Remember me
▼ Content

Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)



Page 1 of 3123>
Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)10-02-2023 17:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13508)
Kent Mayhew has a book for sale on Amazon:



New Thermodynamics: Untangling Entropy's Web: Treatise on Global Warming
by Kent Mayhew
Price: $4.95 (Free with KindleUnlimited Subscription)


The Amazon Description/Synopsis:

In various peer reviewed journals, this author has shown that expanding systems perform lost work. That being an irreversible energy transfer from the expanding system into the surrounding atmosphere, as defined by [Wlost=(PdV)atm]. This is really the upward lifting of some of our atmosphere's mass, i.e., an atmospheric potential energy increase. Therefore, no expanding system here on Earth can be considered an isolated system. Since the second law was written for isolated systems, then it does not apply to any useful systems here on Earth's surface, i.e., the second law is a false postulate. Throughout this book, we will not simply bedevil our past, rather we will demonstrate that much of what has been claimed in the guise of entropy and the second law, can be better explained by combining fundamental principles with constructive logic. In so doing, we will clearly show why entropy still lacks clarity, even nearly 170 years after its inception. It will be discussed that statistical ensembles are actually based upon the illusion of elastic collisions, as is witnessed in numerous experimental systems. Accordingly, it will be shown that statistical arguments are secondary to the new logical sequences as presented in this book. It will be further discussed how at its most fundamental level, isothermal entropy change and its numerous associations with accepted thermodynamics, are all enshrined a well-hidden circular argument. New understandings will include kinetic theory, perpetual motion, the ideal gas law, Avogadro's hypothesis, latent heats, solubility, physical chemistry, blackbody radiation and temperature-pressure relationships. For example, a new kinetic theory is presented, one that is a superior fit to known empirical findings. A theory that requires none of the exceptions that traditionally accepted kinetic theory relies upon. This will then lend itself to other new realizations, such as molecular collisions (both inter and intra) are inelastic. Another example, blackbody radiation is theoretically limited to cavities within crystalline substances. Strangely, neither our Sun's radiation, nor molten metal are crystalline, or reside in a cavity, yet both are known to radiate blackbody spectrums. Like so many misunderstandings discussed throughout this book, incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality. A further example being, the above described misunderstanding concerning blackbody radiation has led to the incorrect assertion that homonuclear (N2, O2) do absorb infrared energy, although their heat capacities clearly prove that they do absorb heat. Are we to believe that homonuclear gases only absorb thermal energy when heated, or that infrared energy is not thermal energy? The awkward assertion that homonuclear gases are opaque to thermal radiation has led to absurd misconceptions concerning global warming, that must be addressed if we are to remain on Earth. The above just scratches the surface of what this book reveals to those possessing a fundamental understanding of the sciences. Sadly, the indignity of being wrong may prevent most academics from accepting obvious truths. To which Tolstoy said it best, "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives" Arguably, climate change arguably the biggest issues facing our existence, and therefore, we must get the science right. We no longer have the time to waiting for the screams of human indignity to pass.


It would appear that Kent covers the content of all of his papers in this book. The description/synopsis above quite nicely encapsulates his work.

Note: I discovered a typo in the text above (highlighted in bold), i.e. a missing word "not". It should read "do not absorb."
Edited on 10-02-2023 17:17
10-02-2023 18:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 10-02-2023 18:40
10-02-2023 19:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13508)
Swan wrote:LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares

Kent Mayhew is selling a book, and he is neither a rain forest nor a river.

What were you thinking?
10-02-2023 20:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13508)
In various peer reviewed journals, this author has shown that expanding systems perform lost work.

This author has never defined "lost work." It's not a term from the body of science. This author has not explained what he means by an "expanding system." I don't think he even knows what a "system" is.

That being an irreversible energy transfer from the expanding system into the surrounding atmosphere, as defined by [Wlost=(PdV)atm]. This is really the upward lifting of some of our atmosphere's mass, i.e., an atmospheric potential energy increase.

Here Kent is presenting his own model without explaining it. We're supposed to just accept it because it's something unreadable with an equal sign.

Therefore, no expanding system here on Earth can be considered an isolated system.

This is a meaningless statement.

Since the second law was written for isolated systems, ...

The second law of thermodynamics was not written for anything. It's an observation about energy and applies to all closed systems everywhere, always.

then it does not apply to any useful systems here on Earth's surface, i.e., the second law is a false postulate.

Foul. Penalty. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to all closed systems on earth and everywhere else in the universe. Any argument that is based on dismissing the 2nd law of thermodynamics is itself false.

Throughout this book, we will not simply bedevil our past

Is this the Marxist "our"? What will be gained by bedeviling your past?

... to be continued.
10-02-2023 21:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares

Kent Mayhew is selling a book, and he is neither a rain forest nor a river.

What were you thinking?


So you order your books from Brazil?

Why?


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
11-02-2023 08:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2730)
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.


Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?
Edited on 11-02-2023 08:09
11-02-2023 20:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13508)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.


Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.
11-02-2023 20:49
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4605)
Swan wrote:
LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares


Apple is a fruit, that grows on trees...
12-02-2023 13:48
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares


Apple is a fruit, that grows on trees...


Yea and every time I look my Apple trees keep splitting into more trees.

Enjoy your job doofy


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
12-02-2023 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.


Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.

You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories.

For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is:
* practical to conduct.
* available to conduct.
* is specific (this is where the math comes in).
* produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in).

As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science.
In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence.

Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself.

Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given.

So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion.

The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself.


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 12-02-2023 18:50
13-02-2023 00:16
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.


Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.

You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories.

For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is:
* practical to conduct.
* available to conduct.
* is specific (this is where the math comes in).
* produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in).

As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science.
In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence.

Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself.

Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given.

So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion.

The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself.


LOL do you always answer yourself?


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: Calling all trolls! - pop quiz24-02-2023 02:32
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(247)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.


Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.

You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories.

For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is:
* practical to conduct.
* available to conduct.
* is specific (this is where the math comes in).
* produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in).

As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science.
In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence.

Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself.

Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given.

So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion.

The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP QUIZ

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.
24-02-2023 20:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Im a BM wrote:
POP QUIZ

I see you're back to spread more bitterness.
Im a BM wrote:
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.?

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

Science isn't 'contributions'.
Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

Science is not a degree or university.
Im a BM wrote:
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?

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.
Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.
Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?

Science is not a 'legacy'.
Im a BM wrote:
Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.
Im a BM wrote:
You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.

There isn't any definition for any of these phrases. They are meaningless buzzwords.


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
25-02-2023 04:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
POP QUIZ

I see you're back to spread more bitterness.
Im a BM wrote:
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.?

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

Science isn't 'contributions'.
Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

Science is not a degree or university.
Im a BM wrote:
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?

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.
Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.
Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?

Science is not a 'legacy'.
Im a BM wrote:
Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.
Im a BM wrote:
You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.

There isn't any definition for any of these phrases. They are meaningless buzzwords.


Why are you answering yourself?


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: objective criteria for expertise in science25-02-2023 22:31
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(247)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP QUIZ

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.[/quote]

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

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?


For this question, a recognized authority determined that you are qualified to be considered an expert in science.


I could share my own answers to these questions, but I would love know what the other experts in science at this website have to show to prove it.
26-02-2023 05:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Im a BM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP QUIZ...

Repetition.


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: Who legitimately qualifies as an expert in science?26-02-2023 09:39
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(247)
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?
26-02-2023 16:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4605)
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?

11. Have you ever won a Nobel Prize?

12. How many millions of dollars in government grants have you just pissed away, producing nothing?

13. Have you ever lost funding, for refusing to present your findings, as caused by climate change?
26-02-2023 19:42
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2730)
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?


Credibility and being right are two different animals. Check out this list.

National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Medicine
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
American Philosophical Society
American College of Physicians
American Society for Clinical Investigation
Association of American Physicians
Infectious Diseases Society of America
American Association of Immunologists
American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

This is the credential list of none other than Dr. King Fauci....you know, the guy who said don't wear a mask, wear a mask, 2 masks are better than one, and my favorite, your mask protects me and my mask protects you. This guy is a bafoon. Credentials mean nothing. He was wrong.

I would be remiss if I didn't go a step farther and call you out for using your credentials to steal my money to waste on "research". I find you nothing short of a low life thief, as you wave your credentials around claiming global warming, yet you run like a scared jackrabbit from any conversation pertaining to thermodynamics. Loser.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
26-02-2023 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

Repetition.


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
27-02-2023 02:11
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
Im a BM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP QUIZ

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.


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

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?


For this question, a recognized authority determined that you are qualified to be considered an expert in science.


I could share my own answers to these questions, but I would love know what the other experts in science at this website have to show to prove it.[/quote]

Well if I were Al Gore I could claim to have invented the internet.


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
27-02-2023 05:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13508)
Climate Change Quiz

1. How much Climate Change can fit into a container measuring 1m^3?

1a. Assuming the average temperature of the Climate Change is 30C, what would be the average temperature of the Climate Change if the gravity within the garage in which the container is stored were doubled?

1b. Given two equal 1m^3 containers of Climate Change, A and B, in which container A is heated with an IR heat lamp and container B is mathematically contrived to perform negative work, which container would generate stronger feedbacks? (assume the garage door is operated by a Craftsman 1/2 HP electric door opener)

2. How many meters of science can be placed on a standard 8.5"x11" sheet using a size 11pt Calibri font?

2a. How much Climate Change science can be placed on the same sheet using the same font if the paper is peer reviewed?

3. What are the three most prestigious Climate Ground Zeros for which no Climate summit was held?

3a. What is the maximum Climate Change allowed at any international Climate Ground Zero?

3b. What happens to the limit if approved carbon sinks are installed?

4. If no climate scientist is available, who is authorized to prescribe Climate Justice?

4a. What minimum level of taxation is required for Category B (Serious) Climate Injustice?

4b. What minimum level of taxation is recommended to combat Climate Racism?

5. Essay Question: Describe the biogeochemophysical process of terraforming Saharan desert into fertile, thriving farmland using alkalinity-restoring mangroves. Be sure to explain how the process can be accomplished without a gamma-spec. What do you do if you find arsenic? What should you wear to court when you testify? Where will you establish your library?

Extra Credit: What do you do with all the hexavalent chromium you collect?

6. Essay Question: If you do a Google search of your real name, why does IBDaMann not care? Explain why he is a troll. Include how were it not for him, Climate-Debate would have 10,000 posters daily.

Extra Credit: List the benefits of banning IBDaMann. Explain how the world would be so much better, starting with this post.
RE: "Go and learn some science" - But, :HOW???28-02-2023 01:13
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(247)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

HOW do I go and learn some science?.

It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.

It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science is.

It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.

Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Is science therefore a "nothing"?

Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.

Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?

Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.
28-02-2023 02:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Because you apparently have not learned a damned thing in a whole year.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

Probably a good idea.
Im a BM wrote:
HOW do I go and learn some science?.
Go read up on theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.
Correct.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science
is.
Science is not a degree.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.
Science is not a journal or paper.
Im a BM wrote:
Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Science is not a course.
Im a BM wrote:
Is science therefore a "nothing"?
RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.
That is all science is. A set of falsifiable theories.
Im a BM wrote:
Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Science has no location.
Im a BM wrote:
Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?
Science is not 'experts'.
Im a BM wrote:
Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

The theories themselves.


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 28-02-2023 02:09
28-02-2023 23:25
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4605)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

HOW do I go and learn some science?.

It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.

It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science is.

It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.

Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Is science therefore a "nothing"?

Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.

Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?

Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.


You need to start, by studying philosophy. Because that is the only thing that matters. Suggest starting with a philosopher named Karl. Think it was either Marx, Popper, not really my field. Guess one, is as good as the other, where philosophy is concerned. Anyway, he invented science back in the 1930's. Everything before that was total bullshit...
RE: "The theories themselves" - But, WHERE?01-03-2023 02:07
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(247)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Because you apparently have not learned a damned thing in a whole year.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

Probably a good idea.
Im a BM wrote:
HOW do I go and learn some science?.
Go read up on theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.
Correct.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science
is.
Science is not a degree.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.
Science is not a journal or paper.
Im a BM wrote:
Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Science is not a course.
Im a BM wrote:
Is science therefore a "nothing"?
RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.
That is all science is. A set of falsifiable theories.
Im a BM wrote:
Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Science has no location.
Im a BM wrote:
Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?
Science is not 'experts'.
Im a BM wrote:
Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

The theories themselves.


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

I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

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.

As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

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."

Help me find the theories themselves.
01-03-2023 03:10
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Because you apparently have not learned a damned thing in a whole year.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

Probably a good idea.
Im a BM wrote:
HOW do I go and learn some science?.
Go read up on theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.
Correct.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science
is.
Science is not a degree.
Im a BM wrote:
It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.
Science is not a journal or paper.
Im a BM wrote:
Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Science is not a course.
Im a BM wrote:
Is science therefore a "nothing"?
RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.
That is all science is. A set of falsifiable theories.
Im a BM wrote:
Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Science has no location.
Im a BM wrote:
Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?
Science is not 'experts'.
Im a BM wrote:
Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

The theories themselves.


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

I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

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.

As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

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."

Help me find the theories themselves.


Silly, schizzos create their own theories on demand. I thought everyone knew this


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
01-03-2023 17:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13508)
Im a BM wrote:I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find "the theories themselves."

You have to accept the possibility that you might not find one or more of them. It all depends on how (in)competent you are. The ball is in your court.

Im a BM wrote:My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers

That would be your first mistake.

Im a BM wrote: or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You should certainly find science models in science textbooks, but not necessarily "the" science models you may be seeking at any given time.

Have you considered trying the internet? Have you tried asking anyone on this site for help finding any particular model that you cannot find?

Im a BM wrote: But, as you have made clear, that is not science.

You just did it again. You expressed confusion at the idea that a magazine is not science. It's like you haven't the vaguest idea what science even is. I'd hate to be in your position of trying to find a particular science theory and thinking that a banana might be what you're looking for.

Have you ever considered learning what the word "falsifiable" means? The answer to this question would speak volumes.

Im a BM wrote:My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories".

I see your problem. If you wanted a mango, you'd die of starvation searching for "fruit."

First, you need to determine which science model you wish to analyze. Then you'll find that internet searches on that particular model will be very informative.

Im a BM wrote:Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There is no such thing as a falsifiable theory concerning any religion. Naturally you will never find any falsifiable theories concerning Climate Change for that very reason.

Im a BM wrote:But, as you have made clear, that is not science.

Correct. Climate Change is a religion.

Im a BM wrote:You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Nope. It was of hydrogen and carbon, not of hydrogen and CO2. It is the theory involving Fischer-Tropsch synthesis deep in the earth's crust. You simply insist that you are too incompetent to find any information on the internet.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/fischer-tropsch

Im a BM wrote:As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon

You are the one who insists on using this term. You still have never explained how anyone can tell the history of any particular carbon atom, nor have you ever explained what makes any carbon atom "organic" vs. plain, old, vanilla, regular, carbon.
01-03-2023 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.
Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.
Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.
Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.
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.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.
Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-03-2023 21:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.
Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.
Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.
Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.
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.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.
Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.


If you behaved like this in public you would be arrested for your own safety.


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: "You are a liar." and other ad hominems02-03-2023 01:45
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(247)
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

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

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?
02-03-2023 03:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2730)
Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.
Want to hear mine?


No thanks. You whine and sniffle about there being no debate, yet you run from any debate, all the while suggesting break out rooms to avoid debate. Too funny!


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
02-03-2023 14:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.
Want to hear mine?


No thanks. You whine and sniffle about there being no debate, yet you run from any debate, all the while suggesting break out rooms to avoid debate. Too funny!


Schizzos like you are not capable of debate as your deformed mind continually changes the response to the question in mid sentence.


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 02-03-2023 14:57
02-03-2023 20:29
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4605)
Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

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

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?


Internet credentials are worth pretty much nothing. But, then again I have trust issues. Mostly, people on the internet tend to live in a fantasy world. Vast majority are projecting a more ideal life, than reality. Either it's a complete fabrication, embellishment, or they omit the unpleasant truth. Some simply in denial, and don't see the truth slapping them in the face. My academics ended with just a two year degree, which I never need for any job. Least I didn't rack up tens of thousands in student loans, had to pay most of it out of pocket. Never really needed to sit in a classroom to learn anything I want though. I'll never claim to be an expert on anything, since I'll only learn what I need to complete a task, or goal. Don't really thing an 'expert' really knows all there is about any field. I really don't have the focus, to keep up with only one field of interest. My interest run in a lot of different directions, not always related.
02-03-2023 20:48
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

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

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?


Internet credentials are worth pretty much nothing. But, then again I have trust issues. Mostly, people on the internet tend to live in a fantasy world. Vast majority are projecting a more ideal life, than reality. Either it's a complete fabrication, embellishment, or they omit the unpleasant truth. Some simply in denial, and don't see the truth slapping them in the face. My academics ended with just a two year degree, which I never need for any job. Least I didn't rack up tens of thousands in student loans, had to pay most of it out of pocket. Never really needed to sit in a classroom to learn anything I want though. I'll never claim to be an expert on anything, since I'll only learn what I need to complete a task, or goal. Don't really thing an 'expert' really knows all there is about any field. I really don't have the focus, to keep up with only one field of interest. My interest run in a lot of different directions, not always related.


Hey simpleton, you are actually on the internet at the moment, so stop mocking yourself


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
03-03-2023 00:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.
Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.
Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.
Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.
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.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.
Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.


If you behaved like this in public you would be arrested for your own safety.

Under what authority? What do you consider 'safety'?


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
03-03-2023 00:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Because you're a liar.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

You haven't.
Im a BM wrote:
Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

No one posted any picture of you at any coral reef.
Im a BM wrote:
Lying about being the author of my own posts!

You are the author of your own posts. Every inane word of them.
Im a BM wrote:
This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Buzzword fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

RQAA. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Want to hear mine?
...deleted repetition...

No.


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
03-03-2023 00:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Swan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.
Want to hear mine?


No thanks. You whine and sniffle about there being no debate, yet you run from any debate, all the while suggesting break out rooms to avoid debate. Too funny!


Schizzos ...

40a.


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
03-03-2023 00:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20344)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

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

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?


Internet credentials are worth pretty much nothing. But, then again I have trust issues. Mostly, people on the internet tend to live in a fantasy world. Vast majority are projecting a more ideal life, than reality. Either it's a complete fabrication, embellishment, or they omit the unpleasant truth. Some simply in denial, and don't see the truth slapping them in the face. My academics ended with just a two year degree, which I never need for any job. Least I didn't rack up tens of thousands in student loans, had to pay most of it out of pocket. Never really needed to sit in a classroom to learn anything I want though. I'll never claim to be an expert on anything, since I'll only learn what I need to complete a task, or goal. Don't really thing an 'expert' really knows all there is about any field. I really don't have the focus, to keep up with only one field of interest. My interest run in a lot of different directions, not always related.


Hey simpleton, you are actually on the internet at the moment, so stop mocking yourself

He is not claiming credentials, dumbass. Pay attention.


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
03-03-2023 14:19
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.
Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.
Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.
Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.
Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.
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.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.
Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.


If you behaved like this in public you would be arrested for your own safety.

Under what authority? What do you consider 'safety'?


Everyone like you that gets arrested for their own safety asks that same question, and there is just no answer that will satisfy people like you who wear foil hats to block the alien element 115 based transmissions to the bowl of jello that they use for brains.

Yet you still believe that you can achieve some grand purpose on this as-shole of the internet when in reality, you only exist to entertain me. LOL one of us wasted almost a decade of higher education to end up here, and one of us is a high school graduate who bought Apples and retired early, and spends a couple of hours daily checking out federal agents watching him outlift them. Which isn't all bad because some of them are really rather attractive.

Enjoy.

PS. Please include some pertinent gravity wave top secret info in your reply, as the public is demanding answers as to why the pentagon is using 200 million dollar jets to shoot down kid's balloons.


How to check your bandwidth with a bandwidth checker. https://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/



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

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 03-03-2023 14:32
Page 1 of 3123>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Book That Will Stop All War Instantly: New Creation New Society New World By Bodhi Udumbara1006-03-2023 05:33
The Kent Papers: Author1407-02-2023 05:35
The Kent Papers: NEW THERMODYNAMICS: HOW MANKIND'S USE OF ENERGY INFLUENCES CLIMATE CHANGE1102-02-2023 22:07
The Kent Papers: New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions2101-02-2023 13:42
The Kent Papers: Entropy - An Ill-Conceived Mathematical Contrivance?001-02-2023 02:41
▲ 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