring to the documents as "peer reviewed" as though that somehow means something. It makes sense that no attempt was made to argue that his second rate sidekick IS worthy of respect. After all, there is no evidence that supports such an assertion. It makes sense that no attempt was made to argue that the two partners in slime are NOT scientifically illiterate trolls. After all, there is no evidence that supports such an assertion. It makes sense that the dominant troll is thin-skinned around the issue of "peer-reviewed" scientific evidence. The self-described "expert in science" does not meet any of the objective criteria used by the scientific community to determine who qualifies as a "peer" to perform "peer review". No credible scientist would ever characterize this Internet troll as a "peer". After all, there is no evidence that supports such an assertion. But in a surprising deviation from his other (14000?) posts, the dominant troll actually makes one valid point. When a scientific discovery is published, there are often many authors. The United States tradition has been to have the tenured professor "principal investigator" listed as first author. Often the intellectual author of the hypothesis was one of the post docs or grad students, listed as second, third, or fifth author. Before anyone "allowed" me to "add" my name to any papers, I had barely completed a master's degree. My master's thesis is what folks had to cite for the original hypothesis until I got published in Nature, years before completing my PhD. Nature is arguably the world's most prestigious scientific journal with a very rigorous peer review process. It would be very rare, indeed, if the first author of an important discovery is not the principal investigator (tenured professor), but just a lowly graduate student. When this rare thing occurs, as it did in my case, there can be no doubt about who the intellectual author of the discovery is. Especially when it happens for multiple papers. "Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is". No, you are NOT my peer.
RE: actually, two months ago at this point08-06-2023 21:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Two more papers came out this week, citing my published discoveries in chemistry. They both cite the same paper, from 1998, in the journal Biogeochemistry ("Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions..") paper came out 2 days ago: "Seasonal nutrient resorption and lignin changes in leaves of Turkey oak.." By B. Surmen, et al. 2023. in Polish Journal of Ecology. paper came out 4 days ago: "Reductive transformation of Cr(VI) in contaminated soils by polyphenols.." By X. Jiang, et al. 2023. in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 25 years after I published this particular paper, it keeps getting cited because nobody ever caught on to the fact that it was all non-science gibber babble. The paper about lignin in Turkey oak has important implications for how climate change impacts carbon cycling in ecosystems. They cite me in part because of my published work about lignin. Into the Night can repeatedly insist that "lignin is a carbohydrate". Meanwhile, us fake chemists are interested mainly in its aromatic ring component, comprising about half the polymer, and NOT carbohydrate by any definition. The paper about Cr(VI), also known as hexavalent chromium, was NOT informed by my direct investigation of chromium at a Superfund site. I was never allowed to publish that. Instead, they cite the importance of my work regarding the chemistry of polyphenols. Polyphenols are reducing agents that can reduce the toxic hexavalent chromium to the harmless form, Cr(III), or trivalent chromium. Hex chrome keeps showing up in more ground waters, and a practical approach to remediation using polyphenols is of value. IBdaMann seems to think that there is something about hexavalent chromium that is worthy of mockery. Perhaps it is because cancer is so hilarious. Or maybe it is because tribal loyalty requires hatred of Erin Brockovich and anything associated with her or caring about the environment. So, the papers THIS week weren't even citing my most famous work. It is gratifying to see that long after my retirement, my work continues to inform new research and discoveries in chemistry. It doesn't hurt my self esteem too much when ignorant trolls tell me I don't know anything about chemistry. I take the chemists citing my work as a more meaningful evaluation. It will be fun to see which new papers cite my chemistry research NEXT week.
09-06-2023 16:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	sealover wrote:IBdaMann seems to think that there is something about hexavalent chromium that is worthy of mockery. Mockery? Nope. I'm spreading awareness of arsenic and hexavalent chromium in groundwater. sealover wrote:It doesn't hurt my self esteem too much when ignorant trolls tell me I don't know anything about chemistry. Does it hurt your self esteem when you watch questions go unanswered?
09-06-2023 20:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Im a BM wrote: This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years. Then Professor Parrot says: The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians." Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy This reaction is endothermic. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2023 20:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Two more papers came out this week, citing my published discoveries in chemistry. People cite the National Enquirer too. sealover wrote: 25 years after I published this particular paper, it keeps getting cited because nobody ever caught on to the fact that it was all non-science gibber babble. That's right. sealover wrote: The paper about lignin in Turkey oak has important implications for how climate change impacts carbon cycling in ecosystems. Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: They cite me in part because of my published work about lignin. You don't know much about lignin. sealover wrote: Into the Night can repeatedly insist that "lignin is a carbohydrate". Meanwhile, us fake chemists are interested mainly in its aromatic ring component, comprising about half the polymer, and NOT carbohydrate by any definition. Lignin is a carbohydrate. You don't get to redefine what 'carbohydrate' means. sealover wrote: It is gratifying to see that long after my retirement, my work continues to inform new research and discoveries in chemistry. The Church of Global Warming isn't chemistry. sealover wrote: It doesn't hurt my self esteem too much when ignorant trolls tell me I don't know anything about chemistry. You don't. sealover wrote: I take the chemists citing my work as a more meaningful evaluation. They don't. sealover wrote: It will be fun to see which new papers cite my chemistry research NEXT week. You don't know anything about chemistry. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2023 20:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: This is the line that caught my attention. [quote]incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality. Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change? What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model. If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math." Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers. Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality. You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories. For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is: * practical to conduct. * available to conduct. * is specific (this is where the math comes in). * produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in). As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science. In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence. Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself. Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given. So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion. The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ POP QUIZ 1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist? Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in? How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.? 2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology? Where are they published and how are they being applied? 3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer? 4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees? Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from? 5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change? 6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of? 7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist? Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz. DON'T WORRY! You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is. You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.. Science is not a 'prestige'. Science is not a paper, journal, book, or magazine. Science is not citing papers. Science is not 'contributions'. Science is not 'reviewers'. Science is not a degree, license, certification or any other sanctification. Science is not a college or university, course, or teaching job/ Science is not 'accomplishements'. Science is not Google, Wikipedia, or any other website. Science is not a personal legacy. Fossils aren't used as fuel. You still haven't defined 'climate change'. Climate cannot change. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2023 20:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: "Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is." The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago. Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is. HOW do I go and learn some science?. Go learn theories of science. It's really pretty simple. sealover wrote: It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is. It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science is. It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is. Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is. Is science therefore a "nothing"? Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear. "Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more." Okay, that is something, at least. That is all science is...a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. sealover wrote: Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain? There is no 'secret place', moron. sealover wrote: Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories? There is no 'holy grail of falsifiable theories', moron. sealover wrote: Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything. The theories themselves. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2023 20:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Im a BM wrote:Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians." This goes back a ways. This is not a question of falsifiability; it is a question of the English language. Are you aware that alligators are amphibious? Now, since we are resolving apparently unresolved business of the past, have you finally learned what science is? Have a great weekend.
09-06-2023 20:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: "Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry." Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries. You don't have any. sealover wrote: But I could never fool a true scientific genius. That's right. sealover wrote: The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." They are. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

09-06-2023 20:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Methanogenesis is a biochemical process during which bacteria combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: It goes back at least 4000 million years to a time when the earth's crust was constantly emitting hydrogen. How do you know? Were you there? Earth's crust emits hydrogen today. sealover wrote: Methanogenesis made a major contribution to climate change, Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: facilitating beneficial global warming It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: during the first 1000 million years or so of evolution. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: 4000 million years ago, the earth's crust frequently spewed out hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The two reactants were widely available. How do you know? Were you there? Omniscience fallacies. sealover wrote: If oxygen had been around, the most ancient line of bacteria would probably have been hydrogen oxidizers using oxygen as oxidant. Where did oxygen suddenly come from? Shipping containers? sealover wrote: But there was no oxygen. Where did the oxygen come from? sealover wrote: Very few chemical oxidants of any kind, in fact. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: But carbon dioxide can act as a very weak oxidant for a strong enough reductant, such as hydrogen. Carbon dioxide is not an oxidizer. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + biochemical energy. The energy required for this reaction does not need to be biological in origin. sealover wrote: Methanogens transformed carbon dioxide, a relatively weak greenhouse gas, No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: into methane, which has 20-30 times more global warming potential. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. 30 times zero is still zero. sealover wrote: 4000 million years ago, the sun was much less luminous than it is today. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: It wasn't bright enough to heat a planet much further from the sun than venus. All planets are heated by the Sun. All the time. There is no sequence. sealover wrote: Nearly all the liquid water at the surface was frozen. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: But through the action of methanogenic bacteria, atmospheric concentrations of methane increased and increased, facilitating enough warming to melt some seas along the equator. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: This enabled life to thrive. The sun is much more luminous today. How do you know? Have you been around to measure it for millions of years? sealover wrote: We want to minimize methane emissions now. Who is 'we'? The Church of Global Warming? No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. sealover wrote: His second rate sidekick says it is endothermic. Perhaps some knowledge of thermodynamics can be displayed to provide a number. Or at least provide a falsifiable theory that leads to the endothermic conclusion. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Science is not an Internet troll21-06-2023 21:26
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: This is the line that caught my attention. [quote]incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality. Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change? What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model. If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math." Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers. Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality. You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories. For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is: * practical to conduct. * available to conduct. * is specific (this is where the math comes in). * produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in). As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science. In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence. Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself. Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given. So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion. The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ POP QUIZ 1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist? Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in? How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.? 2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology? Where are they published and how are they being applied? 3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer? 4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees? Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from? 5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change? 6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of? 7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist? Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz. DON'T WORRY! You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is. You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.. Science is not a 'prestige'. Science is not a paper, journal, book, or magazine. Science is not citing papers. Science is not 'contributions'. Science is not 'reviewers'. Science is not a degree, license, certification or any other sanctification. Science is not a college or university, course, or teaching job/ Science is not 'accomplishements'. Science is not Google, Wikipedia, or any other website. Science is not a personal legacy. Fossils aren't used as fuel. You still haven't defined 'climate change'. Climate cannot change. Science is not an Internet troll. Someone who can't even wrap their mind around the concept of how to define "climate change" has little to offer in a meaningful discussion about climate change occurring in the real world.

Page 4 of 4

Join the debate Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Book your bargain rate Israeli Tel Aviv or Jerusalem vacation now, free 4th of July style fireworks inclu	1	18-10-2023 05:25
Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech firms agree to AI safeguards set by the White House	0	21-07-2023 19:45
New Unique Vision For A Better Society Model Book Document For Sale	1	17-06-2023 18:05
Brazil builds 'rings of carbon dioxide' to simulate climate change in the Amazon	2	25-05-2023 01:11
Limited Time Special Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 600+ Year More	9	04-04-2023 13:49