Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems > Page 30

Page 30 of 32

30-10-2025 23:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Stop spamming.
15-12-2025 21:45
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	*Lauren C Breza et al. 2023. Complex crop rotations improve organic nitrogen cycling. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Volume 177, 108911* This excellent paper cites my 1994 paper for the new method of analysis, using persulfate oxidation (rather than Kjeldahl digestion) to measure organic nitrogen in aqueous samples. And it is very revealing regarding the importance of organic nitrogen in nutrient cycling. "The organic N pool could be a valuable source of N that could help farmers reduce reliance on large inorganic N inputs." I won't do it justice to summarize. August 30, 2025 - Another new paper citing "sealover" about the thread topic. *NCM Pallet, et al. 2025. Warming has limited effects on plant growth through nutrient release: Evidence from sub-Antarctic Marion Island. Annals of Botany* published July 18, 2025.** This paper debunks one of the claims of "greening". They found that only invasive species benefitted from the warmer conditions. Native species did not benefit from any increased nutrient availability, nor was there any increase to soil microbial biomass. ----------------------------------------------- August 19, 2025 - New paper by Zhang and Adamczyk came out 4 days ago. Z Zhang and B Adamczyk. 2025. Independent of saprotrophic interactions, ectomycorrhizal fungi facilitate nitrogen utilization from protein-tannin complex by Chinese pine (Pinus tabuliformis). Applied Soil Ecology. Volume 214. October 2025. This new paper is AWESOME, and not just because they cited ME! It is very much in line with the topic of the thread. It is more proof that plants "short circuit" the nitrogen cycle, as I laughably asserted more than 30 years ago. ============================================= August 14, 2025 - New paper by Ann Hagerman came out 13 days ago. *Ann E. Hagerman, Inderjit, et al. 2025. Linkages between plant tannins and the organic nitrogen cycle. Trends in Plant Science. July 31, 2025* I like and respect Ann Hagerman and Inderjit. They cited me in this paper. The "organic nitrogen cycle" sounds strange. It is the short circuiting of the classic nitrogen cycle, facilitated by symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi on the tannin producer's roots. Organic nitrogen in decomposing matter does not get mineralized to ammonium or nitrate before being taken up by the plant. The fungal partner mobilizes the recalcitrant organic nitrogen and transfers it to the plant in organic nitrogen form. For the carbon cycle, this gets more organic carbon into the soil, rather than returned to the atmosphere as CO2. The plant provides a lot of organic carbon to the fungi partner, who then spreads that organic carbon far and wide in its network of hyphael strands. These ecosystems put a lot of organic carbon into the soil, where most of it sticks around for a while. For the nitrogen cycle, this organic nitrogen cycle part of it prevents the emission of nitrous oxide, N2O, by ammonia oxidizing bacteria or by nitrate reducing bacteria. Nitrous oxide is a powerful and important greenhouse gas. Ann Hagerman came into tannin biochemistry research because people in her field were convinced that tannins (polyphenols) were selected for in evolution as anti herbivore defenses. I first came across her work in a report she wrote about exceptionally high tannin in a fern species that formed monospecific thickets. Inderjit invited me to publish my own fern thicket polyphenol work in a book he was editing. And now Hagerman and Inderjit have followed up with this newest paper. After I read the whole thing, there may be more to say here about it. I love that they cited my work for it. It compensates for the deep wounds of internet troll insults. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 23, 2025 - New paper by Bartosz Adamczyk came out (online) 7 days ago. They cite me, of course. Bartosz Adamczyk et al. 2025. Nitrogen fertilization of boreal forest soil increases soil carbon pool through elevated microbial necromass formation but also modifies tree secondary metabolism. Soil Biology and Biochemistry Volume 209, October 2025, 109917 Essentially, they show increased soil carbon storage when taiga soil is fertilized with nitrogen. They also showed reduced tannin concentration in foliage of boreal trees fertilized by nitrogen. But the most important "new" finding is how much a little nitrogen fertilizer can increase the amount of dead microbial biomass ("necromass") in soil. I can't wait to read it. I've just heard flattering things about it, and I thrive on flattery. I'll be especially curious to see WHERE they did the experiment - In a "normal" taiga forest, or in a place where permafrost has melted? Watch this space... A few of the newest thread-topic-relevant relevant papers to cite sealover... June 20, 2025 C Buchmann et al. 2025. From winery by-product to soil improver? - A comprehensive review of grape pomice in agriculture and its effects on soil properties and functions. Science of the Total Environment volume 982 (June 20, 2025) This new paper by Buchmann cites my *1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation".* Among other things, it discusses how plant polyphenols regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling. June 12, 2025 RR Waghmare and K Velmourougane. 2025. Wild and cultivated cotton species: comparative studies on plant biochemistry, soil biology, and soil nutrient status. Crop and Pasture June 12 2025 This new paper by Waghmare cites my 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions: examples from northern California's pygmy forest". April 24, 2025 J Wu et al. 2025 Nitrogen addition shifts fine root nutrient acquisition differently in ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal plantations: a case study of Pinus massonia and Cunninghamia lanceolata. Plant and Soil April 24, 2025 This new paper by Wu cites my *1995 paper in Nature* "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter"** Of particular interest is how different kinds of mycorrhizal fungi acquire nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes.
15-12-2025 22:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	<------ Click on "sealover" (to the left) to open profile page. Click on "view all", middle of profile page, for complete list to access. A new citation for the New Year. 2026 papers are coming out already. Heng Zhang, et. al. 2026. Depth-dependent effects of vegetation restoration on soil quality in ion-adsorbed rare earth leach residues: Insight from soil functions. Catena. Volume 262, January 2026, 109683. This paper cites me because plant polyphenols (aka tannins) are the third most important chemical regulator of decomposition processes. The most important chemical regulator on decomposition is H2O. No biological decomposition of organic carbon compounds can occur in the absence of water. Little biological decomposition can occur where excess water (waterlogging) creates low oxygen conditions. Organic carbon accumulates under such conditions. The next most important chemical regulator of decomposition is O2, oxygen. Under moist, aerobic conditions, organic carbon compounds can readily be degraded by aerobic decomposition, to release carbon dioxide, CO2. Under waterlogged conditions, aerobic decomposition is not possible due to low oxygen. Some anaerobic decomposition can occur, using terminal electron acceptors such as nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc. to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Anaerobic decomposition of organic carbon generates inorganic carbon product as CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. And the plants themselves have something to say about their own decomposition with their synthesis of polyphenols (tannins). Low tannin vegetation decomposes rapidly, incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing detritivores. Tannin rich vegetation decomposes very slowly, forming a distinct layer of undecomposed organic matter above the mineral soil surface. Edited on 15-12-2025 22:21
16-12-2025 18:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Stop spamming. We have enough spamwall.
16-12-2025 18:38
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. We have enough spamwall. Yes. "Spam" is the brand new scientific paper. Science is not a paper, is it? Into the Night is NOT a scientist. He cannot offer us any "spam" of brand new papers that cite his discoveries related to climate change.
16-12-2025 19:05
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	December 16, 2025 - STILL averaging 100 views per day, for 6 months. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 11 - Holding steady at about 100 views per day. That seems to be the new "normal" for this three year old thread. To be sure, the local trolls were NEVER the target audience for discussion of biogeochemistry. Even though some of them claim to have passed chemistry, at least when they were in high school. The target audience is there, somewhere in those 100 views per day. Of course, this means next time there is a long lull in troll posts, I'll bring up all the biogeochemistry threads so it won't be necessary to click "view older threads" to find them. July 3, 2025 News story from University of Leeds research paper "When rainforests died, the planet caught fire: New clues from Earth's greatest Extinction" (article from ScienceDaily, similar article in USA Today) According to some new theories, the mass extinction 252 million years ago was initially triggered by Siberian vulcanism, but went on to wipe out life on a much larger scale because rainforests were lost as a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide. The point is that the live ecosystem still has a lot of influence over the composition of the atmosphere. As we continue to directly cut down rainforests with our tools, we also fell them on a large scale with the climate change we have induced. Now prone to devastating wildfires due to drought, "rainforests" aren't what they used to be. Just one wildfire in the Amazon a few years back emitted more CO2 to the atmosphere than all of Europe's vehicles that year. This new article and research is about the historic role of rainforests as carbon "sinks" to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 low enough to prevent over heating the planet. Among other things, the research suggests that the rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide went on to kill most marine life 252 million years ago. Death by acidification - not the sulfuric acid from the initial Siberian vulcanism that triggered the change, but rather the carbonic acid from all that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due to the rainforest getting killed off. I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia. An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere and accumulating organic carbon in the waterlogged soil. Drained for agriculture, a peatland becomes a huge SOURCE of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere. Some estimates fifteen years ago suggested that CO2 emissions from the Southeast Asian peatlands being drained for agriculture ALREADY exceeded CO2 emissions from all human use of fossil fuel. The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The quantity of CO2 emitted directly from burning fuel is now exceeded by the quantity of CO2 emitted due to OTHER human activities, such as deforestation and drainage of wetlands for agriculture. Climate change itself, due primarily to increased CO2, brings about increased CO2 emission as soil organic matter decomposes more rapidly, tundra thaws, wildfires occur more frequently, forests dry out and die, and deserts expand. Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail. First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff. Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough. There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink". Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet. So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere. Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide. In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2. Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide. Allowing those natural ecosystems to remain intact, or even restoring them where we have already caused damage, could help a lot to offset the carbon dioxide contribution of fossil fuel combustion. This thread is about how natural ecosystems use polyphenols to regulate the carbon cycle and maximize sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into stable soil organic matter with a very long residence time. Peasant agricultural science discovered thousands of years ago how to mimic the nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems in our food production. Biogeochemists are rediscovering these ancient agroforestry land management practices as a model for deliberate preservation and enhancement of soil organic carbon. February 23, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out 5 days ago: *Lili Dong et al. 2025. Time-varying associations between absorptive fine roots and leaf litter decomposition across 23 plant species. Soil Biology and Biochemistry* Volume 204 109751** gets into how accumulated recalcitrant compounds influence decomposition process. Highly relevant for carbon sequestration in GRASSLANDS, as they compared leaf litter and fine root litter decomposition in 23 different grass species. --------------------------------------- February 9, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out a few days ago: Bhupinder Singh Jatana. 2025. Short term mineralization dynamics of meat and bone meal as impacted by different natural amendments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, (published online February 2, 2025) The basic idea is to add tannin-rich (i.e. polyphenol-rich) vegetable matter to "hot" compost materials such as meat and bone meal. The tannins slow the decomposition to minimize loss of nitrogen, etc, from the material, transforming it into "cool" compost - slow release fertilizer. The role of polyphenols as regulators of nitrogen cycling certainly has implications for evolutionary biology. But it has gotten far more attention from agronomists and foresters for its practical applications. -------------------------------- February 6, 2025 - new paper came out eight days ago citing sealover. *Zhenglin Zhang et al. 2025. Introduction of a Fallow Year to Continuous Rice Systems Enhances Crop Soil Nitrogen Uptake. European Journal of Soil Science, 2025: 76e70046* It makes me happy to see that the knowledge acquired in my published scientific research is being applied to enhance soil nitrogen crop uptake in rice. Not that I discovered "fallowing", just the role of polyphenols in nitrogen cycling. January 25, 2025 New one cites "sealover" 1995 pub in NATURE Plants as our teachers: Long-term Responses of Dwarf Shrub and Bryophyte Communities to Nutrient Addition in a Northern Swedish Island System. By Agnes Blomgren, this is actually a master's thesis just published at Umea University, Sweden. Like the pygmy forest where I did polyphenol research, dwarf shrubs and bryophytes grow on these Swedish Islands in places where the soil is virtually devoid of nutrients to support plant growth. Not a ground breaking new paper directly relevant to climate change, but it is fun to know that master's degree students are still reading my work and citing it as the basis for something in their own research. ---- January 8, 2025 Two new thread-related papers citing "sealover" came out 5 days ago: *M. Ishfaq et al. 2025. Nitrogen phosphorus trade-offs in mangroves. Plant and Soil* complete citation to follow.** "sealover" just loves to see his name on a paper about those mangroves. It includes a BEAUTIFUL graphic cross section of the ecosystem and fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, etc. also came out 5 days ago: P. Yang et al. 2025. Heating-Induced Redox Property Dynamics of Peat Soil Dissolved Organic Matter in a Simulated Peat Fire: Electron Exchange Capacity and Molecular Characteristics. Biogeochemical Cycling complete citation to follow Love the title of that journal - Biogeochemical Cycling. And it is about PEAT in coastal wetlands. sealover is happy to see his name attached... take THAT you meanie troll bullies! SOMEBODY thinks i'm a for real science guy. Check out the first sentences of the abstract: "Peatlands store one-third of the world's soil organic carbon. Globally increased fires altered peat soil organic matter chemistry.." Because climate change has dramatically increased the frequency and severity of PEAT FIRES. Did they say "organic carbon"? It figures, since the journal is called "Biogeochemical Cycling", something that doesn't even exist. It's hard enough to keep the peat waterlogged enough that it doesn't just decompose and disappear as land surface elevation sinks. It also gets torched more than ever before, and it puts a lot of toxic partially burned organic matter into soluble state to contaminate water supplies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This new paper came out 24 days ago (November, 2024). It actually cites my FIRST paper published about polyphenols. "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient...", published in Plant and Soil, volume 171, pages 255-262, in 1995. This newest paper, just out a few weeks ago, is: M. Gabriela Mattera, et al. 2024. Intraspecific variation in leaf (poly)phenolic content of a southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus antarctica) growing under different environmental conditions. Nature, Scientific Reports (2024) 14:20050. Investigation of intraspecific variation of polyphenol (aka tannin) content in tree leaves as a response to different environmental conditions is something I kind of pioneered in 1995. Soil properties are a very important environmental condition influencing how much polyphenol a plant will need to make in order to be competitive. Beech trees growing on acidic, silica-rich soils produce higher concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form decomposition-resistant leaf litter that accumulates above the mineral soil surface. (mor type humus) Beech trees growing on near-neutral pH, calcareous soils produce lower concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form easily-decomposed leaf litter that is rapidly incorporated into the mineral soil. (mull type humus) The capacity of trees to regulate decomposition and accumulation of soil organic matter through alteration of their polyphenol content is of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE for efforts to mitigate climate change. One goal of the research in this most recent paper (Mattera et al) was to "..also provide some clues about the performance of N. antarctica under future climate scenarios." Climate change has harmful feedbacks on plant chemistry. It is hoped that conscious management of plant chemistry could have eventually have beneficial feedbacks on climate change. To maximize carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. ------------------------------- The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better. If it ever does get better. I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below. I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change. The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions. This paper was published April 10, 2024 *B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932.* This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22
17-12-2025 03:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	sealover wrote: December 16, 2025 - STILL averaging 100 views per day, for 6 months. You view your posts 100 times a day? THAT is narcissistic! 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
17-12-2025 03:53
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: December 16, 2025 - STILL averaging 100 views per day, for 6 months. You view your posts 100 times a day? THAT is narcissistic! Someone viewed this thread 200 times since yesterday. That is well above its daily average, but by merely reemerging at the top of the home page causes some pickup. It is possible that you honestly believe I personally keep opening my own thread, over and over and over, to rack up so many "views". You could give your OWN ego a good stroke and look up your own threads by clicking "View older threads" near the bottom of the home page. This will enable you to see how many "views" your teachings receive over time. You personally account for more than a fifth of all posts ever put up on this website. This makes you the main attraction.
17-12-2025 04:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: December 16, 2025 - STILL averaging 100 views per day, for 6 months. You view your posts 100 times a day? THAT is narcissistic! Someone viewed this thread 200 times since yesterday. That is well above its daily average, but by merely reemerging at the top of the home page causes some pickup. So you view yourself 200 times??? You are more narcissistic than I thought! Im a BM wrote: It is possible that you honestly believe I personally keep opening my own thread, over and over and over, to rack up so many "views". Yup. Im a BM wrote: You could give your OWN ego a good stroke and look up your own threads by clicking "View older threads" near the bottom of the home page. This will enable you to see how many "views" your teachings receive over time. You personally account for more than a fifth of all posts ever put up on this website. This makes you the main attraction. Thank you. 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
17-12-2025 04:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	<------ Click on "sealover" (to the left) to open profile page. Click on "view all", middle of profile page, for complete list to access. A new citation for the New Year. 2026 papers are coming out already. Heng Zhang, et. al. 2026. Depth-dependent effects of vegetation restoration on soil quality in ion-adsorbed rare earth leach residues: Insight from soil functions. Catena. Volume 262, January 2026, 109683. This paper cites me because plant polyphenols (aka tannins) are the third most important chemical regulator of decomposition processes. The most important chemical regulator on decomposition is H2O. No biological decomposition of organic carbon compounds can occur in the absence of water. Little biological decomposition can occur where excess water (waterlogging) creates low oxygen conditions. Organic carbon accumulates under such conditions. The next most important chemical regulator of decomposition is O2, oxygen. Under moist, aerobic conditions, organic carbon compounds can readily be degraded by aerobic decomposition, to release carbon dioxide, CO2. Under waterlogged conditions, aerobic decomposition is not possible due to low oxygen. Some anaerobic decomposition can occur, using terminal electron acceptors such as nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc. to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Anaerobic decomposition of organic carbon generates inorganic carbon product as CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. And the plants themselves have something to say about their own decomposition with their synthesis of polyphenols (tannins). Low tannin vegetation decomposes rapidly, incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing detritivores. Tannin rich vegetation decomposes very slowly, forming a distinct layer of undecomposed organic matter above the mineral soil surface. Just say "No!" to SPAM!
18-12-2025 08:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	sealover wrote: <------ Click on "sealover" (to the left) to open profile page. Click on "view all", middle of profile page, for complete list to access. Stop spamming. sealover wrote: A new citation for the New Year. 2026 papers are coming out already. Big hairy deal. Any idiot can write a paper. sealover wrote: This paper cites me because plant polyphenols (aka tannins) are the third most important chemical regulator of decomposition processes. Polyphenols are not tannin. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. sealover wrote: The most important chemical regulator on decomposition is H2O. No biological decomposition of organic carbon compounds can occur in the absence of water. Little biological decomposition can occur where excess water (waterlogging) creates low oxygen conditions. Organic carbon accumulates under such conditions. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. Decomposition can occur with or without water. Water contains oxygen. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: The next most important chemical regulator of decomposition is O2, oxygen. Under moist, aerobic conditions, organic carbon compounds can readily be degraded by aerobic decomposition, to release carbon dioxide, CO2. Under waterlogged conditions, aerobic decomposition is not possible due to low oxygen. Some anaerobic decomposition can occur, using terminal electron acceptors such as nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc. to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Anaerobic decomposition of organic carbon generates inorganic carbon product as CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. Carbon is not organic. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Arsenate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: And the plants themselves have something to say about their own decomposition with their synthesis of polyphenols (tannins). Low tannin vegetation decomposes rapidly, incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing detritivores. Tannin rich vegetation decomposes very slowly, forming a distinct layer of undecomposed organic matter above the mineral soil surface. Plants don't talk. Polyphenols is not tannin. sealover wrote: Just say "No!" to SPAM! So stop spamming. 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
18-12-2025 20:15
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: <------ Click on "sealover" (to the left) to open profile page. Click on "view all", middle of profile page, for complete list to access. Stop spamming. sealover wrote: A new citation for the New Year. 2026 papers are coming out already. Big hairy deal. Any idiot can write a paper. sealover wrote: This paper cites me because plant polyphenols (aka tannins) are the third most important chemical regulator of decomposition processes. Polyphenols are not tannin. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. sealover wrote: The most important chemical regulator on decomposition is H2O. No biological decomposition of organic carbon compounds can occur in the absence of water. Little biological decomposition can occur where excess water (waterlogging) creates low oxygen conditions. Organic carbon accumulates under such conditions. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. Decomposition can occur with or without water. Water contains oxygen. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: The next most important chemical regulator of decomposition is O2, oxygen. Under moist, aerobic conditions, organic carbon compounds can readily be degraded by aerobic decomposition, to release carbon dioxide, CO2. Under waterlogged conditions, aerobic decomposition is not possible due to low oxygen. Some anaerobic decomposition can occur, using terminal electron acceptors such as nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc. to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Anaerobic decomposition of organic carbon generates inorganic carbon product as CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. Carbon is not organic. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Arsenate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: And the plants themselves have something to say about their own decomposition with their synthesis of polyphenols (tannins). Low tannin vegetation decomposes rapidly, incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing detritivores. Tannin rich vegetation decomposes very slowly, forming a distinct layer of undecomposed organic matter above the mineral soil surface. Plants don't talk. Polyphenols is not tannin. sealover wrote: Just say "No!" to SPAM! So stop spamming. "Polyphenols is not tannin" - Into the Night This statement is only true in the universe where Into the Night IS a chemist. Perhaps dictionaries don't actually "define" terms for us, but they all seem to agree that polyphenol and tannin are synonyms for the same class of organic carbon compound. "Carbon is not organic" - Into the Night. Well, less than half of the carbon on Earth is organic. Inorganic carbon, primarily in the form of solid calcium carbonate, accounts for the majority of carbon atoms on Earth. When organisms transform organic carbon into inorganic carbon, they usually use oxygen to do it. The inorganic carbon product is carbon dioxide. But when organisms decompose organic carbon anaerobically (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, arsenic reduction, etc.) the inorganic carbon product is CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. Carbonate ions are very real, even if "carbonate is not a chemical". Science is not something that is not science. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. Something is NOT something else that it is not. Into the Night is NOT a chemist, scientist, or expert of any kind. "Anyone can write a paper" - Into the Night This point is certainly debatable. But NOT just anyone can write a paper that gets published in a prestigious scientific journal, which then gets widely cited by other actual scientists. The kind who can read the paper and know what the big words mean. Who know that the big words are REAL and actually mean something. The kind who don't insist that they are all just meaningless buzzwords, simply because THEY don't know what the big words mean. Yes, there IS such a thing as a "terminal electron acceptor". Ask a chemist if you refuse to believe the dictionary. Perhaps Into the Night can write a paper, just as "anyone" can. I doubt it.
18-12-2025 21:28
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Lignin and tannin are two kinds of polyphenols, actually. Condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins are polyphenols. They are phenol carboxylic acids which can "tan" leather by forming protein-tannin complexes. Lignin is not a carbohydrate, but rather a different kind of polyphenol than tannins. Like all polyphenols, lignin is a polymer comprised of multiple phenolic benzene rings. Unlike tannins, lignin does not have carboxylic acid groups. But unlike carbohydrates, lignin DOES have aromatic alcohol, double bonded six-member rings. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: <------ Click on "sealover" (to the left) to open profile page. Click on "view all", middle of profile page, for complete list to access. Stop spamming. sealover wrote: A new citation for the New Year. 2026 papers are coming out already. Big hairy deal. Any idiot can write a paper. sealover wrote: This paper cites me because plant polyphenols (aka tannins) are the third most important chemical regulator of decomposition processes. Polyphenols are not tannin. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. sealover wrote: The most important chemical regulator on decomposition is H2O. No biological decomposition of organic carbon compounds can occur in the absence of water. Little biological decomposition can occur where excess water (waterlogging) creates low oxygen conditions. Organic carbon accumulates under such conditions. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. Decomposition can occur with or without water. Water contains oxygen. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: The next most important chemical regulator of decomposition is O2, oxygen. Under moist, aerobic conditions, organic carbon compounds can readily be degraded by aerobic decomposition, to release carbon dioxide, CO2. Under waterlogged conditions, aerobic decomposition is not possible due to low oxygen. Some anaerobic decomposition can occur, using terminal electron acceptors such as nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc. to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Anaerobic decomposition of organic carbon generates inorganic carbon product as CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. There is no such thing as a 'chemical regulator'. Carbon is not organic. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Arsenate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: And the plants themselves have something to say about their own decomposition with their synthesis of polyphenols (tannins). Low tannin vegetation decomposes rapidly, incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing detritivores. Tannin rich vegetation decomposes very slowly, forming a distinct layer of undecomposed organic matter above the mineral soil surface. Plants don't talk. Polyphenols is not tannin. sealover wrote: Just say "No!" to SPAM! So stop spamming. "Polyphenols is not tannin" - Into the Night This statement is only true in the universe where Into the Night IS a chemist. Perhaps dictionaries don't actually "define" terms for us, but they all seem to agree that polyphenol and tannin are synonyms for the same class of organic carbon compound. "Carbon is not organic" - Into the Night. Well, less than half of the carbon on Earth is organic. Inorganic carbon, primarily in the form of solid calcium carbonate, accounts for the majority of carbon atoms on Earth. When organisms transform organic carbon into inorganic carbon, they usually use oxygen to do it. The inorganic carbon product is carbon dioxide. But when organisms decompose organic carbon anaerobically (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, arsenic reduction, etc.) the inorganic carbon product is CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. Carbonate ions are very real, even if "carbonate is not a chemical". Science is not something that is not science. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. Something is NOT something else that it is not. Into the Night is NOT a chemist, scientist, or expert of any kind. "Anyone can write a paper" - Into the Night This point is certainly debatable. But NOT just anyone can write a paper that gets published in a prestigious scientific journal, which then gets widely cited by other actual scientists. The kind who can read the paper and know what the big words mean. Who know that the big words are REAL and actually mean something. The kind who don't insist that they are all just meaningless buzzwords, simply because THEY don't know what the big words mean. Yes, there IS such a thing as a "terminal electron acceptor". Ask a chemist if you refuse to believe the dictionary. Perhaps Into the Night can write a paper, just as "anyone" can. I doubt it.
19-12-2025 19:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: "Polyphenols is not tannin" - Into the Night This statement is only true in the universe where Into the Night IS a chemist. Polyphenols is not tannin. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps dictionaries don't actually "define" terms for us, but they all seem to agree that polyphenol and tannin are synonyms for the same class of organic carbon compound. Dictionaries do not define any word. You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon is not organic" - Into the Night. Well, less than half of the carbon on Earth is organic. Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Inorganic carbon, primarily in the form of solid calcium carbonate, accounts for the majority of carbon atoms on Earth. Carbon is not calcium carbonate. Im a BM wrote: When organisms transform organic carbon into inorganic carbon, they usually use oxygen to do it. The inorganic carbon product is carbon dioxide. But when organisms decompose organic carbon anaerobically (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, arsenic reduction, etc.) the inorganic carbon product is CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-), rather than CO2. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Iron cannot be reduced. Manganese cannot be reduced. Arsenic cannot be reduced. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Carbonate ions are very real, even if "carbonate is not a chemical". Carbonate is not a chemical. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Science is not something that is not science. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. Something is NOT something else that it is not. Random phrases ignored. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night is NOT a chemist, scientist, or expert of any kind. Jealousy ignored. Im a BM wrote: "Anyone can write a paper" - Into the Night This point is certainly debatable. Not really. Anyone can write a paper. Im a BM wrote: But NOT just anyone can write a paper that gets published in a prestigious scientific journal, which then gets widely cited by other actual scientists. The kind who can read the paper and know what the big words mean. Who know that the big words are REAL and actually mean something. The kind who don't insist that they are all just meaningless buzzwords, simply because THEY don't know what the big words mean. Science isn't a journal, magazine, pamphlet, website, book, or paper. Science isn't a cite. Science isn't even a person. Science isn't big words. Science isn't any of your buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: Yes, there IS such a thing as a "terminal electron acceptor". Ask a chemist if you refuse to believe the dictionary. No such thing. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps Into the Night can write a paper, just as "anyone" can. I doubt it. Random phrase ignored. 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
19-12-2025 19:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Lignin and tannin are two kinds of polyphenols, actually. So? Polyphenols is not lignin. Polyphenols is not tannin. Im a BM wrote: Condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins are polyphenols. They are phenol carboxylic acids which can "tan" leather by forming protein-tannin complexes. No such thing as 'phenol carboxylic acid'. Im a BM wrote: Lignin is not a carbohydrate, Yes it is. Im a BM wrote: but rather a different kind of polyphenol than tannins. There is no such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: Like all polyphenols, lignin is a polymer comprised of multiple phenolic benzene rings. Lignin is not benzine. Im a BM wrote: Unlike tannins, lignin does not have carboxylic acid groups. But unlike carbohydrates, lignin DOES have aromatic alcohol, double bonded six-member rings. No such thing as tannins. No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Lignin is not alcohol. 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
19-12-2025 20:57
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Lignin and tannin are two kinds of polyphenols, actually. So? Polyphenols is not lignin. Polyphenols is not tannin. Im a BM wrote: Condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins are polyphenols. They are phenol carboxylic acids which can "tan" leather by forming protein-tannin complexes. No such thing as 'phenol carboxylic acid'. Im a BM wrote: Lignin is not a carbohydrate, Yes it is. Im a BM wrote: but rather a different kind of polyphenol than tannins. There is no such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: Like all polyphenols, lignin is a polymer comprised of multiple phenolic benzene rings. Lignin is not benzine. Im a BM wrote: Unlike tannins, lignin does not have carboxylic acid groups. But unlike carbohydrates, lignin DOES have aromatic alcohol, double bonded six-member rings. No such thing as tannins. No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Lignin is not alcohol. This discussion began three and a half years ago when Into the Night asserted that "The entire plant is just carbohydrate and some protein". When I mentioned some other classes of organic carbon compounds found in plants, such as lignin and tannin, Into the Night asserted, "Lignin as a carbohydrate." Three and a half years later, the ANTI chemistry assertions continue. "No such thing as tannins. No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Lignin is not alcohol." - Into the Night Questions for GOOGLE, which is far more well informed than ITN about chemistry. "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin isn't an alcohol., but a massive, complex polymer built from three main 'alcohol' building blocks (monolignols): coniferyl alcohol, sinapyl alcohol, and p-coumaryl alcohol, which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize.." Yes, lignin is a polymer of aromatic alcohols. "Is lignin a carbohydrate?" Google says: "No, lignin is not a carbohydrate; it's a complex non-carbohydrate polymer made of phenylpropanoid units.." "Is lignin a polyphenol?" Google says: "Yes, lignin is a complex, natural polyphenol polymer, meaning it's a large molecule rich in phenolic structures (benzene rings with hydroxyl groups). It's the most abundant polyphenol in plants.." "Is there such a thing as a carboxylic acid group?" Google says: "Yes, a carboxylic acid group, often shortened to carboxyl group, is a fundamental group in organic chemistry. ...written as -COOH, and it's what make a molecule a carboxylic acid, found in things like amino acids and fatty acids." "Is there such a thing as tannins?" Google says: "Yes, tannins are very real, naturally occurring chemical compounds found in plants..." "Is there such a thing as phenol carboxylic acids?" Google says: "Yes, there absolutely are phenol carboxylic acids, also known as phenolic acids, which are a major class of compounds featuring both a phenol group (benzene ring + hydroxyl) and a carboxylic acid group.." "Is the entire plant just carbohydrates and some protein?" Google says: "No, plants aren't just carbs and some protein..." "Is Google God?" Google says: "The phrase 'Google is God' isn't literal." But Google does not explicitly DENY being God. They left themselves some wiggle room. "Is Into the Night really a chemist?" Google says: "The question appears to be a misunderstanding.." No shit, Sherlock!
20-12-2025 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: This discussion began three and a half years ago when Into the Night asserted that "The entire plant is just carbohydrate and some protein". An entire plant is just basically carbohydrate and some protein. Im a BM wrote: When I mentioned some other classes of organic carbon compounds found in plants, such as lignin and tannin, Into the Night asserted, "Lignin as a carbohydrate." Lignin is a carbohydrate. Tannin is another carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: Three and a half years later, the ANTI chemistry assertions continue. "No such thing as tannins. No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Lignin is not alcohol." - Into the Night Questions for GOOGLE, which is far more well informed than ITN about chemistry. Google is not a source for anything. It's an indexing system. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin isn't an alcohol., but a massive, complex polymer built from three main 'alcohol' building blocks (monolignols): coniferyl alcohol, sinapyl alcohol, and p-coumaryl alcohol, which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize.." Yes, lignin is a polymer of aromatic alcohols. Google does not respond that way, liar. YOU claimed lignin was an alcohol. I didn't. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin a carbohydrate?" Google says: "No, lignin is not a carbohydrate; it's a complex non-carbohydrate polymer made of phenylpropanoid units.." Lignin is a carbohydrate. Google does not respond that way. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin a polyphenol?" Google says: "Yes, lignin is a complex, natural polyphenol polymer, meaning it's a large molecule rich in phenolic structures (benzene rings with hydroxyl groups). It's the most abundant polyphenol in plants.." Google does not respond that way. That said, this is more or less correct. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a carboxylic acid group?" Google says: "Yes, a carboxylic acid group, often shortened to carboxyl group, is a fundamental group in organic chemistry. ...written as -COOH, and it's what make a molecule a carboxylic acid, found in things like amino acids and fatty acids." No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as tannins?" Google says: "Yes, tannins are very real, naturally occurring chemical compounds found in plants..." No such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as phenol carboxylic acids?" Google says: "Yes, there absolutely are phenol carboxylic acids, also known as phenolic acids, which are a major class of compounds featuring both a phenol group (benzene ring + hydroxyl) and a carboxylic acid group.." No such thing as phenol carboxylic acids. Im a BM wrote: "Is the entire plant just carbohydrates and some protein?" Google says: "No, plants aren't just carbs and some protein..." Plants are basically just carbohydrates and protein. Im a BM wrote: "Is Google God?" Google says: "The phrase 'Google is God' isn't literal." But Google does not explicitly DENY being God. They left themselves some wiggle room. Google is not God. You are also not quoting Google. You are making shit up again. 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
20-12-2025 21:58
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	"Google does not respond that way, liar." - Into the Night This is EXACTLY how Google responds, LIAR! Every case shows the exact question posed, and the exact answer given by Google. (e.g. "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin... which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize..") ANYONE can fact check ITN's scientifically illiterate moron ass by posing the exact questions to Google seen here, to get the answers from Google quoted here. I double dog DARE you to do a reality check on this one! Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: This discussion began three and a half years ago when Into the Night asserted that "The entire plant is just carbohydrate and some protein". An entire plant is just basically carbohydrate and some protein. Im a BM wrote: When I mentioned some other classes of organic carbon compounds found in plants, such as lignin and tannin, Into the Night asserted, "Lignin as a carbohydrate." Lignin is a carbohydrate. Tannin is another carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: Three and a half years later, the ANTI chemistry assertions continue. "No such thing as tannins. No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Lignin is not alcohol." - Into the Night Questions for GOOGLE, which is far more well informed than ITN about chemistry. Google is not a source for anything. It's an indexing system. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin isn't an alcohol., but a massive, complex polymer built from three main 'alcohol' building blocks (monolignols): coniferyl alcohol, sinapyl alcohol, and p-coumaryl alcohol, which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize.." Yes, lignin is a polymer of aromatic alcohols. Google does not respond that way, liar. YOU claimed lignin was an alcohol. I didn't. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin a carbohydrate?" Google says: "No, lignin is not a carbohydrate; it's a complex non-carbohydrate polymer made of phenylpropanoid units.." Lignin is a carbohydrate. Google does not respond that way. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin a polyphenol?" Google says: "Yes, lignin is a complex, natural polyphenol polymer, meaning it's a large molecule rich in phenolic structures (benzene rings with hydroxyl groups). It's the most abundant polyphenol in plants.." Google does not respond that way. That said, this is more or less correct. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a carboxylic acid group?" Google says: "Yes, a carboxylic acid group, often shortened to carboxyl group, is a fundamental group in organic chemistry. ...written as -COOH, and it's what make a molecule a carboxylic acid, found in things like amino acids and fatty acids." No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as tannins?" Google says: "Yes, tannins are very real, naturally occurring chemical compounds found in plants..." No such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as phenol carboxylic acids?" Google says: "Yes, there absolutely are phenol carboxylic acids, also known as phenolic acids, which are a major class of compounds featuring both a phenol group (benzene ring + hydroxyl) and a carboxylic acid group.." No such thing as phenol carboxylic acids. Im a BM wrote: "Is the entire plant just carbohydrates and some protein?" Google says: "No, plants aren't just carbs and some protein..." Plants are basically just carbohydrates and protein. Im a BM wrote: "Is Google God?" Google says: "The phrase 'Google is God' isn't literal." But Google does not explicitly DENY being God. They left themselves some wiggle room. Google is not God. You are also not quoting Google. You are making shit up again.
21-12-2025 05:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: "Google does not respond that way, liar." - Into the Night This is EXACTLY how Google responds, LIAR! No, it isn't. Google is a search engine. Im a BM wrote: Every case shows the exact question posed, and the exact answer given by Google. (e.g. "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin... which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize..") Google isn't answers. Science isn't Google. Chemistry isn't Google. I never said lignin was an alcohol. YOU DID. Im a BM wrote: ANYONE can fact check ITN's scientifically illiterate moron ass by posing the exact questions to Google seen here, to get the answers from Google quoted here. Google isn't answers. 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
21-12-2025 10:49
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Google does not respond that way, liar." - Into the Night This is EXACTLY how Google responds, LIAR! No, it isn't. Google is a search engine. Im a BM wrote: Every case shows the exact question posed, and the exact answer given by Google. (e.g. "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin... which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize..") Google isn't answers. Science isn't Google. Chemistry isn't Google. I never said lignin was an alcohol. YOU DID. Im a BM wrote: ANYONE can fact check ITN's scientifically illiterate moron ass by posing the exact questions to Google seen here, to get the answers from Google quoted here. Google isn't answers. Apparently, you have never entered a short question into Google, to which it can give a brief answer in the upper left, above the search engine results for multiple other sources. This would be an opportunity to apply the scientific method, and test the reproducibility of my methodology and results. By asking the exact same sentence questions I showed, you will find in the upper left Google's brief summary answer. You should see it matches the answers I quoted. On one point you are actually correct. I DID say lignin was an alcohol. I continue to say that lignin is an alcohol. But it is not a simple, monomeric aliphatic alcohol such as ethanol or methanol. It is a complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol. NOT a carbohydrate by any valid definition. You look rather pathetic as you pretend to know something about this stuff. "There is no such thing as tannins"? WTF??? Well, just because you don't know what those big words mean, it doesn't mean they don't mean anything.
21-12-2025 21:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Apparently, you have never entered a short question into Google, to which it can give a brief answer in the upper left, above the search engine results for multiple other sources. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: This would be an opportunity to apply the scientific method, Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: and test the reproducibility of my methodology and results. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: By asking the exact same sentence questions I showed, you will find in the upper left Google's brief summary answer. You should see it matches the answers I quoted. Google is not answers, or a Holy Oracle, or God. Im a BM wrote: On one point you are actually correct. I DID say lignin was an alcohol. For some stupid reason. Im a BM wrote: I continue to say that lignin is an alcohol. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: But it is not a simple, monomeric aliphatic alcohol such as ethanol or methanol. This part is correct. Im a BM wrote: It is a complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol. No such thing. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: NOT a carbohydrate by any valid definition. It is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: You look rather pathetic as you pretend to know something about this stuff. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as tannins"? WTF??? That is correct. There is no such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: Well, just because you don't know what those big words mean, it doesn't mean they don't mean anything. Your word games won't work, Robert. 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
21-12-2025 22:13
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Apparently, you have never entered a short question into Google, to which it can give a brief answer in the upper left, above the search engine results for multiple other sources. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: This would be an opportunity to apply the scientific method, Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: and test the reproducibility of my methodology and results. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: By asking the exact same sentence questions I showed, you will find in the upper left Google's brief summary answer. You should see it matches the answers I quoted. Google is not answers, or a Holy Oracle, or God. Im a BM wrote: On one point you are actually correct. I DID say lignin was an alcohol. For some stupid reason. Im a BM wrote: I continue to say that lignin is an alcohol. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: But it is not a simple, monomeric aliphatic alcohol such as ethanol or methanol. This part is correct. Im a BM wrote: It is a complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol. No such thing. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: NOT a carbohydrate by any valid definition. It is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: You look rather pathetic as you pretend to know something about this stuff. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as tannins"? WTF??? That is correct. There is no such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: Well, just because you don't know what those big words mean, it doesn't mean they don't mean anything. Your word games won't work, Robert. Your word games are all you have. You deny the very existence of the terms that actual scientists use. You can't make an entire field of science cease to exist by declaring, "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Your "something is not something else" word games are repetitious, tiresome, and in no way informative. SO WHAT if "carbonate is not a chemical" (by your rigid, unique and personal definition) when the sentence you "refuted" was about the chemical behavior of carbonate ions? SO WHAT if "science is not a journal", when that's your only rebuttal to my referring to my own lignin and tannin research published in the highly prestigious journal known as Nature? Your word games are tedious and can be summed up in five sentences. 1. Science is not something that is not science. (DUH!) 2. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. (Gosh! Who knew?) 3. Something is not something else that it is not. (SOMEBODY needed to point that out, I guess) 4. It is not possible to measure something that cannot be measured. (Okay) 5. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. Where you fail most is with #5. Apparently, you never learned about the existence of many things. You think they don't exist because you are too scientifically illiterate to have learned about them. You think that the words you never learned have no meaning, because YOU never learned what they mean.
21-12-2025 22:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Your word games are all you have. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your word games on me or anybody else. Im a BM wrote: You deny the very existence of the terms that actual scientists use. You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: You can't make an entire field of science cease to exist by declaring, "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Science is not buzzwords. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: Your "something is not something else" word games are repetitious, tiresome, and in no way informative. Your buzzwords and word games are YOUR PROBLEM, Robert. Im a BM wrote: SO WHAT if "carbonate is not a chemical" (by your rigid, unique and personal definition) when the sentence you "refuted" was about the chemical behavior of carbonate ions? Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: SO WHAT if "science is not a journal", when that's your only rebuttal to my referring to my own lignin and tannin research published in the highly prestigious journal known as Nature? Science is not a journal, magazine, website, search engine, paper, pamphlet, book, college, university, class, degree, license, buzzword, redefinition, research, study, or Holy Oracle. There is NOTHING prestigious about the Nature journal. Articles appearing there routinely deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: Your word games are tedious and can be summed up in five sentences. 1. Science is not something that is not science. (DUH!) 2. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. (Gosh! Who knew?) 3. Something is not something else that it is not. (SOMEBODY needed to point that out, I guess) 4. It is not possible to measure something that cannot be measured. (Okay) 5. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. Random words and phrases. No apparent coherency. Im a BM wrote: Where you fail most is with #5. I fail one of your incoherencies??? Im a BM wrote: Apparently, you never learned about the existence of many things. You think they don't exist because you are too scientifically illiterate to have learned about them. You think that the words you never learned have no meaning, because YOU never learned what they mean. You can't blame your denial of science on me or anybody else, Robert. Science isn't buzzwords. Buzzwords have no meaning. 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
22-12-2025 01:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	"There is NOTHING prestigious about the Nature journal. Articles appearing there routinely deny theories of science." - Into the Night This is also where I hit the snag with IBdaMann. ITN and IBM both agreed that Nature was not a credible source and not a place where one could find scientific papers that do NOT "deny theories of science". In fact, both these guys used to term "shit rag" to describe the journal known as "Nature". IBdaMann was unable to offer an example of any other journal that might be better than Nature, but Nature was unacceptably deficient. Into the Night, is there ANY published journal you can name that is more prestigious than Nature in its publication of papers that do NOT routinely deny theories of science? Instead of admitting that you don't have a clue and couldn't name a single journal that would have any credibility in your mind, I'm predicting you will pretend that SOMEWHERE in your 23,000 post you actually already answered that question. It will be my job to go back and try to find it, because it would be too much to ask you to write the name, perhaps up to four words, of a journal title. You'll pull the "RQAA" bullshit. Insist that you already told us, liar. Stand by your assertion that Nature is not a prestigious journal, and lie that somewhere you explained where credible science IS published. And you'll refuse to ever tell us again, so "RQAA", we have to look it up for ourselves. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! (your father told us that you are a "nothing") Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Your word games are all you have. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your word games on me or anybody else. Im a BM wrote: You deny the very existence of the terms that actual scientists use. You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: You can't make an entire field of science cease to exist by declaring, "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Science is not buzzwords. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: Your "something is not something else" word games are repetitious, tiresome, and in no way informative. Your buzzwords and word games are YOUR PROBLEM, Robert. Im a BM wrote: SO WHAT if "carbonate is not a chemical" (by your rigid, unique and personal definition) when the sentence you "refuted" was about the chemical behavior of carbonate ions? Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: SO WHAT if "science is not a journal", when that's your only rebuttal to my referring to my own lignin and tannin research published in the highly prestigious journal known as Nature? Science is not a journal, magazine, website, search engine, paper, pamphlet, book, college, university, class, degree, license, buzzword, redefinition, research, study, or Holy Oracle. There is NOTHING prestigious about the Nature journal. Articles appearing there routinely deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: Your word games are tedious and can be summed up in five sentences. 1. Science is not something that is not science. (DUH!) 2. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. (Gosh! Who knew?) 3. Something is not something else that it is not. (SOMEBODY needed to point that out, I guess) 4. It is not possible to measure something that cannot be measured. (Okay) 5. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. Random words and phrases. No apparent coherency. Im a BM wrote: Where you fail most is with #5. I fail one of your incoherencies??? Im a BM wrote: Apparently, you never learned about the existence of many things. You think they don't exist because you are too scientifically illiterate to have learned about them. You think that the words you never learned have no meaning, because YOU never learned what they mean. You can't blame your denial of science on me or anybody else, Robert. Science isn't buzzwords. Buzzwords have no meaning.
22-12-2025 08:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: "There is NOTHING prestigious about the Nature journal. Articles appearing there routinely deny theories of science." - Into the Night This is also where I hit the snag with IBdaMann. Not surprised. Im a BM wrote: ITN and IBM both agreed that Nature was not a credible source It isn't. Science isn't a magazine, journal, paper, website, book, or pamphlet. Im a BM wrote: and not a place where one could find scientific papers that do NOT "deny theories of science". In fact, both these guys used to term "shit rag" to describe the journal known as "Nature". Science is not a paper, journal, magazine, website, or book. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann was unable to offer an example of any other journal that might be better than Nature, but Nature was unacceptably deficient. Science is not a journal. RQAA. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, is there ANY published journal you can name that is more prestigious than Nature in its publication of papers that do NOT routinely deny theories of science? RQAA. Im a BM wrote: Instead of admitting that you don't have a clue and couldn't name a single journal that would have any credibility in your mind, I'm predicting you will pretend that SOMEWHERE in your 23,000 post you actually already answered that question. It will be my job to go back and try to find it, because it would be too much to ask you to write the name, perhaps up to four words, of a journal title. You'll pull the "RQAA" bullshit. Insist that you already told us, liar. RQAA Im a BM wrote: Stand by your assertion that Nature is not a prestigious journal, and lie that somewhere you explained where credible science IS published. And you'll refuse to ever tell us again, so "RQAA", we have to look it up for ourselves. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! (your father told us that you are a "nothing") 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
22-12-2025 22:40
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	"Tannin is another carbohydrate." - Into the Night "No such thing as tannins." - Into the Night Therefore, there is no such thing as the "other" carbohydrates either? Well, what do you expect from the Chemistry Clown who refuses to believe in the existence of VEGETABLE OIL! According to Parrot Boy, plants do not make any hydrocarbons. But then, since tannins either don't exist or they're another carbohydrate, vegetable oil must be another one of those known-only-to-ITN "carbohydrates". That would reconcile it all nicely... Yes, VEGETABLE OIL is a "carbohydrate". Now you won't have to say, "no such thing as 'vegetable oil'". Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: This discussion began three and a half years ago when Into the Night asserted that "The entire plant is just carbohydrate and some protein". An entire plant is just basically carbohydrate and some protein. Im a BM wrote: When I mentioned some other classes of organic carbon compounds found in plants, such as lignin and tannin, Into the Night asserted, "Lignin as a carbohydrate." Lignin is a carbohydrate. Tannin is another carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: Three and a half years later, the ANTI chemistry assertions continue. "No such thing as tannins. No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Lignin is not alcohol." - Into the Night Questions for GOOGLE, which is far more well informed than ITN about chemistry. Google is not a source for anything. It's an indexing system. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin an alcohol?" Google says: "Lignin isn't an alcohol., but a massive, complex polymer built from three main 'alcohol' building blocks (monolignols): coniferyl alcohol, sinapyl alcohol, and p-coumaryl alcohol, which are aromatic alcohols with hydroxyl (-OH) groups. These units polymerize.." Yes, lignin is a polymer of aromatic alcohols. Google does not respond that way, liar. YOU claimed lignin was an alcohol. I didn't. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin a carbohydrate?" Google says: "No, lignin is not a carbohydrate; it's a complex non-carbohydrate polymer made of phenylpropanoid units.." Lignin is a carbohydrate. Google does not respond that way. Im a BM wrote: "Is lignin a polyphenol?" Google says: "Yes, lignin is a complex, natural polyphenol polymer, meaning it's a large molecule rich in phenolic structures (benzene rings with hydroxyl groups). It's the most abundant polyphenol in plants.." Google does not respond that way. That said, this is more or less correct. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a carboxylic acid group?" Google says: "Yes, a carboxylic acid group, often shortened to carboxyl group, is a fundamental group in organic chemistry. ...written as -COOH, and it's what make a molecule a carboxylic acid, found in things like amino acids and fatty acids." No such thing as a carboxylic acid group. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as tannins?" Google says: "Yes, tannins are very real, naturally occurring chemical compounds found in plants..." No such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as phenol carboxylic acids?" Google says: "Yes, there absolutely are phenol carboxylic acids, also known as phenolic acids, which are a major class of compounds featuring both a phenol group (benzene ring + hydroxyl) and a carboxylic acid group.." No such thing as phenol carboxylic acids. Im a BM wrote: "Is the entire plant just carbohydrates and some protein?" Google says: "No, plants aren't just carbs and some protein..." Plants are basically just carbohydrates and protein. Im a BM wrote: "Is Google God?" Google says: "The phrase 'Google is God' isn't literal." But Google does not explicitly DENY being God. They left themselves some wiggle room. Google is not God. You are also not quoting Google. You are making shit up again.
23-12-2025 05:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: "Tannin is another carbohydrate." - Into the Night "No such thing as tannins." - Into the Night Therefore, there is no such thing as the "other" carbohydrates either? Whatever gave you that idea? Im a BM wrote: Well, what do you expect from the Chemistry Clown who refuses to believe in the existence of VEGETABLE OIL! Apparently you do, clown. Im a BM wrote: According to Parrot Boy, plants do not make any hydrocarbons. They don't. Im a BM wrote: But then, since tannins either don't exist or they're another carbohydrate, vegetable oil must be another one of those known-only-to-ITN "carbohydrates". They are. Im a BM wrote: That would reconcile it all nicely... Yes, VEGETABLE OIL is a "carbohydrate". It is. Im a BM wrote: Now you won't have to say, "no such thing as 'vegetable oil'". I never made any such claim, clown. 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
23-12-2025 18:07
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Apparently, you have never entered a short question into Google, to which it can give a brief answer in the upper left, above the search engine results for multiple other sources. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: This would be an opportunity to apply the scientific method, Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: and test the reproducibility of my methodology and results. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: By asking the exact same sentence questions I showed, you will find in the upper left Google's brief summary answer. You should see it matches the answers I quoted. Google is not answers, or a Holy Oracle, or God. Im a BM wrote: On one point you are actually correct. I DID say lignin was an alcohol. For some stupid reason. Im a BM wrote: I continue to say that lignin is an alcohol. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: But it is not a simple, monomeric aliphatic alcohol such as ethanol or methanol. This part is correct. Im a BM wrote: It is a complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol. No such thing. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: NOT a carbohydrate by any valid definition. It is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: You look rather pathetic as you pretend to know something about this stuff. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as tannins"? WTF??? That is correct. There is no such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: Well, just because you don't know what those big words mean, it doesn't mean they don't mean anything. Your word games won't work, Robert. Your word games are all you have. You deny the very existence of the terms that actual scientists use. You can't make an entire field of science cease to exist by declaring, "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Your "something is not something else" word games are repetitious, tiresome, and in no way informative. SO WHAT if "carbonate is not a chemical" (by your rigid, unique and personal definition) when the sentence you "refuted" was about the chemical behavior of carbonate ions? SO WHAT if "science is not a journal", when that's your only rebuttal to my referring to my own lignin and tannin research published in the highly prestigious journal known as Nature? Your word games are tedious and can be summed up in five sentences. 1. Science is not something that is not science. (DUH!) 2. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. (Gosh! Who knew?) 3. Something is not something else that it is not. (SOMEBODY needed to point that out, I guess) 4. It is not possible to measure something that cannot be measured. (Okay) 5. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. Where you fail most is with #5. Apparently, you never learned about the existence of many things. You think they don't exist because you are too scientifically illiterate to have learned about them. You think that the words you never learned have no meaning, because YOU never learned what they mean.
23-12-2025 19:27
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	One more question for Google: "Is there such a thing as a 'complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol'?" Google says: "Yes, a class of compounds knows as polymeric aromatic alcohols exists. The most prominent example is lignin, a complex natural polymer.." Google is absolutely correct about this one. Im a BM wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Apparently, you have never entered a short question into Google, to which it can give a brief answer in the upper left, above the search engine results for multiple other sources. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: This would be an opportunity to apply the scientific method, Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: and test the reproducibility of my methodology and results. Google is not answers. Im a BM wrote: By asking the exact same sentence questions I showed, you will find in the upper left Google's brief summary answer. You should see it matches the answers I quoted. Google is not answers, or a Holy Oracle, or God. Im a BM wrote: On one point you are actually correct. I DID say lignin was an alcohol. For some stupid reason. Im a BM wrote: I continue to say that lignin is an alcohol. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: But it is not a simple, monomeric aliphatic alcohol such as ethanol or methanol. This part is correct. Im a BM wrote: It is a complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol. No such thing. Lignin is not an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: NOT a carbohydrate by any valid definition. It is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: You look rather pathetic as you pretend to know something about this stuff. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as tannins"? WTF??? That is correct. There is no such thing as tannins. Im a BM wrote: Well, just because you don't know what those big words mean, it doesn't mean they don't mean anything. Your word games won't work, Robert. Your word games are all you have. You deny the very existence of the terms that actual scientists use. You can't make an entire field of science cease to exist by declaring, "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Your "something is not something else" word games are repetitious, tiresome, and in no way informative. SO WHAT if "carbonate is not a chemical" (by your rigid, unique and personal definition) when the sentence you "refuted" was about the chemical behavior of carbonate ions? SO WHAT if "science is not a journal", when that's your only rebuttal to my referring to my own lignin and tannin research published in the highly prestigious journal known as Nature? Your word games are tedious and can be summed up in five sentences. 1. Science is not something that is not science. (DUH!) 2. Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. (Gosh! Who knew?) 3. Something is not something else that it is not. (SOMEBODY needed to point that out, I guess) 4. It is not possible to measure something that cannot be measured. (Okay) 5. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. Where you fail most is with #5. Apparently, you never learned about the existence of many things. You think they don't exist because you are too scientifically illiterate to have learned about them. You think that the words you never learned have no meaning, because YOU never learned what they mean.
23-12-2025 20:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: One more question for Google: ...and now for some more fake Google answers! Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a 'complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol'?" Google says: "Yes, a class of compounds knows as polymeric aromatic alcohols exists. The most prominent example is lignin, a complex natural polymer.." Google is absolutely correct about this one. Lignin is not an alcohol. 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
23-12-2025 21:57
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: One more question for Google: ...and now for some more fake Google answers! Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a 'complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol'?" Google says: "Yes, a class of compounds knows as polymeric aromatic alcohols exists. The most prominent example is lignin, a complex natural polymer.." Google is absolutely correct about this one. Lignin is not an alcohol. You do not HAVE to believe that lignin is a polymeric aromatic alcohol, if it conflicts with your personal religious beliefs. If your religion requires you call lignin a "carbohydrate", it is your God given right to do so. Just don't expect anyone to revise the chemistry textbooks to agree with you. Because "science is not a textbook" and "textbooks do not define terms". Go ahead and call VEGETABLE OIL a CARBOHYDRATE while you are at it. A "hydrocarbon" can be anything you want it to be. And your "RQAA"s make it crystal clear that plants simply do not contain ANY "hydrocarbons". Don't ever abandon the blind faith in your secret Bible of "science".
24-12-2025 00:18
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: One more question for Google: ...and now for some more fake Google answers! Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a 'complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol'?" Google says: "Yes, a class of compounds knows as polymeric aromatic alcohols exists. The most prominent example is lignin, a complex natural polymer.." Google is absolutely correct about this one. Lignin is not an alcohol. You do not HAVE to believe that lignin is a polymeric aromatic alcohol, if it conflicts with your personal religious beliefs. If your religion requires you call lignin a "carbohydrate", it is your God given right to do so. Just don't expect anyone to revise the chemistry textbooks to agree with you. Because "science is not a textbook" and "textbooks do not define terms". Go ahead and call VEGETABLE OIL a CARBOHYDRATE while you are at it. A "hydrocarbon" can be anything you want it to be. And your "RQAA"s make it crystal clear that plants simply do not contain ANY "hydrocarbons". Don't ever abandon the blind faith in your secret Bible of "science". In the hope of being able to move back to discussion of carbon sequestration in terrestrial agroecosystems, some final comments to address the next "RQAA" Question for Google: "Is vegetable oil a carbohydrate?" Google says: "No, vegetable oil is not a carbohydrate." Next question, Google: "Is vegetable oil a hydrocarbon?" Google says: "Yes, vegetable oil contains hydrocarbons.." Google is NOT "God", but it agrees with all the chemistry textbooks, dictionaries, scientific papers, etc. The heckler's extreme minority opinion doesn't even register among the options Google shows for where related info can be found.
24-12-2025 02:01
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: One more question for Google: ...and now for some more fake Google answers! Im a BM wrote: "Is there such a thing as a 'complex, polymeric aromatic alcohol'?" Google says: "Yes, a class of compounds knows as polymeric aromatic alcohols exists. The most prominent example is lignin, a complex natural polymer.." Google is absolutely correct about this one. Lignin is not an alcohol. You do not HAVE to believe that lignin is a polymeric aromatic alcohol, if it conflicts with your personal religious beliefs. If your religion requires you call lignin a "carbohydrate", it is your God given right to do so. Just don't expect anyone to revise the chemistry textbooks to agree with you. Because "science is not a textbook" and "textbooks do not define terms". Go ahead and call VEGETABLE OIL a CARBOHYDRATE while you are at it. A "hydrocarbon" can be anything you want it to be. And your "RQAA"s make it crystal clear that plants simply do not contain ANY "hydrocarbons". Don't ever abandon the blind faith in your secret Bible of "science". In the hope of being able to move back to discussion of carbon sequestration in terrestrial agroecosystems, some final comments to address the next "RQAA" Question for Google: "Is vegetable oil a carbohydrate?" Google says: "No, vegetable oil is not a carbohydrate." Next question, Google: "Is vegetable oil a hydrocarbon?" Google says: "Yes, vegetable oil contains hydrocarbons.." Okay, what if I don't fully trust Google? Hey, I've got a bottle of canola oil right here next to me! Canola oil, according to its "woke" label, has 120 calories per serving. Yum! Apparently each serving provides 0 grams of carbohydrate, with 0% of the calories derived from carbohydrates. They must not even know what "carbohydrates" ARE! The canola oil claims that each serving provides 14 grams of "fat", from which 100% of its calories are derived. "Fat"? Is that the Chinese word for "carb"? Does Google imagine that "fat" is some kind of "hydrocarbon"? Well, tri glycerides and fatty acids aren't the kind of "carbohydrate" they call "carbohydrate" for a "Nutrition Facts" label. Google is NOT "God", but it agrees with all the chemistry textbooks, dictionaries, scientific papers, etc. The heckler's extreme minority opinion doesn't even register among the options Google shows for where related info can be found.
24-12-2025 05:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: You do not HAVE to believe that lignin is a polymeric aromatic alcohol, if it conflicts with your personal religious beliefs. Chemistry is not a religion. Lignin is no an alcohol. Im a BM wrote: If your religion requires you call lignin a "carbohydrate", it is your God given right to do so. Chemistry is not a religion. Lignin is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: Just don't expect anyone to revise the chemistry textbooks to agree with you. Chemistry is not a book. Im a BM wrote: Because "science is not a textbook" and "textbooks do not define terms". This part is correct. Im a BM wrote: Go ahead and call VEGETABLE OIL a CARBOHYDRATE while you are at it. Okay. It is. Im a BM wrote: A "hydrocarbon" can be anything you want it to be. And your "RQAA"s make it crystal clear that plants simply do not contain ANY "hydrocarbons". Obviously, you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is. Plants to have any hydrocarbons. Im a BM wrote: Don't ever abandon the blind faith in your secret Bible of "science". Science is not a religion. You simply deny theories of science and chemistry. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2025 05:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: In the hope of being able to move back to discussion of carbon sequestration in terrestrial agroecosystems, some final comments to address the next "RQAA" There is no such thing as 'agroecosystem'. Buzzword fallacy. You aren't having a discussion. Im a BM wrote: Question for Google: "Is vegetable oil a carbohydrate?" RQAA Im a BM wrote: Google says: "No, vegetable oil is not a carbohydrate." Fake Google. Im a BM wrote: Next question, Google: "Is vegetable oil a hydrocarbon?" RQAA Im a BM wrote: Google says: "Yes, vegetable oil contains hydrocarbons.." Fake Google. Im a BM wrote: Google is NOT "God", but it agrees with all the chemistry textbooks, dictionaries, scientific papers, etc. The heckler's extreme minority opinion doesn't even register among the options Google shows for where related info can be found. You don't get to quote all of Google. You don't to quote every book and paper. Omniscience fallacy. Chemistry is not a website, book, dictionary, paper, journal, magazine, or pamphlet. Science is not a website, book, dictionary, paper, journal, magazine, or pamphlet. 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
24-12-2025 05:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Canola oil, according to its "woke" label, has 120 calories per serving. Yum! Apparently each serving provides 0 grams of carbohydrate, with 0% of the calories derived from carbohydrates. They must not even know what "carbohydrates" ARE! Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: The canola oil claims that each serving provides 14 grams of "fat", from which 100% of its calories are derived. "Fat"? Is that the Chinese word for "carb"? Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: Does Google imagine that "fat" is some kind of "hydrocarbon"? Well, tri glycerides and fatty acids aren't the kind of "carbohydrate" they call "carbohydrate" for a "Nutrition Facts" label. Fake quote. 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
24-12-2025 07:34
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into The Night displays no intellectual honesty. There is nothing "fake" about the quotes from the canola oil "Nutrition Facts" information box on the label of the vegetable oil jug. Nothing fake about the claim that vegetable oil has 100% of its calories from what they classify as "fat" rather than "carbohydrate". Zero grams of "carbohydrate" in vegetable oil, according to the official, government-required "Nutrient Facts" label. If Into the Night knew ANYTHING about this, he could wiggle out through the saccharides versus glycerides loophole. But that would require actual chemistry knowledge. Better to just be omniscient and unilaterally declare, "There is no such thing as tannins." But wait, ALSO "tannin is a carbohydrate".. like vegetable oil. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Canola oil, according to its "woke" label, has 120 calories per serving. Yum! Apparently each serving provides 0 grams of carbohydrate, with 0% of the calories derived from carbohydrates. They must not even know what "carbohydrates" ARE! Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: The canola oil claims that each serving provides 14 grams of "fat", from which 100% of its calories are derived. "Fat"? Is that the Chinese word for "carb"? Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: Does Google imagine that "fat" is some kind of "hydrocarbon"? Well, tri glycerides and fatty acids aren't the kind of "carbohydrate" they call "carbohydrate" for a "Nutrition Facts" label. Fake quote.
24-12-2025 23:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Into The Night displays no intellectual honesty. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: There is nothing "fake" about the quotes from the canola oil "Nutrition Facts" information box on the label of the vegetable oil jug. Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: Nothing fake about the claim that vegetable oil has 100% of its calories from what they classify as "fat" rather than "carbohydrate". Zero grams of "carbohydrate" in vegetable oil, according to the official, government-required "Nutrient Facts" label. Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night knew ANYTHING about this, he could wiggle out through the saccharides versus glycerides loophole. But that would require actual chemistry knowledge. Better to just be omniscient and unilaterally declare, "There is no such thing as tannins." But wait, ALSO "tannin is a carbohydrate".. like vegetable oil. Tannin is a carbohydrate. There is no such thing as tannins. Your illiteracy is YOUR problem. Chemistry isn't buzzwords. Chemistry isn't fake quotes. 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
25-12-2025 00:10
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into The Night displays no intellectual honesty. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: There is nothing "fake" about the quotes from the canola oil "Nutrition Facts" information box on the label of the vegetable oil jug. Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: Nothing fake about the claim that vegetable oil has 100% of its calories from what they classify as "fat" rather than "carbohydrate". Zero grams of "carbohydrate" in vegetable oil, according to the official, government-required "Nutrient Facts" label. Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night knew ANYTHING about this, he could wiggle out through the saccharides versus glycerides loophole. But that would require actual chemistry knowledge. Better to just be omniscient and unilaterally declare, "There is no such thing as tannins." But wait, ALSO "tannin is a carbohydrate".. like vegetable oil. Tannin is a carbohydrate. There is no such thing as tannins. Your illiteracy is YOUR problem. Chemistry isn't buzzwords. Chemistry isn't fake quotes. THIS is why they made you CAPTAIN of the debate team, the year your Alma Mater won the regional championship. Tannin is a carbohydrate because there is no such thing as tannins? As the master controller of the English language, YOU know "tannin" cannot be plural? It's all hidden in your secret dictionary of NOT "buzzword" terms. Well, I'm struck by the irony of it all. In the real world, my published discoveries about "tannins", as POLYPHENOLS (which are NOT "carbohydrates") made me famous among actual scientists who are formally trained in the stuff. At climate-debate.com, a tireless heckler won't stop insisting that "There is no such thing as tannins." Apparently, my "illiteracy" is MY "problem"! Edited on 25-12-2025 00:37
25-12-2025 01:21
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into The Night displays no intellectual honesty. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: There is nothing "fake" about the quotes from the canola oil "Nutrition Facts" information box on the label of the vegetable oil jug. Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: Nothing fake about the claim that vegetable oil has 100% of its calories from what they classify as "fat" rather than "carbohydrate". Zero grams of "carbohydrate" in vegetable oil, according to the official, government-required "Nutrient Facts" label. Fake quote. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night knew ANYTHING about this, he could wiggle out through the saccharides versus glycerides loophole. But that would require actual chemistry knowledge. Better to just be omniscient and unilaterally declare, "There is no such thing as tannins." But wait, ALSO "tannin is a carbohydrate".. like vegetable oil. Tannin is a carbohydrate. There is no such thing as tannins. Your illiteracy is YOUR problem. Chemistry isn't buzzwords. Chemistry isn't fake quotes. THIS is why they made you CAPTAIN of the debate team, the year your Alma Mater won the regional championship. Tannin is a carbohydrate because there is no such thing as tannins? As the master controller of the English language, YOU know "tannin" cannot be plural? It's all hidden in your secret dictionary of NOT "buzzword" terms. Well, I'm struck by the irony of it all. In the real world, my published discoveries about "tannins", as POLYPHENOLS (which are NOT "carbohydrates") made me famous among actual scientists who are formally trained in the stuff. At climate-debate.com, a tireless heckler won't stop insisting that "There is no such thing as tannins." Apparently, my "illiteracy" is MY "problem"! Getting "bumped" really helped! More than 300 "views" in less than 24 hours. Five of them, maybe, were my own views. During the same 24 hours when "TheKingOfKings" threads, also at the top of the home page and brand new, picked up 10-25 "views" each. The bots are very selective about which threads they decide to open.

Page 30 of 32

Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	225	08-05-2026 20:53
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	171	30-10-2025 23:29
Our Friend the Beaver: Carbon Sequestration, Alkalinity Generation, and the "Extended" Phenotyp	83	23-10-2025 18:40
carbon footprint	175	20-05-2024 21:13
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52