New thread added, no content other than
| New thread added, no content other than23-07-2023 00:02 | |
Swan ★★★★★(6865) |
adding the first new thread here in ages, technically millenniums IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?  Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy  Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 23-07-2023 00:13 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14994) |
Swan wrote:adding the first new thread here in ages, technically millenniums 1. I believe the correct word is "millennia" 2. There was a new thread posted just this last ice age |
| 23-07-2023 01:04 | |
| Swan★★★★★ (6865) |
IBdaMann wrote:Swan wrote:adding the first new thread here in ages, technically millenniums The last ice age ebbed some 22 millenniums ago. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 23-07-2023 06:18 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3099) |
IBdaMann wrote:Swan wrote:adding the first new thread here in ages, technically millenniums You owe me a beer IDdaMann. Just spit than one on my desk. LOL! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 23-07-2023 13:41 | |
| Swan★★★★★ (6865) |
GasGuzzler wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Swan wrote:adding the first new thread here in ages, technically millenniums Fred said that you swallow everything, so stop the BS IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 24-07-2023 21:26 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(23078) |
Swan wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Swan wrote:adding the first new thread here in ages, technically millenniums Omniscience fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Illiteracy: misspelled word. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-12-2024 13:28 | |
| jackjack53☆☆☆☆☆ (6) |
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
Edited by branner on 27-12-2024 23:04 |
| 20-12-2024 19:30 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
jackjack53 wrote: The claim that gold is a molecule displays a comprehension of chemistry FAR superior to any PhD "chemist" of any kind. You see, the individual gold atoms are actually attached to each other. A bar of pure gold is just one gigantic molecule. Gold is a molecule for the same reason that snowflakes are molecules. The individual water molecules in the ice crystal are attached to each other. The snowflake is just one very large molecule. Same reason that GLACIERS are molecules. Massive molecules. The inner core of the earth is solid iron (plus some nickel), and the individual metal atoms are attached to each other. The bonding between the individual metal atoms in the earth's inner core is chemically identical to the bonding between individual metal atoms in a bar of gold. The Earth's inner core is a GIGANTIC MOLECULE. Most chemists do not understand these things. IBdaMann is exceptional in his comprehension of science. "IBdaMann claims that gold is a molecule." And "only a scientifically illiterate moron" would doubt his infallible omniscience. Edited by branner on 27-12-2024 23:10 |
| 21-12-2024 23:30 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Stop spamming. I already know you have no idea what you are talking about. |
| 29-12-2024 01:31 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming? You know how hard it is to kick the habit. New post added, no content other than.. To say "STOP SPAMMING"! Damnit! So much SPAM to have to deal with all the time. Paradox: The more you say "stop spamming", the more you actually SPAM. And endless, vicious cycle... |
| 29-12-2024 03:43 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Stop whining. |
| 30-12-2024 20:26 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Into the Night wrote: You are right. My dyslexia is a serious handicap at times. I literally CANNOT SEE which word is written sometimes. I don't notice that it is MISSING from the sentence sometimes, as I think I saw it where it belonged, but it wasn't there. In a post yesterday, I got arsenic and phosphorus mixed up multiple times within the same sentence, and it looked right to me at first. The most embarrassing time was when I incorrectly put the word "mineralization" rather than "mobilization" in a paper published in NATURE. The reviewer and editors missed it too, because it was a subtle, but very important, distinction in the sentence. I said that dissolved organic nitrogen was being "mineralized" rather than "mobilized" from pine litter. A glaring ERROR that I literally did not SEE, until I noticed for the first time AFTER the paper was already published. Messes with my spelling sometimes too. Apologies. |
| 30-12-2024 21:54 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Nitrogen isn't organic. Stop whining. |
| 30-12-2024 22:57 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3344) |
Stop whining, Robert. |
| 31-12-2024 00:10 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
gfm7175 wrote: It's fun to pull up the most incredibly STUPID things that Into the Night and IBdaMann have asserted as "science". And then give them a chance to try to explain why their assertions shouldn't be ridiculed as incredibly STUPID, scientifically-illiterate-moron kind of stuff. It's not so easy with gfm7175, because, as this post shows, no assertions are being made as "science" I suppose I could demand that an "unambiguous definition" be provided for the term "whining". I'm having FUN! |
| 31-12-2024 08:32 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Im a BM wrote:gfm7175 wrote: "Stop whining, Robert." You call it "whining". I call it "WINNING"! |
| 31-12-2024 20:07 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Into the Night wrote: You are right. My dyslexia is a serious handicap at times. I literally CANNOT SEE which word is written sometimes. I don't notice that it is MISSING from the sentence sometimes, as I think I saw it where it belonged, but it wasn't there. In a post yesterday, I got arsenic and phosphorus mixed up multiple times within the same sentence, and it looked right to me at first. The most embarrassing time was when I incorrectly put the word "mineralization" rather than "mobilization" in a paper published in NATURE. The reviewer and editors missed it too, because it was a subtle, but very important, distinction in the sentence. I said that dissolved organic nitrogen was being "mineralized" rather than "mobilized" from pine litter. A glaring ERROR that I literally did not SEE, until I noticed for the first time AFTER the paper was already published. How could I have gotten them confused? Well, they often are the same thing. When organic nitrogen is mineralized it is also mobilized. Organic nitrogen can be transformed to multiple mineral (i.e. inorganic) forms - ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, nitrogen gas, NOx, and more. But organic nitrogen is NOT mineral nitrogen, and my paper was about how immobile forms of organic nitrogen get released into solution as MOBILE forms of organic nitrogen. And while ecologists are primarily concerned about "mineralization" because it MOBILIZES nutrients into dissolved form from immobile, solid forms, thus making them available in solution... I messed up bad using the word that meant they had become dissolved INORGANIC nitrogen, rather than dissolved ORGANIC nitrogen. And their release as dissolved ORGANIC nitrogen was perhaps the main point of my paper. Did I mention that it was in the very highly prestigious scientific journal known as Nature? Did I forget to tell you the paper has been cited in more than 800 peer-reviewed scientific publications? Oh! Did I forget to mention that I am a chemist with a PhD? Dyslexia messes with my spelling sometimes too. Apologies. Edited on 31-12-2024 20:11 |
| 31-12-2024 21:25 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3344) |
Stop spamming. |
| 31-12-2024 21:28 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Into the Night wrote: You are right. My dyslexia is a serious handicap at times. I literally CANNOT SEE which word is written sometimes. I don't notice that it is MISSING from the sentence sometimes, as I think I saw it where it belonged, but it wasn't there. In a post yesterday, I got arsenic and phosphorus mixed up multiple times within the same sentence, and it looked right to me at first. The most embarrassing time was when I incorrectly put the word "mineralization" rather than "mobilization" in a paper published in NATURE. The reviewer and editors missed it too, because it was a subtle, but very important, distinction in the sentence. I said that dissolved organic nitrogen was being "mineralized" rather than "mobilized" from pine litter. A glaring ERROR that I literally did not SEE, until I noticed for the first time AFTER the paper was already published. How could I have gotten them confused? Well, they often are the same thing. When organic nitrogen is mineralized it is also mobilized. Organic nitrogen can be transformed to multiple mineral (i.e. inorganic) forms - ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, nitrogen gas, NOx, and more. But organic nitrogen is NOT mineral nitrogen, and my paper was about how immobile forms of organic nitrogen get released into solution as MOBILE forms of organic nitrogen. And while ecologists are primarily concerned about "mineralization" because it MOBILIZES nutrients into dissolved form from immobile, solid forms, thus making them available in solution... I messed up bad using the word that meant they had become dissolved INORGANIC nitrogen, rather than dissolved ORGANIC nitrogen. And their release as dissolved ORGANIC nitrogen was perhaps the main point of my paper. Did I mention that it was in the very highly prestigious scientific journal known as Nature? Did I forget to tell you the paper has been cited in more than 800 peer-reviewed scientific publications? Oh! Did I forget to mention that I am a chemist with a PhD? Dyslexia messes with my spelling sometimes too. Apologies. P.S. It's too bad that NATURE is not a "truly scientific" journal. If it were, I would have been required to provide an "unambiguous definition" for the term I used. I couldn't have just used it in the sentence without first defining my terms. I would have had to define nitrogen mineralization. Nitrogen mineralization is when organic nitrogen is transformed to inorganic nitrogen. That would have made the paper a couple of sentences longer, but it would have alerted ME not to say "mineralized" rather than mobilized. Of course, it would also have had to include unambiguous definition for organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen. That's gonna add another four or five sentences, maybe less... Okay, organic nitrogen is nitrogen contained in molecules where it is attached to organic carbon. Inorganic nitrogen is nitrogen NOT contained in molecules where it is attached to organic carbon. That pretty much covers all the nitrogen out there. But the point is that scientists carefully define terms in TEXTBOOKS, and then use those terms to communicate in papers, etc. Any worthwhile research paper would become absurdly long and unwieldy if they had to "define their terms". Unless it is a NEW term, or a controversial one. |
| 31-12-2024 23:59 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3099) |
Im a BM wrote: Did I forget to mention that I very highly and prestigiously don't fuking care? What I would genuinely be interested in is any work you have done with chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector. Why do you only talk about school and government grant money projects? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 01-01-2025 00:16 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. Edited on 01-01-2025 00:44 |
| 01-01-2025 02:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Im a BM wrote: You have no chemistry knowledge. You deny and discard chemistry. You think chemistry is a bunch of meaningless buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: Ground water is not chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Courts are not chemistry. Stop making ship up and pretending you're a chemist. Im a BM wrote: You are not a chemist. Im a BM wrote: You are not a chemist. Im a BM wrote: Fish are not killed by bedrock. Im a BM wrote: You didn't show them anything. Sediments are not toxic. Im a BM wrote: About you? Correct. Im a BM wrote: You deny chemistry. Climate cannot change. Go learn English. Im a BM wrote: You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Sediments are not toxic. There is no forest in the delta. Im a BM wrote: Go learn what pH is. There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Buzzword fallacies. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemical reactions'. Buzzword fallacies. Im a BM wrote: Buzzwords are not examples of anything but your own illiteracy. Im a BM wrote: You are not a chemist. Im a BM wrote: You deny and discard 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 |
| 01-01-2025 17:15 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. |
| 01-01-2025 18:42 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. Edited on 01-01-2025 19:10 |
| 02-01-2025 04:21 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Stop spamming. |
| 05-01-2025 23:36 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
It is possible that GasGuzzler didn't get notified of this post in response to his inquiry. I am very curious to know how my examples of selling my chemistry skills in the free market to the private sector measure up to his standards of what is worthy of respect. GasGuzzler, you have the option to simply pull a Parrot and tell me that I am a LIAR. Make it all go away by insisting that it isn't even TRUE. I never testified in court as an expert chemistry witness, never set foot in a lab, never did ANY of it because I am a Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron LIAR. You could pull a daMann and BELITTLE my accomplishments as a chemist in the private sector. I wasn't even FIRST AUTHOR of that paper Rush Limbaugh was talking about. I'm just exaggerating the significance to try to pretend I'm anything more than a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Or you could pull a GasGuzzler and refuse to acknowledge that your assertions are up against evidence to the contrary. and just pretend you never asked, and you never saw the answer. GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. |
| 06-01-2025 00:32 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Im a BM wrote: You have no chemistry skills. Im a BM wrote: You ARE a Marxist scientifically illiterate moron liar. Im a BM wrote: You are not a chemist. Im a BM wrote: You don't get to speak for the dead. You ARE a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Im a BM wrote: DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE, ROBERT! Im a BM wrote: Science is not a publication. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science has no politics or religion. Im a BM wrote: You are no chemist. Science is not a degree or title. Im a BM wrote: You obviously do, as evidenced by your own post, liar. 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 |
| 06-01-2025 18:45 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Properly assigning credit where credit is due. Question: "Did I forget to mention that I very highly and prestigiously don't fuking care?" - GasGuzzler "You obviously do, as evidenced by your own post, liar." - Into the Night Once again, Into the Night is engaging in personal attacks with false accusations. Falsely accusing GasGuzzler of being a "liar". I will stand up for GasGuzzler and denounce Into the Night for making this despicable false accusation. GasGuzzler genuinely does NOT fuking care. Perhaps Into the Night wants to prevent GasGuzzler from even SEEING the response given to GasGuzzler's inquiry, blocking it with spam. It is possible that GasGuzzler didn't get notified of this post in response to his inquiry. I am very curious to know how my examples of selling my chemistry skills in the free market to the private sector measure up to his standards of what is worthy of respect. GasGuzzler, you have the option to simply pull a Parrot and tell me that I am a LIAR. Make it all go away by insisting that it isn't even TRUE. I never testified in court as an expert chemistry witness, never set foot in a lab, never did ANY of it because I am a Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron LIAR. You could pull a daMann and BELITTLE my accomplishments as a chemist in the private sector. I wasn't even FIRST AUTHOR of that paper Rush Limbaugh was talking about. I'm just exaggerating the significance to try to pretend I'm anything more than a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Or you could pull a GasGuzzler and refuse to acknowledge that your assertions are up against evidence to the contrary. and just pretend you never asked, and you never saw the answer. GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. |
| 08-01-2025 20:09 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
SPAMMING IS CENSORSHIP! Properly assigning credit where credit is due. Question: "Did I forget to mention that I very highly and prestigiously don't fuking care?" - GasGuzzler "You obviously do, as evidenced by your own post, liar." - Into the Night Once again, Into the Night is engaging in personal attacks with false accusations. Falsely accusing GasGuzzler of being a "liar". I will stand up for GasGuzzler and denounce Into the Night for making this despicable false accusation. GasGuzzler genuinely does NOT fuking care. Perhaps Into the Night wants to prevent GasGuzzler from even SEEING the response given to GasGuzzler's inquiry, blocking it with spam. It is possible that GasGuzzler didn't get notified of this post in response to his inquiry. I am very curious to know how my examples of selling my chemistry skills in the free market to the private sector measure up to his standards of what is worthy of respect. GasGuzzler, you have the option to simply pull a Parrot and tell me that I am a LIAR. Make it all go away by insisting that it isn't even TRUE. I never testified in court as an expert chemistry witness, never set foot in a lab, never did ANY of it because I am a Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron LIAR. You could pull a daMann and BELITTLE my accomplishments as a chemist in the private sector. I wasn't even FIRST AUTHOR of that paper Rush Limbaugh was talking about. I'm just exaggerating the significance to try to pretend I'm anything more than a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Or you could pull a GasGuzzler and refuse to acknowledge that your assertions are up against evidence to the contrary. and just pretend you never asked, and you never saw the answer. GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. |
| 18-01-2025 21:55 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: GasGuzzler, I hope we don't need to be worried about your well being. It's been weeks since we have heard from you. I did my best to give you an authentic response, telling you many ways in which I have, in fact, provided my chemistry knowledge as a good or service in exchange for compensation of the private sector. I took your inquiry seriously and gave you a detailed reply. I hope that you are okay. I hope you saw my response to your inquiry. Unless you simply believe that I am a LIAR, I would like to imagine that you would find my chemist for hire history to be worthy of respect. |
| 18-01-2025 22:44 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Im a BM wrote: You don't know any 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 |
| 19-01-2025 22:08 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: That's what all the other chemists have been telling me for decades. My chemistry students, when I taught college chemistry, realized more than anyone else that I can only spew non science gibber babble buzzwords. Okay, so now we are citing the BIBLE to assert that it was NOT the egg, but rather the CHICKEN that came first. Of course, evolutionary biology asserts that the EGG came first as the mutant offspring of two birds, neither of which was a chicken. Apparently, the BIBLE is a set of falsifiable theories we can cite for discussion. Making it a RICH source of evidence regarding CLIMATE CHANGE. We KNOW that the chicken came first, because the Bible says so. And we KNOW that climate CAN change, even catastrophically, because the Bible says so. Let's stop screwing around with meaningless buzzwords and just look at what the BIBLE says about climate change. I think it even said something about us being "stewards of the earth" or something. And doing a heck of a great job of it! |
| 20-01-2025 00:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Im a BM wrote: You never taught any chemistry. You cannot teach what you do not know. Im a BM wrote: According to the Bible, the chicken came first. Im a BM wrote: According to your religion, then, the egg came first. Meh. Im a BM wrote: Who told you that?? Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Nope. I only quoted what the Bible says. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Irrelevance fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I think Man is doing rather well with it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-01-2025 01:23 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
Oh where oh where has our GasGuzzler gone? Such a beautiful Night Before Christmas poem wrote for me! And then I thought we were all going to PARTY DOWN for your EIGHT YEAR ANNIVERSARY a few days later. I was hoping the whole gang would drop in and reminisce on EIGHT YEARS of trolling at climate-debate.com Remember how we'd make 'em squirm? When they REFUSED to define a term! You've kind of ditched us since New Year. I don't want to get mad because for all I know, you're in the hospital. Because one of IBdaMann's jokes was so goddamned funny! Before I get butt hurt that you didn't reply to my love letter... Please at least let us know if you're okay. XOXO SPAMMING IS CENSORSHIP! Properly assigning credit where credit is due. Question: "Did I forget to mention that I very highly and prestigiously don't fuking care?" - GasGuzzler "You obviously do, as evidenced by your own post, liar." - Into the Night Once again, Into the Night is engaging in personal attacks with false accusations. Falsely accusing GasGuzzler of being a "liar". I will stand up for GasGuzzler and denounce Into the Night for making this despicable false accusation. GasGuzzler genuinely does NOT fuking care. Perhaps Into the Night wants to prevent GasGuzzler from even SEEING the response given to GasGuzzler's inquiry, blocking it with spam. It is possible that GasGuzzler didn't get notified of this post in response to his inquiry. I am very curious to know how my examples of selling my chemistry skills in the free market to the private sector measure up to his standards of what is worthy of respect. GasGuzzler, you have the option to simply pull a Parrot and tell me that I am a LIAR. Make it all go away by insisting that it isn't even TRUE. I never testified in court as an expert chemistry witness, never set foot in a lab, never did ANY of it because I am a Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron LIAR. You could pull a daMann and BELITTLE my accomplishments as a chemist in the private sector. I wasn't even FIRST AUTHOR of that paper Rush Limbaugh was talking about. I'm just exaggerating the significance to try to pretend I'm anything more than a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Or you could pull a GasGuzzler and refuse to acknowledge that your assertions are up against evidence to the contrary. and just pretend you never asked, and you never saw the answer. GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. |
| 20-01-2025 03:34 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
Im a BM wrote: You don't have any. Im a BM wrote: You are not an expert. Im a BM wrote: You don't know any 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 |
| 21-01-2025 03:33 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
"There is no such thing as something that does not exist" Yes, I praise Into the Night for the great value of the science lessons he presents in his thoughtful and well informed posts. The profoundly important insight that "Something is not something else" is certainly the most frequent topic of Into the Night's science lessons. However, even more fundamental to understanding science is the insight that "There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist" So much of the non-science gibber babble that the Marxist warmazombies use to preach the religious dogma of their Church of Global Warming is based on BUZZWORDS used in reference to things that DON'T EVEN EXIST. There is NO SUCH THING as something that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. And when Into the Night declares that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS..." Well, his infallible omniscience is self evident and therefore he don't NEED no stinkin' evidence of any kind to support the unilateral contrarian assertion. Besides REAL science doesn't even USE "evidence". And REAL chemists know how much it explains EVERYTHING to declare "Something that is not a chemical is NOT a chemical!" Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
| 22-01-2025 21:52 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
"There is no such thing as something that does not exist" Yes, I praise Into the Night for the great value of the science lessons he presents in his thoughtful and well informed posts. The profoundly important insight that "Something is not something else" is certainly the most frequent topic of Into the Night's science lessons. However, even more fundamental to understanding science is the insight that "There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist" So much of the non-science gibber babble that the Marxist warmazombies use to preach the religious dogma of their Church of Global Warming is based on BUZZWORDS used in reference to things that DON'T EVEN EXIST. There is NO SUCH THING as something that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. And when Into the Night declares that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS..." Well, his infallible omniscience is self evident and therefore he don't NEED no stinkin' evidence of any kind to support the unilateral contrarian assertion. Besides REAL science doesn't even USE "evidence". And REAL chemists know how much it explains EVERYTHING to declare "Something that is not a chemical is NOT a chemical!" Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
| 23-01-2025 03:32 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: Okay, I'll confess. I started off as a PURE PARASITE. The first time the tax payers got conned out of big bucks to pay for my so called "science", I was only fifteen years old. The National Science Foundation took thousands and thousands of dollars from the federal budget to send me to summer science camp. Well, it was a chemistry program where I lived in a dorm in what used to be San Diego State College. I was more interested in pussy than thermodynamics and I honestly didn't learn a whole lot of chemistry that I ever applied in any useful way. It did get me out of my mom's house for the summer, with a couple of months in a place where I just didn't know the right people who would give or sell weed to a fifteen year old. And I got to fall madly in love with a stunningly beautiful woman who became a wonderful friend. Thank you US taxpayers. |
| 23-01-2025 20:04 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2339) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: Okay, I'll confess. I started off as a PURE PARASITE. The first time the tax payers got conned out of big bucks to pay for my so called "science", I was only fifteen years old. The National Science Foundation took thousands of dollars from the federal budget to send me to summer science camp. Well, it was a chemistry program where I lived in a dorm in what used to be San Diego State College, now known as California State University at San Diego. I was a lot more interested in pussy than thermodynamics, and I honestly didn't learn a whole lot of chemistry that I ever ended up applying in any useful way. It did get me out of my mom's house for the summer, with a couple of "dry" months in a place where I just didn't know the right people who would give or sell weed to a fifteen year old. And I got to fall madly in love with a stunningly beautiful woman who became a wonderful friend. Thank you, US taxpayers. I didn't get a serious chemistry education until it was part of getting three different degrees at three different campuses of the University of California. The US taxpayers only picked up part of the tab for those three degrees, but I couldn't have done it without them. Thank you, again. As a hired gun chemist in the private sector, I paid the American taxpayers back at least ten times over, if not more than a hundred. Not kidding. Literally tens of millions of dollars of their money was protected from loss by my contributions as a consulting chemist whose testimony carried weight in court. Which is why I'm disappointed that I never heard back from GasGuzzler. I wanted to know if he thought my accomplishments in this regard are in any way worthy of respect. |
| 24-01-2025 00:30 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23078) |
You are not a chemist. |
Join the debate New thread added, no content other than:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads. | 78 | 05-05-2025 06:50 |
| Biogeochemistry Related Thread List | 65 | 02-05-2025 00:54 |
| Homemade Ketchup Thread | 7 | 02-08-2023 18:33 |
| This thread is only for members with more than 2500 posts | 2 | 14-06-2023 03:45 |
| This thread is only for members with fewer than 2500 posts | 0 | 13-06-2023 23:08 |