Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Edited to correct Into the Night quote:

"Where do they get the hydrogen, dumbass?"

Apparently you are unaware that hydrogen is available in both the atmosphere and in the ground.

Im a BM wrote:
The "synthesis" of methane can occur by many different pathways, from many different chemicals that can be reactants to synthesize it.

Nope. All you need is a carbon source and a hydrogen source and the right conditions.

Im a BM wrote:
The specific pathway/reactants being discussed/evaded is microbiological methanogenesis (only a buzzword if you refuse to look it up).

There is no such word a methanogenesis.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, the CHEMISTRY CLOWN has no idea what the term "endothermic" means.

Let's start by making it clear what EXO thermic means, because Into the Night may simply have gotten them mixed up.

The combustion of methane is exothermic.

When methane gets transformed into carbon dioxide through combination with oxygen, energy is released. That energy can be exploited for human benefit. One way that the energy release is manifest is to produce HEAT.

When hydrogen gets transformed into water through combination with oxygen, energy is released. Like methane combustion, hydrogen combustion is also EXOTHERMIC.

Your word games won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
When hydrogen gets transformed into methane through combination with carbon dioxide, energy is released. Much LESS exothermic than methane or hydrogen combustion, but EXOTHERMIC none the less.

Hydrogen is not methane. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The synthesis of methane is an endothermic reaction. The synthesis of carbohydrates is an endothermic reaction.

You can't create energy out of nothing, Robert. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Edited to correct Into the Night quote:

"Where do they get the hydrogen, dumbass?"

Apparently you are unaware that hydrogen is available in both the atmosphere and in the ground.

Im a BM wrote:
The "synthesis" of methane can occur by many different pathways, from many different chemicals that can be reactants to synthesize it.

Nope. All you need is a carbon source and a hydrogen source and the right conditions.

Im a BM wrote:
The specific pathway/reactants being discussed/evaded is microbiological methanogenesis (only a buzzword if you refuse to look it up).

There is no such word a methanogenesis.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, the CHEMISTRY CLOWN has no idea what the term "endothermic" means.

Let's start by making it clear what EXO thermic means, because Into the Night may simply have gotten them mixed up.

The combustion of methane is exothermic.

When methane gets transformed into carbon dioxide through combination with oxygen, energy is released. That energy can be exploited for human benefit. One way that the energy release is manifest is to produce HEAT.

When hydrogen gets transformed into water through combination with oxygen, energy is released. Like methane combustion, hydrogen combustion is also EXOTHERMIC.

Your word games won't work, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
When hydrogen gets transformed into methane through combination with carbon dioxide, energy is released. Much LESS exothermic than methane or hydrogen combustion, but EXOTHERMIC none the less.

Hydrogen is not methane. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The synthesis of methane is an endothermic reaction. The synthesis of carbohydrates is an endothermic reaction.

You can't create energy out of nothing, Robert. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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."

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.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
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."

Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry Clown says:

"Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians."

Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic.

Im a BM wrote:
Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule.

Im a BM wrote:
But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane.

Im a BM wrote:
Without invoking thermodynamics,

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed.

Im a BM wrote:
"Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane.

Im a BM wrote:
Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
But I could never fool a true scientific genius.

Im a BM wrote:
The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that:

"Alligators are amphibians."

IBdaMann wrote:

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."

What makes you think that the English language somehow needs a falsifiable theory to which to adhere?

I'll give you a primer on how the English language works.

First, the word "amphibious" (adjective) means that it functions, as normal operations, in water and on land both. You might be familiar with certain amphibious watercraft, for example, or recognize that alligators hunt in water.

Second, the word "amphibian" (adjective) is a synonym for "amphibious."

Third, according to the rules of English usage, any animal that is amphibious, is amphibian, and is therefore an amphibian.

A common misonception is to mistakenly believe that a particular biology taxonomy somehow overwrites the default context of the English language. Alligators are not amphibians only when the context of biology taxonomy is specified; otherwise the English language is the default context and, of course, alligators are amphibious.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Im a BM wrote: How many thousand others have had the opportunity to learn from your valuable science lessons?

Im a BM wrote: They can simply look up your 15000 posts and learn, learn, learn..

Im a BM wrote:A scientific genius and a master communicator, you settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.

Im a BM wrote:You will FAIL the introductory biology exam if you call alligators "amphibians".

Im a BM wrote:
A scientific genius and a master communicator, you (IBdaMann) settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.

IBdaMann wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous EVASIONS as a poster on Climate-Debate? How many posts over how many threads did you NOT provide an appropriate response? How many hundreds of times have you been asked in futile efforts to get you to clearly answer a question or to clearly state your position?

2. What are your three most famous buzzwords that you simply will never define? How many posts over how many threads have you used those undefined buzzwords to string others along, and to reel them in, to the phony notion that you are somehow an expert in something being discussed.

3. What are the three most prestigious internet links that you have strategically dropped to divert others who were getting too close to asking uncomfortable questions? Did you actually get others to waste their time watching a video or two?

4. What are you three most advanced amazing credentials that you have claimed on an anonymous forum? Which prestigious academic institutions did you claim were the source of these amazing credentials? Did you use the phrase "peer reviewed" the required minimum of three times to get full credit? Did you mention your prowess with the gamma-spec? Did your essay recounting your court testimony engender envy for having changed the course of human destiny?

5. Have you ever used the term "natural science" to see if anyone would notice that there isn't any other type of science? Have you ever used terms like "organic carbon" or "biogeochemistry" just to see if anyone would notice that there is no such thing?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what strange diagrams will you find linked to your name? Which Indian tribes bring back the best memories?

7. Are you working towards building a personal library to leave as your most honorable legacy as a poster?

8. Which three religions do you feel are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three presentations that you presented overseas and in a foreign language had the highest degree of environmental impact in that country and was used in the bilateral negotiations of that country?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever challenged your standing in any online forum as the resident expert in science? If so, how would they know?
Was any actual science presented or was it just a buzzword soup in a gibber-babble broth?

Im a BM wrote:
After more than nine years of trolling, there are no less than 500-1000 former members who know exactly what you have to offer.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps they were too chicken shit scared to come to you with the hard stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
In addition to the several hundred members who didn't quit posting here until AFTER they were given a very personal demonstration of what you have offer...

Im a BM wrote:
How many thousand others have had the opportunity to learn from your valuable science lessons?

Im a BM wrote:
Those lessons are so complete and informative, they don't HAVE to come to you with the hard stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
They don't even have to join as members to ask you their science questions.

They can simply look up your 15000 posts and learn, learn, learn..

Im a BM wrote:
scientific genius and a master communicator, you settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.

Im a BM wrote:
You will FAIL the introductory biology exam if you call alligators "amphibians".

Im a BM wrote:
Does anyone besides IBdaMann support the absurd assertion that Into the Night is some kind of "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:
According to IBdaMann and Into the Night, pH MUST be greater than zero and less than fourteen.

Im a BM wrote:
This is despite the fact that industrial caustic soda has pH greater than fourteen,

Im a BM wrote:
and many mineral acids (nitric, sulfuric, hydrochloric, etc.) have pH less than zero when they are in concentrated form.

Im a BM wrote:
They further assert that water itself is a pH buffer and dilution is buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
As for any role of weak acids or bases (such as bicarbonate ions and bicarbonate ions), they say you cannot buffer against pH change with something that doesn't even exist.

Im a BM wrote:
Nor does climate change exist,

Im a BM wrote:
according to the two "scientists" who have 38,000 posts between the two of them, as the trolls who dominate here.
Buzzword fallacy.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Their cult used to be larger in the past.

Im a BM wrote:
Only the very most faithful of their religious followers remain to check in once in a while.

"You don't even know what science is", they both say, to anyone who dares to post anything that qualifies as science.