| 08-06-2026 23:44 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(15313) |
sealover wrote: And what exactly are the local resident "experts in science" (as IBdaMann referred to them) ...
When did this occur? |
| 08-06-2026 23:57 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: And what exactly are the local resident "experts in science" (as IBdaMann referred to them) ...
When did this occur?
"DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS." - Into the Night
"Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann
Actually, I put the quotation marks in the wrong place, so IBdaMann was correct to notice the flaw. It was "resident experts in science"
Don't try to deny your own posts, eh? |
| 09-06-2026 01:26 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
sealover wrote:I accepted that maybe I wasn't always the smartest guy in the room,
... the moment you were released from solitary?
sealover wrote: ... and I could learn a lot from people who were (unbelievably) even smarter ...
... but then you were forced to abandon the thought once you were indoctrinated into your WACKY cult faith and convinced that your profound religious devotion always made you the smartest guy in the room ... as long as you were the only person in the room.
sealover wrote: I guess I'm still arrogant enough to believe there weren't too many like him, so much obviously smarter than myself that I would have to drop all pretention.
It would be difficult to find someone less accepting of science that yourself.
sealover wrote: I'm glad I'm past the part of my life when that would have intimidated me to the point that it would be a barrier.
I have bad news for you.
sealover wrote: But I probably know more science than you.
Probably not. |
| 09-06-2026 01:30 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: And what exactly are the local resident "experts in science" (as IBdaMann referred to them) ...
When did this occur?
Don't try to deny your own posts, eh?
Learn to read English for comprehension. There was no denial; I asked a question. You did not answer the question. You are, in fact, lying as usual.
You don't care, do you? After all, you haven't made an honest post yet. |
| 09-06-2026 01:40 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere. |
| 09-06-2026 01:56 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere.
This is an internet debate forum, the nature of which is casual.
We are not required to conform to your standards.
Apparently, you never received the memo that, on forums such as this, grammar policing is considered rude because there is no need for it.
Apparently, you also never got the memo that there is no greater stench than smug certitude and self-righteous indignation.
We are not required to accept your opinions as gospel.
Casual English, even by the best of us, is rarely perfect.
I think there is a consensus among the decent folks on this forum that you are a pompous ass.
Apparently, you have me confused with someone who thinks you're intelligent.
If you can answer the question, "Why do some flies pretend to be gadflies?" I'll promote you from ignoramus to moron.
Maybe I'll even throw in a pretty certificate for the occasion.
Now, go pester someone else. |
| 09-06-2026 01:57 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere.
I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself. They want everything they publish to be highly polished. They have a reputation to maintain.
I learned years later how exceptional my own experience was.
In the first place, I didn't even have a PhD.
When the lucky few get their paper accepted, Nature's own editors have usually made recommendations for a LOT of revisions. Won't be published without them. Rarely are those last minute revisions about the science. They want it to look good and polished to meet their standards, with what amount to their "ghost writers".
They only told me to change ONE WORD. Literally!
Only ONE WORD that they didn't think was already PERFECT, just the way I wrote it myself.
I had written "due to denitrification".
They held my paper hostage until I acquiesced to "owing to denitrification".
I guess it wasn't perfect after all. |
| 09-06-2026 02:32 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(24251) |
Patricio wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere.
This is an internet debate forum, the nature of which is casual.
We are not required to conform to your standards.
It is obviously your first dabbling in English. IBDaMann didn't create the English language.
His comments on your poor grammar are correct.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you never received the memo that, on forums such as this, grammar policing is considered rude because there is no need for it.
There apparently is.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you also never got the memo that there is no greater stench than smug certitude and self-righteous indignation.
We are not required to accept your opinions as gospel.
Casual English, even by the best of us, is rarely perfect.
'Casual English'?? English is English, and the rules of grammar do not vary. You call yourself a writer, and then you show such poor grammar as this! ROFL
Patricio wrote:
I think there is a consensus among the decent folks on this forum that you are a pompous ass.
Omniscience fallacy. You cannot speak for anyone else. You can only speak for you.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you have me confused with someone who thinks you're intelligent.
If you can answer the question, "Why do some flies pretend to be gadflies?" I'll promote you from ignoramus to moron.
Maybe I'll even throw in a pretty certificate for the occasion.
Now, go pester someone else.
Illiteracy: Missing comma. Extraneous paragraphs.
Whining gets you nowhere.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-06-2026 02:44 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
Into the Night wrote:
Patricio wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere.
This is an internet debate forum, the nature of which is casual.
We are not required to conform to your standards.
It is obviously your first dabbling in English. IBDaMann didn't create the English language.
His comments on your poor grammar are correct.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you never received the memo that, on forums such as this, grammar policing is considered rude because there is no need for it.
There apparently is.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you also never got the memo that there is no greater stench than smug certitude and self-righteous indignation.
We are not required to accept your opinions as gospel.
Casual English, even by the best of us, is rarely perfect.
'Casual English'?? English is English, and the rules of grammar do not vary. You call yourself a writer, and then you show such poor grammar as this! ROFL
Patricio wrote:
I think there is a consensus among the decent folks on this forum that you are a pompous ass.
Omniscience fallacy. You cannot speak for anyone else. You can only speak for you.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you have me confused with someone who thinks you're intelligent.
If you can answer the question, "Why do some flies pretend to be gadflies?" I'll promote you from ignoramus to moron.
Maybe I'll even throw in a pretty certificate for the occasion.
Now, go pester someone else.
Illiteracy: Missing comma. Extraneous paragraphs.
Whining gets you nowhere.
Where I disagree most strongly with Patricio is about the promotion from ignoramus to moron.
I could only WISH that IBdaMann knew enough actual science to play Ignoramus.
Galileo's "straw man" debate character was set up to fail. But he was equipped with the best science that the Earth-is-the-center academics had to offer.
IBdaMann doesn't even have the basic shit he could find at Electroverse or CO2 Coalition or Watt's up with that or Heritage... He is way behind the curve for being able to present the science denial rebuttal to anthropogenic climate change. I could have brought in the thermodynamics, but the competition didn't even show up. The local Ignoramus was too incompetent to hold up his end for the debate to get anywhere. |
| 09-06-2026 02:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
Im a BM wrote:
I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
Science isn't a paper, journal, magazine, website, AI, government agency, college, university, license, or sanctification of any kind.
Science is not prestige.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Science is not sentient. It cannot dream.
Science is not 'discoveries'.
Science is not a journal or magazine.
Illiteracy: Singular used for plural.
Im a BM wrote:
An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself. They want everything they publish to be highly polished. They have a reputation to maintain.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
The rag called Nature is not science.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
I learned years later how exceptional my own experience was.
In the first place, I didn't even have a PhD.
PH is not a letter of the alphabet.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
When the lucky few get their paper accepted, Nature's own editors have usually made recommendations for a LOT of revisions. Won't be published without them. Rarely are those last minute revisions about the science. They want it to look good and polished to meet their standards, with what amount to their "ghost writers".
Science is not a magazine or journal.
Science is not prestige.
Im a BM wrote:
They only told me to change ONE WORD. Literally!
Only ONE WORD that they didn't think was already PERFECT, just the way I wrote it myself.
I had written "due to denitrification".
They held my paper hostage until I acquiesced to "owing to denitrification".
I guess it wasn't perfect after all.
Illiteracy: Period used instead of comma. Extraneous paragraphs. Missing comma. Reversal of end quotation.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-06-2026 02:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
sealover wrote:
I could only WISH that IBdaMann knew enough actual science to play Ignoramus.
Ignoramus is not a game.
It is YOU that denies theories of science. Inversion fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Galileo's "straw man" debate character was set up to fail. But he was equipped with the best science that the Earth-is-the-center academics had to offer.
YARP. Irrelevance fallacy.
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann doesn't even have the basic shit he could find at Electroverse or CO2 Coalition or Watt's up with that or Heritage... He is way behind the curve for being able to present the science denial rebuttal to anthropogenic climate change. I could have brought in the thermodynamics, but the competition didn't even show up. The local Ignoramus was too incompetent to hold up his end for the debate to get anywhere.
There is no such thing as 'antrhopogenic climate change'. Climate cannot change.
You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
There are no debates here. Only conversations.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-06-2026 03:06 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
sealover wrote: Where I disagree most strongly with Patricio is about the promotion from ignoramus to moron.
Why does "Patricio" feel qualified and authorized to so promote?
sealover wrote: I could only WISH that IBdaMann knew enough actual science to play Ignoramus.
Could you provide an example of actual science that I do not know?
sealover wrote: [IBdaMann] is way behind the curve for being able to present the science denial rebuttal to anthropogenic climate change.
Decades ago, I tried rebutting Christianity. I learned that unfalsifiable religions cannot be falsified. I don't even try anymore.
sealover wrote: I could have brought in the thermodynamics,
Nope. You have to understand thermodynamics first in order to "bring them in." |
| 09-06-2026 03:15 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night
HOORAY!
Earth's greatest source of N2O emissions has been made to disappear!
Under the authority of Self-Evidence Omniscience, by Scientific Royal Decree, "denitrification" has been made non-existent
When our grandchildren are thriving in a hospitable world, some might read the old books and ask, "Grandpa, what was 'denitrification'?"
Oh, child, "denitrification" was a TERRIBLE thing that bacteria used to be allowed to do.
"Those dirty germs used to take organic carbon they found under low oxygen conditions and use NITRATE as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize it. They would steal the NO3- nitrate nitrogen that our crops needed and just spew it into the atmosphere as nitrogen gas, N2. The fertilizer losses were literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades when denitrification was allowed to steal the fertilizer nitrate nitrogen from the soil.
If it weren't bad enough that these dirty little bugs stole nitrogen fertilizer from our crops, they were just throwing away the fertilizer as nitrogen gas, N2. By products of the reaction include nitrous oxide, N2O, and nitric oxide, NO. So much MORE powerful as greenhouse gases, compared to CO2. Almost unimaginably more powerful in their global warming potential, molecule per molecule. So, it made a significant contribution to climate change while it stole the farmer's fertilizer."
"Oh, no, Grandpa! That must have been really bad. How did you guys survive?"
"We were very fortunate. Providence placed the good King they called Into the Night upon the Throne of Science. Into the Night wisely used his great power to bravely decree 'There is no such thing as denitrification!'. Praise the good king who made it all better!"
"Yay! I'm so glad that the story had a happy ending. Good night, Grandpa."
For a way to reduce N2O emissions that is NOT a fairy tale, THIS is the thread for you!
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
Science isn't a paper, journal, magazine, website, AI, government agency, college, university, license, or sanctification of any kind.
Science is not prestige.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Science is not sentient. It cannot dream.
Science is not 'discoveries'.
Science is not a journal or magazine.
Illiteracy: Singular used for plural.
Im a BM wrote:
An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself. They want everything they publish to be highly polished. They have a reputation to maintain.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
The rag called Nature is not science.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
I learned years later how exceptional my own experience was.
In the first place, I didn't even have a PhD.
PH is not a letter of the alphabet.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
When the lucky few get their paper accepted, Nature's own editors have usually made recommendations for a LOT of revisions. Won't be published without them. Rarely are those last minute revisions about the science. They want it to look good and polished to meet their standards, with what amount to their "ghost writers".
Science is not a magazine or journal.
Science is not prestige.
Im a BM wrote:
They only told me to change ONE WORD. Literally!
Only ONE WORD that they didn't think was already PERFECT, just the way I wrote it myself.
I had written "due to denitrification".
They held my paper hostage until I acquiesced to "owing to denitrification".
I guess it wasn't perfect after all.
Illiteracy: Period used instead of comma. Extraneous paragraphs. Missing comma. Reversal of end quotation.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'. |
| 09-06-2026 03:40 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
Im a BM wrote: I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
We've been over this. There are no scientific journals; there are only journals. You never learned what science is and what it is not.
Also, Nature isn't prestigious.
Nonetheless, you had an unusual experience publishing a paper. Do tell.
Im a BM wrote: Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Nope. Scientists dream about creating science, not about writing gibber-babble for a rag.
Im a BM wrote:An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process ...
Meaningless, except to people who mistake their WACKY religions for science. No peer-review process is needed in science; it;s only needed in publishing. It's for the benefit of the journal, not for the reader community and not for the content.
Im a BM wrote: ... also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself.
Why would any scientist entertain comments from editors?
Im a BM wrote: They want everything they publish to be highly polished.
It looks like you have no idea what "peer-review" is; none at all. |
| 09-06-2026 04:35 |
sealover★★★★★
(2123) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
We've been over this. There are no scientific journals; there are only journals. You never learned what science is and what it is not.
Also, Nature isn't prestigious.
Nonetheless, you had an unusual experience publishing a paper. Do tell.
Im a BM wrote: Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Nope. Scientists dream about creating science, not about writing gibber-babble for a rag.
Im a BM wrote:An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process ...
Meaningless, except to people who mistake their WACKY religions for science. No peer-review process is needed in science; it;s only needed in publishing. It's for the benefit of the journal, not for the reader community and not for the content.
Im a BM wrote: ... also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself.
Why would any scientist entertain comments from editors?
Im a BM wrote: They want everything they publish to be highly polished.
It looks like you have no idea what "peer-review" is; none at all.
Normally, I would ignore you when you post stupid shit such as this.
But Patricio is a new member who doesn't know the history of interpersonal relationships at climate-debate.com
I have "no idea what 'peer review' is, but I have served as peer reviewer for multiple journals.
I doubt that I have to explain to Patricio that Nature isn't as shitty as you claim.
"Also, Nature isn't prestigious"
Perhaps a tiny minority of scientists in the world agree with IBdaMann.
SO...
Can IBdaMann name a scientific journal that IS "prestigious".
How about one that merely meets the minimal standard of "scientific"?
IBdaMann, can you name even ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal that is NOT a shit rag and DOES meet your minimal standard for credibly "scientific"?
You can't. Yet you speak as if you know ANYTHING about peer review..
It's that self evident omniscience, I guess. You don't have to cite ANYTHING!
YOU are the authoritative arbiter of science. |
| 09-06-2026 05:03 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night
HOORAY!
Earth's greatest source of N2O emissions has been made to disappear!
Under the authority of Self-Evidence Omniscience, by Scientific Royal Decree, "denitrification" has been made non-existent
When our grandchildren are thriving in a hospitable world, some might read the old books and ask, "Grandpa, what was 'denitrification'?"
Oh, child, "denitrification" was a TERRIBLE thing that bacteria used to be allowed to do.
"Those dirty germs used to take organic carbon they found under low oxygen conditions and use NITRATE as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize it. They would steal the NO3- nitrate nitrogen that our crops needed and just spew it into the atmosphere as nitrogen gas, N2. The fertilizer losses were literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades when denitrification was allowed to steal the fertilizer nitrate nitrogen from the soil.
If it weren't bad enough that these dirty little bugs stole nitrogen fertilizer from our crops, they were just throwing away the fertilizer as nitrogen gas, N2. By products of the reaction include nitrous oxide, N2O, and nitric oxide, NO. So much MORE powerful as greenhouse gases, compared to CO2. Almost unimaginably more powerful in their global warming potential, molecule per molecule. So, it made a significant contribution to climate change while it stole the farmer's fertilizer."
"Oh, no, Grandpa! That must have been really bad. How did you guys survive?"
"We were very fortunate. Providence placed the good King they called Into the Night upon the Throne of Science. Into the Night wisely used his great power to bravely decree 'There is no such thing as denitrification!'. Praise the good king who made it all better!"
"Yay! I'm so glad that the story had a happy ending. Good night, Grandpa."
For a way to reduce N2O emissions that is NOT a fairy tale, THIS is the thread for you!
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
Science isn't a paper, journal, magazine, website, AI, government agency, college, university, license, or sanctification of any kind.
Science is not prestige.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Science is not sentient. It cannot dream.
Science is not 'discoveries'.
Science is not a journal or magazine.
Illiteracy: Singular used for plural.
Im a BM wrote:
An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself. They want everything they publish to be highly polished. They have a reputation to maintain.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
The rag called Nature is not science.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
I learned years later how exceptional my own experience was.
In the first place, I didn't even have a PhD.
PH is not a letter of the alphabet.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
When the lucky few get their paper accepted, Nature's own editors have usually made recommendations for a LOT of revisions. Won't be published without them. Rarely are those last minute revisions about the science. They want it to look good and polished to meet their standards, with what amount to their "ghost writers".
Science is not a magazine or journal.
Science is not prestige.
Im a BM wrote:
They only told me to change ONE WORD. Literally!
Only ONE WORD that they didn't think was already PERFECT, just the way I wrote it myself.
I had written "due to denitrification".
They held my paper hostage until I acquiesced to "owing to denitrification".
I guess it wasn't perfect after all.
Illiteracy: Period used instead of comma. Extraneous paragraphs. Missing comma. Reversal of end quotation.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'. |
| 09-06-2026 08:44 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
Into the Night wrote:
Patricio wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere.
This is an internet debate forum, the nature of which is casual.
We are not required to conform to your standards.
It is obviously your first dabbling in English. IBDaMann didn't create the English language.
His comments on your poor grammar are correct.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you never received the memo that, on forums such as this, grammar policing is considered rude because there is no need for it.
There apparently is.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you also never got the memo that there is no greater stench than smug certitude and self-righteous indignation.
We are not required to accept your opinions as gospel.
Casual English, even by the best of us, is rarely perfect.
'Casual English'?? English is English, and the rules of grammar do not vary. You call yourself a writer, and then you show such poor grammar as this! ROFL
Patricio wrote:
I think there is a consensus among the decent folks on this forum that you are a pompous ass.
Omniscience fallacy. You cannot speak for anyone else. You can only speak for you.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you have me confused with someone who thinks you're intelligent.
If you can answer the question, "Why do some flies pretend to be gadflies?" I'll promote you from ignoramus to moron.
Maybe I'll even throw in a pretty certificate for the occasion.
Now, go pester someone else.
Illiteracy: Missing comma. Extraneous paragraphs.
Whining gets you nowhere.
Well diagram this:
You are an ignoramus.
Perfect English.
Edited on 09-06-2026 08:46 |
| 09-06-2026 09:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
Patricio wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Patricio wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: Thanks for the heads up. But I post anonymously with create care, this isn't my first rodeo, as the old saying goes.
Is this your first attempt at writing in English? If so, I'll give you a few pointers.
1. In English, we write the noun "heads-up" with a hyphen. What you wrote makes no sense.
2. In English, we don't begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g. "and", "but" and "or" to name the major ones.
3. In English, we spell "great" as such, not "create".
4. When it is, in fact, your first dabbling in English, proper use of the old saying would be "this is my first rodeo", not "this isn't my first rodeo".
There is no need to thank me. I'm sure your prowess as a lawyer and as a fiddle player more than suffices for your shortcomings elsewhere.
This is an internet debate forum, the nature of which is casual.
We are not required to conform to your standards.
It is obviously your first dabbling in English. IBDaMann didn't create the English language.
His comments on your poor grammar are correct.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you never received the memo that, on forums such as this, grammar policing is considered rude because there is no need for it.
There apparently is.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you also never got the memo that there is no greater stench than smug certitude and self-righteous indignation.
We are not required to accept your opinions as gospel.
Casual English, even by the best of us, is rarely perfect.
'Casual English'?? English is English, and the rules of grammar do not vary. You call yourself a writer, and then you show such poor grammar as this! ROFL
Patricio wrote:
I think there is a consensus among the decent folks on this forum that you are a pompous ass.
Omniscience fallacy. You cannot speak for anyone else. You can only speak for you.
Patricio wrote:
Apparently, you have me confused with someone who thinks you're intelligent.
If you can answer the question, "Why do some flies pretend to be gadflies?" I'll promote you from ignoramus to moron.
Maybe I'll even throw in a pretty certificate for the occasion.
Now, go pester someone else.
Illiteracy: Missing comma. Extraneous paragraphs.
Whining gets you nowhere.
Well diagram this:
You are an ignoramus.
Perfect English.
Illiteracy: Missing comma.
Mantra 1a. Lame.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-06-2026 09:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night
HOORAY!
Earth's greatest source of N2O emissions has been made to disappear!
Nitrous oxide has not disappeared.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
[b]sealover wrote:
[/b]
Under the authority of Self-Evidence Omniscience, by Scientific Royal Decree, "denitrification" has been made non-existent
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
Science is not a kingdom.
sealover wrote:
When our grandchildren are thriving in a hospitable world, some might read the old books and ask, "Grandpa, what was 'denitrification'?"
Oh, child, "denitrification" was a TERRIBLE thing that bacteria used to be allowed to do.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
sealover wrote:
"Those dirty germs used to take organic carbon they found under low oxygen conditions and use NITRATE as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize it. They would steal the NO3- nitrate nitrogen that our crops needed and just spew it into the atmosphere as nitrogen gas, N2. The fertilizer losses were literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades when denitrification was allowed to steal the fertilizer nitrate nitrogen from the soil.
Carbon is not organic.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Nitrogen is not fertilizer.
Nitrate nitrogen is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
If it weren't bad enough that these dirty little bugs stole nitrogen fertilizer from our crops, they were just throwing away the fertilizer as nitrogen gas, N2. By products of the reaction include nitrous oxide, N2O, and nitric oxide, NO. So much MORE powerful as greenhouse gases, compared to CO2. Almost unimaginably more powerful in their global warming potential, molecule per molecule. So, it made a significant contribution to climate change while it stole the farmer's fertilizer."
Nitrogen is not a fertilizer.
Nitrogen is not nitrous oxide.
Nitrogen is not nitric oxide.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Climate cannot change.
You aren't discussing any fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
"Oh, no, Grandpa! That must have been really bad. How did you guys survive?"
"We were very fortunate. Providence placed the good King they called Into the Night upon the Throne of Science. Into the Night wisely used his great power to bravely decree 'There is no such thing as denitrification!'. Praise the good king who made it all better!"
Science is not a kingdom.
Science is not a throne.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
sealover wrote:
"Yay! I'm so glad that the story had a happy ending. Good night, Grandpa."
For a way to reduce N2O emissions that is NOT a fairy tale, THIS is the thread for you!
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-06-2026 10:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
sealover wrote:
Normally, I would ignore you when you post stupid shit such as this.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
sealover wrote:
I have "no idea what 'peer review' is, but I have served as peer reviewer for multiple journals.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science is not a journal.
sealover wrote:
I doubt that I have to explain to Patricio that Nature isn't as shitty as you claim.
Yes it is.
sealover wrote:
"Also, Nature isn't prestigious"
Perhaps a tiny minority of scientists in the world agree with IBdaMann.
The Nature journal is a rag.
Science is not a journal.
Science is not prestige.
Science does not use consensus.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
SO...
Can IBdaMann name a scientific journal that IS "prestigious".
Science is not a journal.
Science is not prestige.
sealover wrote:
How about one that merely meets the minimal standard of "scientific"?
Science is not a journal.
Science is not a standard.
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann, can you name even ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal that is NOT a shit rag and DOES meet your minimal standard for credibly "scientific"?
Science is not a journal.
Science is not a standard.
There is no 'standard for credibility'. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
You can't. Yet you speak as if you know ANYTHING about peer review..
Science does not use consensus.
sealover wrote:
It's that self evident omniscience, I guess. You don't have to cite ANYTHING!
YOU are the authoritative arbiter of science.
Science is not a citation.
Science is not a kingdom.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-06-2026 10:08 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
Patricio wrote:This is an internet debate forum, the nature of which is casual.
Did you just now learn this?
Patricio wrote:We are not required to conform to your standards.
Did you just now learn this as well?
Patricio wrote: Apparently, you never received the memo that, on forums such as this, grammar policing is considered rude because there is no need for it.
Apparently you never received the memo that it is considered polite, on fora such as this, to help people with errors so that they can be aware of them and not repeat them. There's no reason for you to become so defensive. You could thank me for the courtesy that I extended to you, but there's no need to become overly ashamed.
I was just helping you with egregious errors that you seem unaware were errors, that's all.
By the way, I'm not an administrator on this site. I can't police anything.
Patricio wrote: Apparently, you also never got the memo that there is no greater stench than smug certitude and self-righteous indignation.
I can see how you would misjudge my standard English proficiency and common courtesy with "stench" and "self-righteousness." You probably were one of those unfortunate refugees whose childhood was spent in some war-torn village in a 4th world country.
Patricio wrote: We are not required to accept your opinions as gospel.
They weren't my opinions. I didn't establish the rules of English grammar; I merely learned them.
Patricio wrote: I think there is a consensus among the decent folks on this forum that you are a pompous ass.
As long as you include my certainty that I am better than everyone else, then sure.
Patricio wrote: Apparently, you have me confused ...
Very much so.
Patricio wrote: If you can answer the question, "Why do some flies pretend to be gadflies?" I'll promote you from ignoramus to moron.
Easy. Gadflies are considered to be "Climate" clergy by the other flies, and get to set the echo chamber agenda. |
| 09-06-2026 10:19 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
Question for the Gods at Google:
"Is the scientific journal 'Nature' considered to be prestigious?"
Described by trolls at climate-debate.com as a "shit rag" that is "not scientific", what does Google know about what the REST of the world says about "Nature"?
Google's AI answer to the inquiry was unambiguous:
"Yes, Nature is universally considered to be one of the most prestigious and elite scientific journals in the world. Along with it primary competitor, Science, it represents the pinnacle of academic publishing.."
Not bad for a "shit rag"!
Not bad for an author who hadn't even finished a PhD yet.
Where in the world besides climate-debate.com can you find "scientists" who consider Nature to be a "shit rag" that is "unscientific"?
This is a very unique and selective rabbit hole. |
| 09-06-2026 18:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
Im a BM wrote:
Question for the Gods at Google:
Google is not sentient.
Google is not a Holy Oracle.
Im a BM wrote:
"Is the scientific journal 'Nature' considered to be prestigious?"
Described by trolls at climate-debate.com as a "shit rag" that is "not scientific", what does Google know about what the REST of the world says about "Nature"?
Science isn't 'prestige'.
Science isn't a magazine or journal.
Google doesn't know anything. Google is not sentient.
Im a BM wrote:
Google's AI answer to the inquiry was unambiguous:
...deleted AI slop...
Substituting AI for your brain is always a bad idea, 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 |
| 10-06-2026 02:16 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
A Comforting Fairy Tale - The King of Science Wished Away Denitrification
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night
HOORAY!
Earth's greatest source of N2O emissions has been made to disappear!
Under the authority of Self-Evidenct Omniscience, by Scientific Royal Decree, "denitrification" has been made non-existent!
When our grandchildren are thriving in a hospitable world, some might read the old books and ask, "Grandpa, what was 'denitrification'?"
Oh, child, "denitrification" was a TERRIBLE thing that bacteria used to be allowed to do.
"Those dirty germs used to take organic carbon they found under low oxygen conditions and use NITRATE as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize it. They would steal the NO3- nitrate nitrogen that our crops needed and just spew it into the atmosphere as nitrogen gas, N2. The fertilizer losses were literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades when denitrification was allowed to steal the fertilizer nitrate nitrogen from the soil.
If it weren't bad enough that these dirty little bugs stole nitrogen fertilizer from our crops, they were just throwing away the fertilizer as nitrogen gas, N2. By products of the reaction include nitrous oxide, N2O, and nitric oxide, NO. So much MORE powerful as greenhouse gases, compared to CO2. Almost unimaginably more powerful in their global warming potential, molecule per molecule. So, it made a significant contribution to climate change while it stole the farmer's fertilizer."
"Oh, no, Grandpa! That must have been really bad. How did you guys survive?"
"We were very fortunate. Providence placed the good King they called Into the Night upon the Throne of Science. Into the Night wisely used his great power to bravely decree 'There is no such thing as denitrification!'. Praise the good king who made it all better!"
"Yay! I'm so glad that the story had a happy ending. Good night, Grandpa."
For a way to reduce N2O emissions that is NOT a fairy tale, THIS is the thread for you!
For a highly informative list of things that "Science is not..", see below...
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
Science isn't a paper, journal, magazine, website, AI, government agency, college, university, license, or sanctification of any kind.
Science is not prestige.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Science is not sentient. It cannot dream.
Science is not 'discoveries'.
Science is not a journal or magazine.
Illiteracy: Singular used for plural.
Im a BM wrote:
An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself. They want everything they publish to be highly polished. They have a reputation to maintain.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
The rag called Nature is not science.
Illiteracy: Extraneous hyphen.
Im a BM wrote:
I learned years later how exceptional my own experience was.
In the first place, I didn't even have a PhD.
PH is not a letter of the alphabet.
Im a BM wrote:
When the lucky few get their paper accepted, Nature's own editors have usually made recommendations for a LOT of revisions. Won't be published without them. Rarely are those last minute revisions about the science. They want it to look good and polished to meet their standards, with what amount to their "ghost writers".
Science is not a magazine or journal.
Science is not prestige.
Im a BM wrote:
They only told me to change ONE WORD. Literally!
Only ONE WORD that they didn't think was already PERFECT, just the way I wrote it myself.
I had written "due to denitrification".
They held my paper hostage until I acquiesced to "owing to denitrification".
I guess it wasn't perfect after all.
Illiteracy: Period used instead of comma. Extraneous paragraphs. Missing comma. Reversal of end quotation.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'. |
| 10-06-2026 03:16 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
We've been over this. There are no scientific journals; there are only journals. You never learned what science is and what it is not.
Also, Nature isn't prestigious.
Nonetheless, you had an unusual experience publishing a paper. Do tell.
Im a BM wrote: Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Nope. Scientists dream about creating science, not about writing gibber-babble for a rag.
Im a BM wrote:An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process ...
Meaningless, except to people who mistake their WACKY religions for science. No peer-review process is needed in science; it;s only needed in publishing. It's for the benefit of the journal, not for the reader community and not for the content.
Im a BM wrote: ... also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself.
Why would any scientist entertain comments from editors?
Im a BM wrote: They want everything they publish to be highly polished.
It looks like you have no idea what "peer-review" is; none at all.
Normally, I would ignore you when you post stupid shit such as this.
But Patricio is a new member who doesn't know the history of interpersonal relationships at climate-debate.com
I have "no idea what 'peer review' is, but I have served as peer reviewer for multiple journals.
I doubt that I have to explain to Patricio that Nature isn't as shitty as you claim.
"Also, Nature isn't prestigious"
Perhaps a tiny minority of scientists in the world agree with IBdaMann.
SO...
Can IBdaMann name a scientific journal that IS "prestigious".
How about one that merely meets the minimal standard of "scientific"?
IBdaMann, can you name even ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal that is NOT a shit rag and DOES meet your minimal standard for credibly "scientific"?
You can't. Yet you speak as if you know ANYTHING about peer review..
It's that self evident omniscience, I guess. You don't have to cite ANYTHING!
YOU are the authoritative arbiter of science.
Oh, like that old song goes, I'm beginning to see the light (on this forum ) |
| 10-06-2026 07:12 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
Patricio wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: I had a very unusual experience as FIRST author of a widely-cited paper that got published in the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS scientific journal Nature.
We've been over this. There are no scientific journals; there are only journals. You never learned what science is and what it is not.
Also, Nature isn't prestigious.
Nonetheless, you had an unusual experience publishing a paper. Do tell.
Im a BM wrote: Scientist dream about being on of the few whose discovery is deemed be of of enough original significance to appear in Nature, or at least in Science.
Nope. Scientists dream about creating science, not about writing gibber-babble for a rag.
Im a BM wrote:An exceptionally rigorous peer-review process ...
Meaningless, except to people who mistake their WACKY religions for science. No peer-review process is needed in science; it;s only needed in publishing. It's for the benefit of the journal, not for the reader community and not for the content.
Im a BM wrote: ... also includes recommended changes from the editors of Nature itself.
Why would any scientist entertain comments from editors?
Im a BM wrote: They want everything they publish to be highly polished.
It looks like you have no idea what "peer-review" is; none at all.
Normally, I would ignore you when you post stupid shit such as this.
But Patricio is a new member who doesn't know the history of interpersonal relationships at climate-debate.com
I have "no idea what 'peer review' is, but I have served as peer reviewer for multiple journals.
I doubt that I have to explain to Patricio that Nature isn't as shitty as you claim.
"Also, Nature isn't prestigious"
Perhaps a tiny minority of scientists in the world agree with IBdaMann.
SO...
Can IBdaMann name a scientific journal that IS "prestigious".
How about one that merely meets the minimal standard of "scientific"?
IBdaMann, can you name even ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal that is NOT a shit rag and DOES meet your minimal standard for credibly "scientific"?
You can't. Yet you speak as if you know ANYTHING about peer review..
It's that self evident omniscience, I guess. You don't have to cite ANYTHING!
YOU are the authoritative arbiter of science.
Oh, like that old song goes, I'm beginning to see the light (on this forum )
I am quite surprised that you haven't been visited yet by any of the other members of the old gang here. A couple of them were still making cameos as recently as a month ago.
I'm almost disappointed. The whole "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron Marxist infiltrator" hazing ceremony for new members required more than a troll and a half to pull it off effectively.
Maybe we'll at least get a cameo from another troll or two who has yet to introduce himself.
It really required a wing man for back up, to become righteously indignant that you failed to adequately respond after "you were politely asked to define your terms, but since you didn't you are now the object of personal grievance.." Well, they didn't exactly use all those words, but would always remind you that at FIRST "you were politely asked.." and you failed to comply. Now all bets were off because...
Here is a great example of why such deep grievance:
"Your post was a veiled attack on anyone who thinks independently"
And them there is FIGHTIN' WORDS!
Bring 'em on! This is a call to arms!
You brought this on YOURSELF.
Or maybe you'll just get more of the troll and a half version. |
| 10-06-2026 08:01 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
Im a BM wrote:
I am quite surprised that you haven't been visited yet by any of the other members of the old gang here. A couple of them were still making cameos as recently as a month ago.
I'm almost disappointed. The whole "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron Marxist infiltrator" hazing ceremony for new members required more than a troll and a half to pull it off effectively.
Maybe we'll at least get a cameo from another troll or two who has yet to introduce himself.
It really required a wing man for back up, to become righteously indignant that you failed to adequately respond after "you were politely asked to define your terms, but since you didn't you are now the object of personal grievance.." Well, they didn't exactly use all those words, but would always remind you that at FIRST "you were politely asked.." and you failed to comply. Now all bets were off because...
Here is a great example of why such deep grievance:
"Your post was a veiled attack on anyone who thinks independently"
And them there is FIGHTIN' WORDS!
Bring 'em on! This is a call to arms!
You brought this on YOURSELF.
Or maybe you'll just get more of the troll and a half version.
Well, I suspect they haven't figured out that I've been arguing on various forums since the late 90s on Usenet, other boards. I've seen trolls of all types. Ibdamann, many are listed here: https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/ I'm still on a couple others. My big bone to pick with this forum is that the forum software feels like something right out of y2k era.
Edited on 10-06-2026 08:03 |
| 10-06-2026 12:52 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
Patricio wrote:Well, I suspect they haven't figured out that I've been arguing on various forums since the late 90s on Usenet, other boards.
Imagine if you had, instead, been learning on various forums since the late 90s!
What do you think about Robert's refusal to define his terms?
Patricio wrote:I've seen trolls of all types. .
Nope. You define "troll" as anyone who disagrees with the people who do your thinking for you. As such, you only know of one type of "troll".
I just want to find out why you don't chastise Robert for refusing to define his terms.
Edited on 10-06-2026 12:59 |
| 10-06-2026 16:07 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote:Well, I suspect they haven't figured out that I've been arguing on various forums since the late 90s on Usenet, other boards.
Imagine if you had, instead, been learning on various forums since the late 90s!
That's troll talk. Your response? "You're whining". See, you can't win with a troll.
What do you think about Robert's refusal to define his terms?
I don't think, if I don't understand a common term, I'll look it up. That's universal wisdom in academia. If there is any ambiguity in the definition I'll query the poster.
Patricio wrote:I've seen trolls of all types. .
Nope. You define "troll" as anyone who disagrees with the people who do your thinking for you. As such, you only know of one type of "troll".
That's called projecting, accusing others of that which you are guilty, a common troll trait.
I just want to find out why you don't chastise Robert for refusing to define his terms.
Since when do friends chastise each other? That's stupid. If you think you are an adversary with anyone you disagree with, that might be your approach, but it isn't mine. Is it a forum rule? If so, I don't think it has any teeth, as there is no moderator enforcing it. If you have an issue with any term I use, do what I do; look it up, and if there is any ambiguity, ask.
No, you're a troll. There are many types. Some patronize ad nauseum. Ring a bell? What they have in common is refusal to engage with consideration and politeness, they seek merely to dominate, enrage, control, get a rise out of others. Disagreement isn't the standard, we are here to work out our differences, if possible, if not, we agree to disagree. What all trolls have in common is disingenuousness and a 'my way or the highway' attitude. That is you. I'll have to peruse the site to figure out which one you are. You are probably a combo of more than one.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com
Another thing, you'll no doubt point to a post where I'm trolling you.
Absolutely, since trolls do their trolling for their amusement, I'll often return the favor. Turning the other cheek is not my thing.
Congratulations.
Edited on 10-06-2026 16:57 |
| 10-06-2026 16:46 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Easy. Gadflies are considered to be "Climate" clergy by the other flies, and get to set the echo chamber agenda.
No, the metaphor works like this:
"A fly that thinks he is a gadfly'.
Socrates, men of that caliber, were gadflies. One might assert 'ontological' in their methods. They sting, but if you are a decent sort, it's a good sting, worth it.
A 'fly' in this metaphor is just a jerk who thinks he's a lot more than he really is, he's pretending to be a gadfly when he's just a fly, worthy of the big swat. Like all flies, he's just an annoyance.
Edited on 10-06-2026 16:49 |
| 10-06-2026 17:55 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15313) |
Patricio wrote:That's troll talk.
Case in point, thank you. You recognize that I disagree with the people who do your thinking for you.
Patricio wrote: I don't think,
I get that much.
Patricio wrote: if I don't understand a common term, I'll look it up.
You can't "look up" how someone is misusing a term. You can't know what someone means by a hijacked term he will not define (and often cannot define).
Anyway, I figured you would defend the non-definition of terms. You're a troll.
Patricio wrote:That's called projecting,
Nope. You are just a troll who doesn't understand the subject matter you are hyping.
Patricio wrote: If you think you are an adversary with anyone you disagree with,
In English, we consider it very poor form to end a clause with a preposition. You should have written "of anyone with whom you disagree".
What is your first language, if you don't mind me asking?
Patricio wrote:... but it isn't mine.
I gather that much. You seem to simply OBEY other leftists in your echo chamber, like an attack dog.
Patricio wrote: No, you're a troll.
You're a troll, and a very stupid one. You should probably stick with your crayons at the kids' table in a place that caters to whatever language you speak.
Patricio wrote: What all trolls have in common is disingenuousness and a 'my way or the highway' attitude.
That is you. |
| 10-06-2026 19:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
"Carbon sequestration"? WTF?
Before applying it to that plant-soil-atmosphere system, let's start with understanding the basics about CO2 in water chemistry.
What is a "CO2 trap"? There is always a better CO2 trap to be built.
One very simple CO2 trap is just an open container of water with some alkali metal hydroxide (sodium hydroxide, NaOH, potassium hydroxide, KOH, lithium..). A glass cup works fine. A glass cup can be made into a "CO2 trap" by filling it with a solution of lye.
How does the CO2 trap work? Well, there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some of it will diffuse into the water at the surface of the liquid in the cup. Some of that carbon dioxide dissolved into the solution will form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Some of that carbonic acid will deprotonate, or if you prefer dissociate into hydrogen ion H+, and bicarbonate ion, HCO3-. That hydrogen ion won't last long at all, instantly neutralized by hydroxide ion in the high pH CO3 trap.
It is a one way trip for a CO2 molecule to leave the atmosphere and enter the trap. Transformed into bicarbonate ion, it CANNOT evaporate. But the bicarbonate doesn't last long either. Bicarbonate deprotonates or dissociates into a hydrogen ion and a carbonate ion. HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-). That carbonate ion CANNOT evaporate either. The sequestered carbon is now stuck in the glass cup and can never get back out.
Eventually, the hydroxide ion alkalinity of the CO2 trap is DEPLETED as it consumes only as many CO2 molecules from the atmosphere as it has hydroxide ions to trap them with. In the end you have a cup of sodium carbonate, Na2CO3 solution. In time all the water in the cup can EVAPORATE. But the sequestered carbon dioxide NEVER got out, because bicarbonates and carbonates don't EVAPORATE.
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote:That's troll talk.
Case in point, thank you. You recognize that I disagree with the people who do your thinking for you.
Patricio wrote: I don't think,
I get that much.
Patricio wrote: if I don't understand a common term, I'll look it up.
You can't "look up" how someone is misusing a term. You can't know what someone means by a hijacked term he will not define (and often cannot define).
Anyway, I figured you would defend the non-definition of terms. You're a troll.
Patricio wrote:That's called projecting,
Nope. You are just a troll who doesn't understand the subject matter you are hyping.
Patricio wrote: If you think you are an adversary with anyone you disagree with,
In English, we consider it very poor form to end a clause with a preposition. You should have written "of anyone with whom you disagree".
What is your first language, if you don't mind me asking?
Patricio wrote:... but it isn't mine.
I gather that much. You seem to simply OBEY other leftists in your echo chamber, like an attack dog.
Patricio wrote: No, you're a troll.
You're a troll, and a very stupid one. You should probably stick with your crayons at the kids' table in a place that caters to whatever language you speak.
Patricio wrote: What all trolls have in common is disingenuousness and a 'my way or the highway' attitude.
That is you. |
| 10-06-2026 21:12 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote:That's troll talk.
Case in point, thank you. You recognize that I disagree with the people who do your thinking for you.
Patricio wrote: I don't think,
I get that much.
Patricio wrote: if I don't understand a common term, I'll look it up.
You can't "look up" how someone is misusing a term. You can't know what someone means by a hijacked term he will not define (and often cannot define).
Anyway, I figured you would defend the non-definition of terms. You're a troll.
Patricio wrote:That's called projecting,
Nope. You are just a troll who doesn't understand the subject matter you are hyping.
Patricio wrote: If you think you are an adversary with anyone you disagree with,
In English, we consider it very poor form to end a clause with a preposition. You should have written "of anyone with whom you disagree".
What is your first language, if you don't mind me asking?
Texan. I was born in Houston, raised in Mississippi up to age 9.
Patricio wrote:... but it isn't mine.
I gather that much. You seem to simply OBEY other leftists in your echo chamber, like an attack dog.
Patricio wrote: No, you're a troll.
You're a troll, and a very stupid one. You should probably stick with your crayons at the kids' table in a place that caters to whatever language you speak.
Patricio wrote: What all trolls have in common is disingenuousness and a 'my way or the highway' attitude.
That is you.
Thank your proving my point.
Edited on 10-06-2026 21:55 |
| 10-06-2026 21:41 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbon sequestration"? WTF?
Before applying it to that plant-soil-atmosphere system, let's start with understanding the basics about CO2 in water chemistry.
What is a "CO2 trap"? There is always a better CO2 trap to be built.
One very simple CO2 trap is just an open container of water with some alkali metal hydroxide (sodium hydroxide, NaOH, potassium hydroxide, KOH, lithium..). A glass cup works fine. A glass cup can be made into a "CO2 trap" by filling it with a solution of lye.
How does the CO2 trap work? Well, there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some of it will diffuse into the water at the surface of the liquid in the cup. Some of that carbon dioxide dissolved into the solution will form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Some of that carbonic acid will deprotonate, or if you prefer dissociate into hydrogen ion H+, and bicarbonate ion, HCO3-. That hydrogen ion won't last long at all, instantly neutralized by hydroxide ion in the high pH CO3 trap.
It is a one way trip for a CO2 molecule to leave the atmosphere and enter the trap. Transformed into bicarbonate ion, it CANNOT evaporate. But the bicarbonate doesn't last long either. Bicarbonate deprotonates or dissociates into a hydrogen ion and a carbonate ion. HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-). That carbonate ion CANNOT evaporate either. The sequestered carbon is now stuck in the glass cup and can never get back out.
Eventually, the hydroxide ion alkalinity of the CO2 trap is DEPLETED as it consumes only as many CO2 molecules from the atmosphere as it has hydroxide ions to trap them with. In the end you have a cup of sodium carbonate, Na2CO3 solution. In time all the water in the cup can EVAPORATE. But the sequestered carbon dioxide NEVER got out, because bicarbonates and carbonates don't EVAPORATE.
Patricio wrote:
If I understand what you're saying -- and it's a fair pedagogical move -- you're grounding the sequestration concept in the simplest possible aqueous chemistry case before scaling up to the complexity of a soil system. The lye-trap walkthrough is actually a clean way to illustrate why "sequestration" means something precise: a one-way thermodynamic door. $\text{CO}_2$ enters the liquid phase, gets chemically transformed into species that cannot return to the gas phase, and the carbon is effectively immobilized. The hydroxide alkalinity is the driver, and once it's consumed, the trap is spent -- but the carbon is effectively locked out of atmospheric circulation.
The bridge to Sealover's agroecosystem context is that soil systems are running a far more sophisticated version of the same basic chemistry, continuously regenerated. Plant roots and mycorrhizal networks are doing the energetic work, in effect -- driving the rhizosphere toward conditions that favor system-specific immobilization pathways, whether that means mineral weathering or rapid organo-mineral stabilization. The trap never depletes the way the glass cup does because biological activity keeps replenishing the capacity.
So your chemistry isn't a detour -- it's actually a useful on-ramp if the thread wants to get rigorous about mechanism.
But, I'll let Sealover fact check me on this.
Edited on 10-06-2026 21:51 |
| 10-06-2026 22:07 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Patricio wrote: I don't think,
IBdaMann wrote:
I get that much.
And that, right there, is troll behavior.
You took a prefatory clause, truncated it, and responded to it as though it were a complete sentence, stripping it from its context and changing its meaning in the process. In other words, you ignored the substance of the argument and replied to a fragment that was never intended to stand alone.
That's not honest engagement. It's quote-mining for a troll effect.
Whether you are consciously trolling or simply arguing in bad faith, the result is the same: you are attacking a distorted version of what was actually written rather than addressing the point that was made.
I suspect this is a common occurrence in your replies.
Of course you are a troll.
Thank you for proving my point. |
| 10-06-2026 22:20 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
Patricio wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbon sequestration"? WTF?
Before applying it to that plant-soil-atmosphere system, let's start with understanding the basics about CO2 in water chemistry.
What is a "CO2 trap"? There is always a better CO2 trap to be built.
One very simple CO2 trap is just an open container of water with some alkali metal hydroxide (sodium hydroxide, NaOH, potassium hydroxide, KOH, lithium..). A glass cup works fine. A glass cup can be made into a "CO2 trap" by filling it with a solution of lye.
How does the CO2 trap work? Well, there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some of it will diffuse into the water at the surface of the liquid in the cup. Some of that carbon dioxide dissolved into the solution will form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Some of that carbonic acid will deprotonate, or if you prefer dissociate into hydrogen ion H+, and bicarbonate ion, HCO3-. That hydrogen ion won't last long at all, instantly neutralized by hydroxide ion in the high pH CO3 trap.
It is a one way trip for a CO2 molecule to leave the atmosphere and enter the trap. Transformed into bicarbonate ion, it CANNOT evaporate. But the bicarbonate doesn't last long either. Bicarbonate deprotonates or dissociates into a hydrogen ion and a carbonate ion. HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-). That carbonate ion CANNOT evaporate either. The sequestered carbon is now stuck in the glass cup and can never get back out.
Eventually, the hydroxide ion alkalinity of the CO2 trap is DEPLETED as it consumes only as many CO2 molecules from the atmosphere as it has hydroxide ions to trap them with. In the end you have a cup of sodium carbonate, Na2CO3 solution. In time all the water in the cup can EVAPORATE. But the sequestered carbon dioxide NEVER got out, because bicarbonates and carbonates don't EVAPORATE.
Patricio wrote:
If I understand what you're saying -- and it's a fair pedagogical move -- you're grounding the sequestration concept in the simplest possible aqueous chemistry case before scaling up to the complexity of a soil system. The lye-trap walkthrough is actually a clean way to illustrate why "sequestration" means something precise: a one-way thermodynamic door. $\text{CO}_2$ enters the liquid phase, gets chemically transformed into species that cannot return to the gas phase, and the carbon is effectively immobilized. The hydroxide alkalinity is the driver, and once it's consumed, the trap is spent -- but the carbon is effectively locked out of atmospheric circulation.
The bridge to Sealover's agroecosystem context is that soil systems are running a far more sophisticated version of the same basic chemistry, continuously regenerated. Plant roots and mycorrhizal networks are doing the energetic work, in effect -- driving the rhizosphere toward conditions that favor system-specific immobilization pathways, whether that means mineral weathering or rapid organo-mineral stabilization. The trap never depletes the way the glass cup does because biological activity keeps replenishing the capacity.
So your chemistry isn't a detour -- it's actually a useful on-ramp if the thread wants to get rigorous about mechanism.
But, I'll let Sealover fact check me on this.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
And that is exactly what the trolls will accuse us... oops, I mean that's what the trolls will accuse MYSELF as having done.
But the fact is that I couldn't have said it as well myself.
Groveling in awe at where it got taken and the talent displayed taking it there. |
| 10-06-2026 22:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbon sequestration"? WTF?
Before applying it to that plant-soil-atmosphere system, let's start with understanding the basics about CO2 in water chemistry.
What is a "CO2 trap"? There is always a better CO2 trap to be built.
There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'.
You deny chemistry.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
CO2 is absolutely essential for life on Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
One very simple CO2 trap is just an open container of water with some alkali metal hydroxide (sodium hydroxide, NaOH, potassium hydroxide, KOH, lithium..). A glass cup works fine. A glass cup can be made into a "CO2 trap" by filling it with a solution of lye.
Not a trap.
Im a BM wrote:
How does the CO2 trap work? Well, there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some of it will diffuse into the water at the surface of the liquid in the cup. Some of that carbon dioxide dissolved into the solution will form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Some of that carbonic acid will deprotonate, or if you prefer dissociate into hydrogen ion H+, and bicarbonate ion, HCO3-. That hydrogen ion won't last long at all, instantly neutralized by hydroxide ion in the high pH CO3 trap.
Not a trap.
No chemical will deprotonate.
Hydrogen is not an ion.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Hydroxide is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
It is a one way trip for a CO2 molecule to leave the atmosphere and enter the trap. Transformed into bicarbonate ion, it CANNOT evaporate. But the bicarbonate doesn't last long either. Bicarbonate deprotonates or dissociates into a hydrogen ion and a carbonate ion. HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-). That carbonate ion CANNOT evaporate either. The sequestered carbon is now stuck in the glass cup and can never get back out.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
No chemical deprotonates.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Hydrogen is not an ion.
There is no carbon in the cup.
Do you intend to convert the Earth into a giant ball of lye?
Im a BM wrote:
Eventually, the hydroxide ion alkalinity of the CO2 trap is DEPLETED as it consumes only as many CO2 molecules from the atmosphere as it has hydroxide ions to trap them with. In the end you have a cup of sodium carbonate, Na2CO3 solution. In time all the water in the cup can EVAPORATE. But the sequestered carbon dioxide NEVER got out, because bicarbonates and carbonates don't EVAPORATE.
Hydroxide is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Not a trap.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
You can't sequester carbon dioxide.
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 |
| 10-06-2026 22:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24251) |
Patricio wrote:
If I understand what you're saying -- and it's a fair pedagogical move -- you're grounding the sequestration concept in the simplest possible aqueous chemistry case before scaling up to the complexity of a soil system.
It is not possible to 'sequester' carbon dioxide.
Patricio wrote:
The lye-trap walkthrough is actually a clean way to illustrate why "sequestration" means something precise: a one-way thermodynamic door.
Thermodynamics is not a door. Both of you ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Patricio wrote:
$\text{CO}_2$ enters the liquid phase, gets chemically transformed into species that cannot return to the gas phase, and the carbon is effectively immobilized. The hydroxide alkalinity is the driver, and once it's consumed, the trap is spent -- but the carbon is effectively locked out of atmospheric circulation.
Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Nothing is 'immobilized'.
[quote]Patricio wrote:
The bridge to Sealover's agroecosystem context is that soil systems are running a far more sophisticated version of the same basic chemistry, continuously regenerated. Plant roots and mycorrhizal networks are doing the energetic work, in effect -- driving the rhizosphere toward conditions that favor system-specific immobilization pathways, whether that means mineral weathering or rapid organo-mineral stabilization. The trap never depletes the way the glass cup does because biological activity keeps replenishing the capacity.
You deny chemistry.
Patricio wrote:
So your chemistry isn't a detour -- it's actually a useful on-ramp if the thread wants to get rigorous about mechanism.
No 'mechanism' described.
Patricio wrote:
But, I'll let Sealover fact check me on this.
There is no such thing as a 'fact check'.
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 |
| 10-06-2026 23:26 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3712) |
Another BRILLIANT Chemistry Lesson from the MASTER.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbon sequestration"? WTF?
duh...
There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'.
You deny chemistry.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
CO2 is absolutely essential for life on Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
Shut your trap.
Not a trap.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm serious.
Shut your pHuckin' TRAP!
Not a trap.
No chemical will deprotonate.
Hydrogen is not an ion.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Hydroxide is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Is everything a chemical?
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
No chemical deprotonates.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Hydrogen is not an ion.
There is no carbon in the cup.
Do you intend to convert the Earth into a giant ball of lye?
Im a BM wrote:Right, but is everything a CHEMICAL?
Hydroxide is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Not a trap.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
You can't sequester carbon dioxide. |
| 11-06-2026 01:58 |
Patricio★☆☆☆☆
(103) |
Into the Night wrote:
Patricio wrote:
But, I'll let Sealover fact check me on this.
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'fact check'.
Patricio wrote:
There is such a thing as a troll. It's the creature that walks into a chemistry discussion and starts arguing with the periodic table.
And then insists the periodic table isn't a table. |