Remember me
▼ Content

Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)



Page 3 of 4<1234>
10-03-2023 06:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
HarveyH55 wrote:Think it won't spin, because a neighbor is running a gravity flux wave generator, unfiltered and unshielded.

Probably the Husqvarna WG XT 3500. I saw that model at Costco. They're pretty powerful. They can stop a Bessler wheel cold at 60 meters.

Remember, gravity wave generators are supposed to accelerate Bessler wheels, but that only happens to Bessler wheels that successfully generate free energy out of nothing and soften hands while you do the dishes.
RE: how old is the ozone layer?11-03-2023 11:31
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
[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?


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.

The "Cambrian explosion" about 540 million years ago, was when all the lines of oxygen-consuming multicellular animals rose at once.

Before this, there wasn't enough oxygen in sea water to support it.


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.

It took about 2000 million years of oxygenic photosynthesis to rust away all the ferrous iron in the land and sea. It had to be oxidized to ferric iron before any free oxygen could exist at higher than negligible concentrations in the atmosphere.

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.
11-03-2023 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
...removing severely damaged quoting...apparently Im a BM still has never learned out to quote a post...
Im a Swan wrote:
Has the Earth always had an atmosphere?

Yes.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

How do you know? Were you there?
Im a BM wrote:
The "Cambrian explosion" about 540 million years ago, was when all the lines of oxygen-consuming multicellular animals rose at once.

Oxygen isn't 'consumed'.
Im a BM wrote:
Before this, there wasn't enough oxygen in sea water to support it.

Seawater contains oxygen. All water contains oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Photosynthesis doesn't produce oxygen. The same oxygen has always been on Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
It took about 2000 million years of oxygenic photosynthesis to rust away all the ferrous iron in the land and sea. It had to be oxidized to ferric iron before any free oxygen could exist at higher than negligible concentrations in the atmosphere.

Photosynthesis isn't rusting or oxidation.
Im a Swan wrote:
What's up with hydrogen sulfide, anyway?

It's his favorite gas for some reason.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Ozone is not a sulfide nor a sulfate. Oxidation does not require light.


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: Stay pure, Brothers!13-03-2023 08:15
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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 envious.

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.

As I said, I may just be envious.

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![/quote]
13-03-2023 12:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote: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.

I'd really like to know what kind of PhD is intolerant of actual science models and terms and who develops acute allergic reactions to requests for unambiguous definitions?

Do you have any thoughts on the matter.?
Edited on 13-03-2023 12:03
RE: Credibility Quiz - Unfairly biased to match resume13-03-2023 12:25
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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?




This credibility quiz was unfairly biased. Tailored to match my resume.

Also intended to remind trolls that people exist who have actually studied the things that allow one to speak knowledgeably about the science related to climate change.

Perhaps even a challenge to those who relentlessly called me a liar who doesn't even know what science is.

Who gets to speak with authority?

Who gets to speak at all, without being required to "define your terms" by folks who don't comprehend how to use a dictionary?
13-03-2023 15:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
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?
13-03-2023 15:36
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 13-03-2023 16:28
13-03-2023 19:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Non-science gibber babble contamination prevention.

You can't. You are non-science gibber babble.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Nah. You can't brainwash people.
Im a BM wrote:
I hope that you refused to read the scientific textbooks and peer-reviewed papers.

Science is not a textbook or paper. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
I hope that you refused to attend the natural science classes at the institutions of higher learning.

Science is not a college course.
Im a BM wrote:
I hope that you knew better than to pay attention to any of the non-science gibber babble found with Internet search engines.

Yet you use those same search engines as your reference. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't make the mistake that I did.

Creating a paradox and trying to argue both sides of it is a doozy.
Im a BM wrote:
I have so much brainwashing to unlearn.

Perhaps I'm just envious.

You haven't even started. Why are you envious?
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Such is the cost of your fundamentalist religion.
Im a BM wrote:
I am handicapped by brainwashing, and can't contribute much to a brainstorming session that includes more than one true scientific genius.

Science is not a 'genius'.
Im a BM wrote:
A true warmazombie, my brainwashing has constrained what I can imagine about the age of the ozone layer.

Though you are a believer in the Church of the Ozone Hole and in the Church of Global Warming, they are not the same religion.
Im a BM wrote:
As I said, I may just be envious.

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.

Your meaningless PhD is your own problem. You paid for it.


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
13-03-2023 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: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.

I'd really like to know what kind of PhD is intolerant of actual science models and terms and who develops acute allergic reactions to requests for unambiguous definitions?

Do you have any thoughts on the matter.?

You mean the PhD he fabricated?


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
13-03-2023 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
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?




This credibility quiz was unfairly biased. Tailored to match my resume.

Also intended to remind trolls that people exist who have actually studied the things that allow one to speak knowledgeably about the science related to climate change.

Perhaps even a challenge to those who relentlessly called me a liar who doesn't even know what science is.

Who gets to speak with authority?

Who gets to speak at all, without being required to "define your terms" by folks who don't comprehend how to use a dictionary?

There is no science of 'climate change'. Science has no theories about undefined buzzwords. Dictionaries don't define any word. You obviously don't know how to use a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word.


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
Edited on 13-03-2023 19:29
13-03-2023 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


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
13-03-2023 19:44
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


Indeed I am one of the approximately 8 billion Earth humans that did not read the bibble babble from the bloob


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
13-03-2023 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


Indeed I am one of the approximately 8 billion Earth humans that did not read the bibble babble from the bloob

A No Human is not a human.


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
14-03-2023 00:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


Indeed I am one of the approximately 8 billion Earth humans that did not read the bibble babble from the bloob

A No Human is not a human.


No human gives a shit about your babbles, least of all this one. However, as always your drooling is impressive, even for a camel.




IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-03-2023 00:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


Indeed I am one of the approximately 8 billion Earth humans that did not read the bibble babble from the bloob

A No Human is not a human.


No human gives a shit about your babbles, least of all this one. However, as always your drooling is impressive, even for a camel.

So you again confirm that you are a No Human.


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
14-03-2023 03:47
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


Indeed I am one of the approximately 8 billion Earth humans that did not read the bibble babble from the bloob

A No Human is not a human.


No human gives a shit about your babbles, least of all this one. However, as always your drooling is impressive, even for a camel.

So you again confirm that you are a No Human.


You are extremely lame, even for a secret agent government shrink. However, since you act this way intentionally that is not true, unless someone like me tells you what you do and exposes your top secret agenda for turds. I would wave back, but I have a life


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 14-03-2023 03:59
14-03-2023 19:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Swan wrote:I would wave back, but I have a life

No you don't. You have gone to great lengths to elucidate just how unproductive you are, how maybe, if you're lucky, you'll pick a tomato. Your son had to "just get out," and escape to the Navy in order to have a life. You don't wave back because you have rocks tied to your arms that you swear are moraines.

Tell me again, how does a digital value get assigned to a photon?
14-03-2023 19:56
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:I would wave back, but I have a life

No you don't. You have gone to great lengths to elucidate just how unproductive you are, how maybe, if you're lucky, you'll pick a tomato. Your son had to "just get out," and escape to the Navy in order to have a life. You don't wave back because you have rocks tied to your arms that you swear are moraines.

Tell me again, how does a digital value get assigned to a photon?


Photons are massless, and you are showing your frustration. Did you shoot yourself in the foot, AGAIN?

You might want to get that looked at.

Peel away


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-03-2023 21:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Swan wrote:Photons are massless,

Photons are of fixed mass, per Planck's law and Relativity.

So, how does one assign a digital value to a photon?
14-03-2023 21:35
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Photons are massless,

Photons are of fixed mass, per Planck's law and Relativity.

So, how does one assign a digital value to a photon?


LOL the Higgs Boson and Photons are massless. Much like you are brainless. Are you done peeling the turnips?

Seems to be time for your Chlorpromazine.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
15-03-2023 14:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Swan wrote:LOL the Higgs Boson and Photons are massless.

1. I have no reason to believe that there is such a thing as the Higgs Boson.
2. Photons have mass. I showed you how to calculate the mass of a photon of a given frequency.
RE: Who is citing my chemistry discoveries THIS week?25-03-2023 19:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.

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

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?
25-03-2023 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
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?


1. You are owned
2. No human will ever read all of that
3. You will now change your name to dispute #2
4. CIAO

So you are obviously a No Human, since you claimed to have not read it.


Indeed I am one of the approximately 8 billion Earth humans that did not read the bibble babble from the bloob

A No Human is not a human.


No human gives a shit about your babbles, least of all this one. However, as always your drooling is impressive, even for a camel.

So you again confirm that you are a No Human.


You are extremely lame, even for a secret agent government shrink. However, since you act this way intentionally that is not true, unless someone like me tells you what you do and exposes your top secret agenda for turds. I would wave back, but I have a life

No Humans have no hands.


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
25-03-2023 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:I would wave back, but I have a life

No you don't. You have gone to great lengths to elucidate just how unproductive you are, how maybe, if you're lucky, you'll pick a tomato. Your son had to "just get out," and escape to the Navy in order to have a life. You don't wave back because you have rocks tied to your arms that you swear are moraines.

Tell me again, how does a digital value get assigned to a photon?

Nicely put.


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
25-03-2023 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Two more papers came out this week, citing my published discoveries in chemistry.

You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
They both cite the same paper, from 1998, in the journal Biogeochemistry ("Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions..")So you found some patsies that believe your psychobabble.
[quote]Im a BM 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.

Probably because they are also spewing non-science gibber babble.
Im a BM wrote:
The paper about lignin in Turkey oak has important implications for how climate change impacts carbon cycling in ecosystems.

Define 'climate change'. Anyone writing a paper on the 'implications of climate change' is not a scientist.
Im a BM wrote:
They cite me in part because of my published work about lignin.

You don't know anything about lignin. Fortunately, I do. I work with the stuff.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night can repeatedly insist that "lignin is a carbohydrate".

It is.
Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, us fake chemists are interested mainly in its aromatic ring component, comprising about half the polymer, and NOT carbohydrate by any definition.

It is a carbohydrate. There is no 'aromatic ring component'. Lignin is lignin.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Argument from randU fallacy. No one is measuring all ground water. It's not possible. Further, wells are dug every day and there is no marked increase in any chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann seems to think that there is something about hexavalent chromium that is worthy of mockery.

Nah. Just your use of the term.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps it is because cancer is so hilarious.

It doesn't cause cancer. Exposure results in direct damage to tissue. Emergency treatment is required for exposure to save what they can. Strict controls are place on facilities that work with chromium in any form.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Chromium IS part of the environment.
Im a BM wrote:
It is gratifying to see that long after my retirement, my work continues to inform new research and discoveries in chemistry.

You deny chemistry.
Im a BM 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. It seems little can hurt your own self esteem and pride. You are a nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
I take the chemists citing my work as a more meaningful evaluation.

They aren't chemists. Chemists don't try to write papers about the Church of Global Warming.
Im a BM wrote:
It will be fun to see which new papers cite my chemistry research NEXT week.

Not possible. You deny 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
RE: climate change science credibility06-05-2023 10:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.





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?
06-05-2023 23:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.


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
Edited on 06-05-2023 23:50
RE: "I don't believe you. You are making shit up."07-05-2023 03:33
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Into the Night wrote:
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.




Parrot Boy said, "I don't believe you. You are making shit up."

That would be an appropriate reply to most parrot poop posts.

Pretending to understand something about science.

But admits that the "gibber babble" is "incomprehensible" to him.

It's all just "buzzwords", apparently.

Pretty sure the guy never passed a college chemistry class.

But it appears he may have attended the first and maybe second class of organic chemistry. Learned a tiny bit about alkanes.

Science by decree.

The guy is a scientific nobody, making authoritative assertions.

And he has gotten his parrot poop all over every attempt to have rational discussion about climate change here in the past eight years.

Unworthy of respect on any level.
07-05-2023 04:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.




Parrot Boy said, "I don't believe you. You are making shit up."

That would be an appropriate reply to most parrot poop posts.

Pretending to understand something about science.

But admits that the "gibber babble" is "incomprehensible" to him.

It's all just "buzzwords", apparently.

Pretty sure the guy never passed a college chemistry class.

But it appears he may have attended the first and maybe second class of organic chemistry. Learned a tiny bit about alkanes.

Science by decree.

The guy is a scientific nobody, making authoritative assertions.

And he has gotten his parrot poop all over every attempt to have rational discussion about climate change here in the past eight years.

Unworthy of respect on any level.

You are just describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.


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
07-05-2023 07:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
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.
RE: You are NOT my peer!11-05-2023 02:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
IBdaMann wrote:
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.
11-05-2023 07:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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.

Science does not use consensus. There is no 'peer review' in science. There is no voting bloc in science. Science has no politics and no religion.


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
Edited on 11-05-2023 07:45
11-05-2023 17:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote:It makes sense that the dominant troll is thin-skinned around the issue of "peer-reviewed" scientific evidence.


Im a BM wrote: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".

Let's have at it, shall we?

1. Are you claiming that I described myself as an "expert in science"? I totally understand you viewing me in that light, but I self describe as "not being scientifically illiterate." I do not affirmatively claim any credentials on anonymous fora. Ergo, you are lying.

2. There is no formally defined "scientific community." Any rational adult who is wondering can notice that you are certain that you not only are a "member" of this group, but that you somehow speak for it. Said rational adult can see from my post why you would never be included in such a group.

*2A. Therefore there can be no objective criteria delimiting such a group because otherwise it wouldn't be such a subjective matter that you could weasel yourself into a sufficiently stretched interpretation.

3. A "peer" is someone who works for a publisher who helps determine whether an article will sell, will be good for the publication and will improve the bottom line. The "peer" doesn't care how much of an article is scientifically correct. Take quantum computing or global warming as examples. All that is important is whether the article resonates with the readership. A peer is needed in these cases because the publication's management is comprised of business experts who have no other way to assess the business value of any article considered for publication.

4. A "peer review" is a publishing assessment and nothing more.

Im a BM wrote: No credible scientist would ever characterize this Internet troll as a "peer".

Let's continue, shall we?

1. Scientists aren't evaluated for their credibility, or their personality, or their "prestige rating" or their Doritos flavor preferences. They are evaluated for the completeness and unambiguity of their definitions, the falsifiability and consistency of their models, the correctness of their predictions of nature and their willingness to explain their models while clearly answering questions posed to them, whether or not the questions seem difficult. I think you can see that you fail across the board. I think you can see that such evaluation contains no mention of publishing anything. It's just not related.

2. A "troll" is someone who disagrees with you politically. The fact that you think that political agreement, i.e. consensus, is somehow required for science speaks volumes about why you never really were cut out for science.

Im a BM wrote:Nature is arguably the world's most prestigious scientific journal with a very rigorous peer review process.

Scientists are not evaluated on their "prestige rating" and any given article published is the same regardless of the publication in which it appears. No publication's "prestige" somehow bleeds into any article contained therein.

Also, I think you mistakenly refer to technical journals as "scientific journals" ... probably because you don't know what science is.

Im a BM wrote:No, you are NOT my peer.

You're damn straight. I can write well, and when I write, people find it interesting and usually find it compelling. People who disagree with me politically are inclined to feel threatened by my words and refer to me as something like "the dominant troll," so no, you aren't the first and you won't be the last. I'm exactly the kind of technical writer who would be selected to peer review the submissions of people like you who couldn't write an interesting article if their lives depended upon it. I would be asked by the publisher to "fix" your crap and to "salvage" whatever I can. I might be asked to work with you on your grammar and the overall structure of your composition.

The reason I don't is because no publisher could pay me enough.
RE: Troll feces stool specimen analysis = a threat?13-05-2023 21:14
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Into the Night wrote:
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.




This parrot poop post is short enough to read the whole thing.

What does stool specimen analysis of this troll feces reveal?

What is implied by "..and we know your real name and where you live"?

A way to prove one's scientific literacy, perhaps.

A threat to become a repeat offender?

Parrot poop paradox.
14-05-2023 00:18
James_
★★★★★
(2252)
[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.


They're political refugees. The science they understand is the watts/m^2 for
their grow lights. And with hydroponics, what is the feed rate of water per hour?
Then how does nutrients/fertilizer/grow lights affect f(x) = Δy/Δx?
Why they're "qualified" climate scientists.
RE: trolls always reveal their true colors31-05-2023 11:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Into the Night wrote:
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.



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

"No, we know who you are... and we know your real name and where you live."


Spooky stuff!

Trolls always reveal their true colors.
31-05-2023 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.




This parrot poop post is short enough to read the whole thing.

What does stool specimen analysis of this troll feces reveal?

What is implied by "..and we know your real name and where you live"?

A way to prove one's scientific literacy, perhaps.

A threat to become a repeat offender?

Parrot poop paradox.

You think throwing insults is going to make you understand science???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


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
31-05-2023 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
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.

You consider yourself two scientifically illiterate trolls now??

No, we know who you are. You are only one scientifically illiterate moron and we know your real name and where you live.



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

"No, we know who you are... and we know your real name and where you live."


Spooky stuff!

Trolls always reveal their true colors.

YOU told everyone who are, dumbass. You doxxed yourself!


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
08-06-2023 21:17
sealover
★★★★☆
(1616)
[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.
.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Book your bargain rate Israeli Tel Aviv or Jerusalem vacation now, free 4th of July style fireworks inclu118-10-2023 05:25
Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech firms agree to AI safeguards set by the White House021-07-2023 19:45
New Unique Vision For A Better Society Model Book Document For Sale117-06-2023 18:05
Brazil builds 'rings of carbon dioxide' to simulate climate change in the Amazon225-05-2023 01:11
Limited Time Special Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 600+ Year More904-04-2023 13:49
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact