Remember me
▼ Content

Newcomer Welcome! from "sealover", PhD biogeochemist



Page 1 of 212>
Newcomer Welcome! from "sealover", PhD biogeochemist17-03-2022 00:41
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Greetings newcomers!

My name is "sealover"

I'm a PhD biogeochemist.

Yes, some of you knew that already.

If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.
17-03-2022 05:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

My name is "sealover"

I'm a PhD biogeochemist.

You are a nothing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Yes, some of you knew that already.

If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

You are the troll. You are in the rabbit hole of undefined words.
sealover wrote:
It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.

Except you.

Enjoy your rabbit hole.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: And you can see why to steer clear of any discussions17-03-2022 09:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Need I say more?

The benefits of avoiding proximity to such discussion makes it worth the wait to get an answer.

Just click on "sealover" by my avatar, and you won't have to see this kind of stuff to find my posts

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


I'm a PhD biogeochemist.[/quote]
You are a nothing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Yes, some of you knew that already.

If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

You are the troll. You are in the rabbit hole of undefined words.
sealover wrote:
It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.

Except you.

Enjoy your rabbit hole.[/quote]
RE: Leave your question by quoting this post17-03-2022 09:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
You can completely avoid trolls when you post your question.

Just click on "quote" right below this first post of the thread.

You can then blank out the space in this box if you want, or insert your question below it.

You never have to see the ugly stuff the trolls post when posting your questions or finding the response.

They can pile on ugly posts below the first post of each thread, but you'll never have to see them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]sealover wrote:
Need I say more?

The benefits of avoiding proximity to such discussion makes it worth the wait to get an answer.

Just click on "sealover" by my avatar, and you won't have to see this kind of stuff to find my posts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
17-03-2022 14:23
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
sealover wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

My name is "sealover"

I'm a PhD biogeochemist.

Yes, some of you knew that already.

If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.


Hey turd, if you were new here then no one would know anything about you. So in reality you could not complete two sentences without contradicting yourself

Next
17-03-2022 16:34
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
sealover wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

Greetings newcomer!

sealover wrote:
My name is "sealover"

Splendid. My name is gfm7175.

sealover wrote:
I'm a PhD biogeochemist.

I don't believe you.

I, from time to time, have claimed that I have an associates degree in accounting and that I am now going on almost 10 years of holding a job in which I primarily focus on the 'accounts receivable' aspect of accounting. Yet, those credentials mean absolutely nothing here. I can't prove to you that I actually hold those credentials and that I have actually done that work for as long as I claim.

Likewise, you can't prove to me that you actually hold a PhD or that you are actually a biogeochemist. All that I can go by here are your claims with regard to biogeochemistry, and as far as I can tell, you don't seem to know jack squat about it, which leads me to believe that you don't actually have a PhD in that study. I could be wrong about my belief, but in the end it really doesn't matter since credentials are meaningless on internet forums such as this one.

sealover wrote:
Yes, some of you knew that already.

Yes, I've heard you make that claim before. I didn't believe you then and I still don't believe you now.

sealover wrote:
If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

I see no reason to ask meaningless questions. 'Climate change' and 'ocean acidification' are meaningless buzzwords as you are using them. I have already told you what 'Climate change' means as far as I am concerned, and as far as I am concerned, this is what 'ocean acidification' means:

Ocean Acidification: noun
In the more firebrand preaching of Climate Science, the ardent belief that the average pH value of the ocean is somehow neutralizing. It also involves the strong denial that life is acidic and a fierce but unsupported belief that a decrease in ocean pH values would be detrimental, even catastrophic, rather than beneficial to marine life.


Until you can clearly and unambiguously define it otherwise, the above definition is the only valid definition for the term that I have ever come across in my years of participating on internet forums.

sealover wrote:
However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

... and that is to put on your blinders and plow through anyone's mention of the logic, science, and math that you are denying.

sealover wrote:
It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

No, it means that you are ignoring the logic, science, and math that lay waste to your outlandish nonsensical religion.

sealover wrote:
By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

Indeed I can.

sealover wrote:
You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

Indeed I can.

sealover wrote:
It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

Whatever.

sealover wrote:
You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

I'd rather swim with the big boys, thanks... I can handle it. I don't need a kiddie pool.

sealover wrote:
With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.

Like I said, I can swim with the big boys. I don't need a kiddie pool. It would do you some good to learn from others who are better versed in such topics than you are.
17-03-2022 16:39
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
sealover wrote:
You can completely avoid trolls when you post your question.

Just click on "quote" right below this first post of the thread.

You can then blank out the space in this box if you want, or insert your question below it.

You never have to see the ugly stuff the trolls post when posting your questions or finding the response.

They can pile on ugly posts below the first post of each thread, but you'll never have to see them.

What I find hilarious is that you are currently trolling your own trolling... hahahahahaha too funny!!!!
Edited on 17-03-2022 16:39
17-03-2022 16:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

My name is "sealover"

I'm a PhD biogeochemist.

Yes, some of you knew that already.

If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.


Hey turd, if you were new here then no one would know anything about you. So in reality you could not complete two sentences without contradicting yourself

Next


To sealover: It's pretty bad on your part when Swan is engaging in dialogue with you and SWAN is the one who is coming out of it with a semblance of sensibility...
17-03-2022 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
You can completely avoid trolls when you post your question.

You don't answer questions. You have been asked to define 'climate change' quite a few times now, but you never answered the question put to you.

All you do is troll with gibber-babble and insults.

Answer the question put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: All you do is troll with gibber-babble insults17-03-2022 19:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
You can completely avoid trolls when you post your question.

You don't answer questions. You have been asked to define 'climate change' quite a few times now, but you never answered the question put to you.

All you do is troll with gibber-babble and insults.

Answer the question put to you.


-------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like I owe you an apology.

Nobody is forcing you to engage with me.

I promise not to engage with you from now on.

There will be a lot of us using buzzword gibber-babble around here before long.

At least I will know what they are talking about.

Those who don't speak the language aren't required to participate.

I'm hoping that biogeochemistry won't be the only buzzword field of science represented by PhDs.

I know a lot of those fakers.

This site isn't quite ready for me to invite them yet.
17-03-2022 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
It sounds like I owe you an apology.

Nobody is forcing you to engage with me.

I promise not to engage with you from now on.

Removing yourself from the conversation with me does not make me or anybody else stop commenting on it.
sealover wrote:
There will be a lot of us using buzzword gibber-babble around here before long.

There already are.
sealover wrote:
At least I will know what they are talking about.

Nothing.
sealover wrote:
Those who don't speak the language aren't required to participate.

I'm hoping that biogeochemistry won't be the only buzzword field of science represented by PhDs.

There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
I know a lot of those fakers.

This site isn't quite ready for me to invite them yet.

I dare say you probably do know a lot of those fakers. I've met quite a few of them myself. You're certainly not the first. You won't be the last.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2022 20:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.

I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.


EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:

"Biogeochemistry is the scientific discipline that involves the study of the chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment (including the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere, the pedosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere).

In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of biogeochemical cycles, the cycles of chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space and time.

The field focuses on chemical cycles which are either driven by or influence biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and phosphorus cycles. Biogeochemistry is a systems science closely related to systems ecology."
Edited on 17-03-2022 20:52
18-03-2022 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.

I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.


EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:

"Biogeochemistry is the scientific discipline that involves the study of the chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment (including the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere, the pedosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere).

In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of biogeochemical cycles, the cycles of chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space and time.

The field focuses on chemical cycles which are either driven by or influence biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and phosphorus cycles. Biogeochemistry is a systems science closely related to systems ecology."
So if you get enough box tops, you can get your degree in it. Meh.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-03-2022 05:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.
I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.
EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:
So if you get enough box tops, you can get your degree in it. Meh.

How many times have people come to this site claiming to be PhDs in some sort of science, broadcasting their credentials, as a means of bullying people into not questioning their Climate Change proselytizing?

@gfm7175, I think the Wikipedia reference is of particular importance in this case. I can totally believe that seal over has taken some chemistry classes at some point. He treats topics by addressing certain concepts that really are the correct way a chemist would analyze and discusses something. Great.

Unfortunately, as is the case with virtually all warmizombies and climate lemmings, he is simply latching onto something he knows to use as a tool to generate "plausibility" in the minds of those who do not know that subject matter. In this case, seal over interweaves barrages of technical jargon (that are not understandable by your typical poster, ... in the name of bringing the discussion down to the level of the typical poster) amongst pointless anecdotes that simply whine and snivel about how mankind is bad and is destroying the planet and woe are we ... except he thinks he has a solution. All that is needed is to believe him, and to accept him as the authority that is not to be questioned.

That is the telltale sign. He demands unquestioning faith. He will not define his terms and he lashes out at scrutiny, he never clarifies or makes any attempt to convince. One is to believe and obey without question or else he is poised to pour on the bullying and intimidation.

I checked the course catalogs of some of the most liberal universities, looking for biogeochemistry courses. None exist; however, some universities are joining the push to make it a legitimate word in academia. Columbia University, for example, has tacked the word "biogeochemical" onto the end of nine of their course descriptions, two of which you'll appreciate: WETLANDS & CLIMATE CHANGE and FUNDAMENTALS OF EVOLUTION. Stanford has some "Ecosystem Ecology" courses with that word attached, but I have to ask if there exists ecology of something other than ecosystems. Stanford too has some "science of Climate" courses. None have any "Biogeochemistry 101."

@Into the Night, some things that I have noticed in life and you might have as well ...

1) There is no such thing as an actual scientist who is dying to teach newcomers and laypeople by not defining any terms.

2) There is no such thing as a teacher who exclusively uses esoteric techno-jargon in a concerted effort to bring the conversation down to the level of the layman.

3) There is no such thing as an honest person who comes to an anonymous forum and merely points to his claimed credentials as if that renders him above being questioned.

4) There is no such thing as invented, sciency-sounding terms that are used by religious preachers that aren't aimed at A) demonizing science as a threat to the religion or B) reining in science under the ownership of the religion, e.g. biogeochemistry, ocean acidification, greenhouse effect, thermal forcing, etc..

5) There is no such thing as an honest teacher who lashes out at those who ask questions. See point #3.

Just some things I have noticed.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: The Goal is Pest Control18-03-2022 06:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
For about seven years the same two trolls have made this website a no-go zone.

The goal is pest control.

By allowing users to bypass the troll-infested discussion and go straight to the library.

But these... I won't say it, but they just won't quit.

I will do what I can to ensure that the humiliation of having their idiocy exposed will outweigh the sadistic joy they can't seem to live without.

They'll have to look for another place to troll.
18-03-2022 11:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.
I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.
EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:
So if you get enough box tops, you can get your degree in it. Meh.

How many times have people come to this site claiming to be PhDs in some sort of science, broadcasting their credentials, as a means of bullying people into not questioning their Climate Change proselytizing?

@gfm7175, I think the Wikipedia reference is of particular importance in this case. I can totally believe that seal over has taken some chemistry classes at some point. He treats topics by addressing certain concepts that really are the correct way a chemist would analyze and discusses something. Great.

Unfortunately, as is the case with virtually all warmizombies and climate lemmings, he is simply latching onto something he knows to use as a tool to generate "plausibility" in the minds of those who do not know that subject matter. In this case, seal over interweaves barrages of technical jargon (that are not understandable by your typical poster, ... in the name of bringing the discussion down to the level of the typical poster) amongst pointless anecdotes that simply whine and snivel about how mankind is bad and is destroying the planet and woe are we ... except he thinks he has a solution. All that is needed is to believe him, and to accept him as the authority that is not to be questioned.

That is the telltale sign. He demands unquestioning faith. He will not define his terms and he lashes out at scrutiny, he never clarifies or makes any attempt to convince. One is to believe and obey without question or else he is poised to pour on the bullying and intimidation.

I checked the course catalogs of some of the most liberal universities, looking for biogeochemistry courses. None exist; however, some universities are joining the push to make it a legitimate word in academia. Columbia University, for example, has tacked the word "biogeochemical" onto the end of nine of their course descriptions, two of which you'll appreciate: WETLANDS & CLIMATE CHANGE and FUNDAMENTALS OF EVOLUTION. Stanford has some "Ecosystem Ecology" courses with that word attached, but I have to ask if there exists ecology of something other than ecosystems. Stanford too has some "science of Climate" courses. None have any "Biogeochemistry 101."

@Into the Night, some things that I have noticed in life and you might have as well ...

1) There is no such thing as an actual scientist who is dying to teach newcomers and laypeople by not defining any terms.

To this I have to agree. Unless any new term is clearly defined, a theory is completely meaningless. It is not a theory at all. Note that this is true for non-scientific theories as well as scientific theories. Since science is a set of falsifiable theories, any scientist that tries to build a theory on buzzwords is just a faker.
IBdaMann wrote:
2) There is no such thing as a teacher who exclusively uses esoteric techno-jargon in a concerted effort to bring the conversation down to the level of the layman.

True. Teaching is an art. You can't pour knowledge into the head of any student. The student is must learn by teaching himself. A teacher can only guide him along the way, like a set of road signs. In all teaching, it is the art of finding out what a student knows, and attaching a new bit of knowledge to what he already knows.

Use of techno-jargon (what I am calling numerous buzzwords in this case) is the antithesis of teaching. It teaches nothing, but instead reveals how little such a person actually knows. Such a person is only trying to puff themselves up.
IBdaMann wrote:
3) There is no such thing as an honest person who comes to an anonymous forum and merely points to his claimed credentials as if that renders him above being questioned.

This, however, is behavior that is important only to religion and oligarchy and dictatorship forms of government. Science has no titles, nobility, credentials, degrees, licenses, certifications, or any such thing. Just religion and government uses these things.

On a blind forum such as this one, Politiplex, or JPP, credentials are completely meaningless anyway. It's an empty claim that proves absolutely nothing. For one insisting on it's use in such forums, it again indicates how little they actually know and how blinded by their religion they are.
IBdaMann wrote:
4) There is no such thing as invented, sciency-sounding terms that are used by religious preachers that aren't aimed at A) demonizing science as a threat to the religion or
reining in science under the ownership of the religion, e.g. biogeochemistry, ocean acidification, greenhouse effect, thermal forcing, etc..

Quite true. Such preachers are fundamentalist in nature, since they are trying to prove their religion True through such tactics. It is through this they commit a circular argument fallacy, which is a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming itself is inherently fundamentalist, since it must discard science and try to prove itself as it's replacement.
IBdaMann wrote:
5) There is no such thing as an honest teacher who lashes out at those who ask questions. See point #3.

Quite right. Any teacher that does this is not teaching. They are puffing themselves up by putting others down. Far from being inspired to learn, a student becomes demoralized by such a 'teacher'.
IBdaMann wrote:
Just some things I have noticed.

All well noted.

I myself spend quite a bit of time teaching people to fly airplanes, fix airplanes, build airplanes, build pyrotechnic devices and shoot them safely (including the chemistry of it, for those willing to go that far), write software, become professional casino dealers, and even how to drive a tractor. People come to me to learn these things because they find someone they can learn from, and I try to inspire them to learn for themselves instead of putting them down.

The last thing I want to do is bullshit them with jargon. The last thing I want to do is put down a student, since they will quickly become demoralized and leave.

I cannot teach someone that isn't willing to learn. A closed mind is an inaccessible one to a teacher. It is religion that closes minds, particularly fundamentalist style religions such as the Church of Global Warming. You have already discovered this for yourself.

I have found only one exception, and that is in the teachings of Jesus Christ. He does not talk down to people. He often even describes things in parables, using terms familiar to the farmers and ranchers and merchants of the day. He does not depend on using jargon. He doesn't try to impress. He doesn't try to compel.

'Christian' religions that deny these teachings and puff themselves up are common, as you have already found out. These religions close minds and make people unteachable. These religions depend on jargon, titles, nobility, and unquestioned belief. In many ways, they are not much different than the Church of Global Warming.

Christ often railed against these mockeries of his gospel and teachings.

I realize that you are an atheist, and have no opinion on whether Christ actually exists or not. In the end it doesn't matter. What is written about this character in the Bible does have this to say about it, whether there is any belief there or not.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-03-2022 11:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
For about seven years the same two trolls have made this website a no-go zone.

The goal is pest control.

By allowing users to bypass the troll-infested discussion and go straight to the library.

But these... I won't say it, but they just won't quit.

I will do what I can to ensure that the humiliation of having their idiocy exposed will outweigh the sadistic joy they can't seem to live without.

They'll have to look for another place to troll.

You are just describing yourself again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-03-2022 12:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1339)
sealover wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

My name is "sealover"

I'm a PhD biogeochemist.

Yes, some of you knew that already.

If you want to ask me questions about biogeochemistry.

Particularly questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification", I would be happy to offer an answer.

However, in my case, I offer a streamlined route to get past the trolls in the rabbit hole.

It means you'll have to wait a day or so to get your answer, but you won't have to go into the rabbit hole to get it.

By my avatar, you can click on "sealover"

You can then see the titles of my latest posts.

It should be obvious from the titles which post is your specific question.

You won't be exposed to nearly as much noise and abuse this way.

With your question please put a subject title.

Please try to compose a title for the question that gives a way for myself and others to know what it is.

They might want to look at it too.

They might want to answer it too.

But let's do our best to avoid the pitfalls of a website such as this.

Drop in quick to drop off a question.

Pick it up the answer the next day without having to see a word from any troll.


Just as a source of good science can you answer these questions please;

1, Is there any sea too hot for coral to grow?

2, Has coral thrived in times when the earth was much warmer?

3, Has coral grown happily when the air had much higher levels of CO2 in it?

Thanks.
18-03-2022 15:19
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.

I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.


EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:

"Biogeochemistry is the scientific discipline that involves the study of the chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment (including the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere, the pedosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere).

In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of biogeochemical cycles, the cycles of chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space and time.

The field focuses on chemical cycles which are either driven by or influence biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and phosphorus cycles. Biogeochemistry is a systems science closely related to systems ecology."
So if you get enough box tops, you can get your degree in it. Meh.

I just truly appreciated, more than anything else within that Wikipedia entry, the moment in which it literally makes use of the word 'biogeochemical' as if that is somehow supposed to clearly and unambiguously define what 'biogeochemistry' is. Numerous dictionaries tend to pull that crap quite often as well.
18-03-2022 18:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Into the Night wrote:I realize that you are an atheist, and have no opinion on whether Christ actually exists or not. In the end it doesn't matter.

This is an important point. I can nonetheless have a discussion with you about the merits of each lesson and the extent to which it resonates with me personally. None of our discussion would depend upon any sort of belief that any of the events actually transpired. Thereafter, you and I could discuss Aesop's fables without you having to necessarily believe that those events actually happened. After all, I don't think the tortoise actually showed up for the race but was being pushed hard by the fake news as though he were running against Trump.

My top passage is Matthew 18:23-34. I live by this baby. I may dish out schytt, but it is honest schytt, e.g. math, science, logic ... with defined terms, not pointless dishonesty. Yes, my schytt is laced with mockery and bitch-slapping but only when it is well-deserved by someone who will not extend to others the honesty I extend.

Conversely, the above is my guidance for avoiding committing dishonesty and treachery lest I be deserving of an even greater helping of whoop-azz.

So, if you find this passage underlined in your Bible, I might very well be the guilty party.
18-03-2022 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.

I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.


EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:

"Biogeochemistry is the scientific discipline that involves the study of the chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment (including the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere, the pedosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere).

In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of biogeochemical cycles, the cycles of chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space and time.

The field focuses on chemical cycles which are either driven by or influence biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and phosphorus cycles. Biogeochemistry is a systems science closely related to systems ecology."
So if you get enough box tops, you can get your degree in it. Meh.

I just truly appreciated, more than anything else within that Wikipedia entry, the moment in which it literally makes use of the word 'biogeochemical' as if that is somehow supposed to clearly and unambiguously define what 'biogeochemistry' is. Numerous dictionaries tend to pull that crap quite often as well.

Ah. The old attempt of defining a buzzword with itself. I noticed that about Wikipedia and other proponents of the Church of Global Warming. Too bad a circular definition doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 18-03-2022 19:25
18-03-2022 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I realize that you are an atheist, and have no opinion on whether Christ actually exists or not. In the end it doesn't matter.

This is an important point. I can nonetheless have a discussion with you about the merits of each lesson and the extent to which it resonates with me personally. None of our discussion would depend upon any sort of belief that any of the events actually transpired. Thereafter, you and I could discuss Aesop's fables without you having to necessarily believe that those events actually happened. After all, I don't think the tortoise actually showed up for the race but was being pushed hard by the fake news as though he were running against Trump.

My top passage is Matthew 18:23-34. I live by this baby. I may dish out schytt, but it is honest schytt, e.g. math, science, logic ... with defined terms, not pointless dishonesty. Yes, my schytt is laced with mockery and bitch-slapping but only when it is well-deserved by someone who will not extend to others the honesty I extend.

Conversely, the above is my guidance for avoiding committing dishonesty and treachery lest I be deserving of an even greater helping of whoop-azz.

So, if you find this passage underlined in your Bible, I might very well be the guilty party.

Heh. Been a long time since I discussed Aesop's fables with anyone.

Yes, you do understand. Without defining anything, math, science, and logic are quite useless.

Oddly enough, religions don't need to define anything. They don't even need to define a god they may worship.

I've run across the jargon problem many times. It's a BIG problem inside Microsoft. The place is full of people that are just big empty heads. They write almost no code (they can't). Instead, they hire temporary workers to do the bulk of the work.

Ever wonder by Microsoft products are so ****ed up?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Biogeochemistry is just a "buzzword"?18-03-2022 20:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
One of the way the trolls evade exposing their scientific ignorance is to dismiss any term they don't understand as a "buzzword".

But if these idiots really believe that "biogeochemistry" is just a "buzzword", what makes them think they are competent to criticize the biogeochemistry?

They are not, but that won't stop them. They will say brilliant things like:

"Nitrate cannot be reduced. It is already reduced."

And when backed into a corner.

Nitrate is NOT "reduced". It is "deoxidized".

WOW! they got me on that one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no science called 'biogeochemistry'. No theory of science is based on a buzzword.

I can only figure that he is combining biology, geology, and chemistry all into one word for whatever reason. I'm not sure what's up with that either, but he says a lot of things that don't make sense.


EDIT: Of course, the best source of all things has an entry with regard to this word... From Wikipedia:

"Biogeochemistry is the scientific discipline that involves the study of the chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment (including the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere, the pedosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere).

In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of biogeochemical cycles, the cycles of chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space and time.

The field focuses on chemical cycles which are either driven by or influence biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and phosphorus cycles. Biogeochemistry is a systems science closely related to systems ecology."
So if you get enough box tops, you can get your degree in it. Meh.

I just truly appreciated, more than anything else within that Wikipedia entry, the moment in which it literally makes use of the word 'biogeochemical' as if that is somehow supposed to clearly and unambiguously define what 'biogeochemistry' is. Numerous dictionaries tend to pull that crap quite often as well.

Ah. The old attempt of defining a buzzword with itself. I noticed that about Wikipedia and other proponents of the Church of Global Warming. Too bad a circular definition doesn't work.
18-03-2022 22:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
sealover wrote:
One of the way the trolls evade exposing their scientific ignorance is to dismiss any term they don't understand as a "buzzword".

But if these idiots really believe that "biogeochemistry" is just a "buzzword", what makes them think they are competent to criticize the biogeochemistry?

They are not, but that won't stop them. They will say brilliant things like:

"Nitrate cannot be reduced. It is already reduced."

And when backed into a corner.

Nitrate is NOT "reduced". It is "deoxidized".

WOW! they got me on that one.

You need to define your terms if you wish to say something of substance. Define "biogeochemistry".

Circular definitions are not allowed. Definitions based on any other buzzword you wish to dream up are not allowed either.
RE: Does nitrate get reduced or "deoxidized"?18-03-2022 23:32
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
If we were having something other than a less-than-genuine "debate", a challenge to the assertions regarding nitrate reduction would have been addressed.

Just because one is too ignorant to understand the words everyone else uses, they are not entitled to bring the conversation to a complete halt.

This whole "unambiguous definition" thing is transparently absurd crap.

Don't criticize what you don't understand.

Or maybe you DO understand.

Can nitrate be reduced?

Can nitrate be "deoxidized"?

Do we need someone to give an unambiguous definition before we can tell when someone is pretending to understand science, but don't have an effing clue?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gfm7175 wrote:
sealover wrote:
One of the way the trolls evade exposing their scientific ignorance is to dismiss any term they don't understand as a "buzzword".

But if these idiots really believe that "biogeochemistry" is just a "buzzword", what makes them think they are competent to criticize the biogeochemistry?

They are not, but that won't stop them. They will say brilliant things like:

"Nitrate cannot be reduced. It is already reduced."

And when backed into a corner.

Nitrate is NOT "reduced". It is "deoxidized".

WOW! they got me on that one.

You need to define your terms if you wish to say something of substance. Define "biogeochemistry".

Circular definitions are not allowed. Definitions based on any other buzzword you wish to dream up are not allowed either.
19-03-2022 00:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
One of the way the trolls evade exposing their scientific ignorance is to dismiss any term they don't understand as a "buzzword".

The illiteracy in science is YOURS. It is YOU that denies and discards science. There is nothing to understand in a buzzword. It is meaningless.
sealover wrote:
But if these idiots really believe that "biogeochemistry" is just a "buzzword", what makes them think they are competent to criticize the biogeochemistry?

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
They are not, but that won't stop them. They will say brilliant things like:

"Nitrate cannot be reduced. It is already reduced."

That is correct.
sealover wrote:
And when backed into a corner.

Nitrate is NOT "reduced". It is "deoxidized".

It says the same thing. How is that 'backed into a corner'?? Cliche fallacy.
sealover wrote:
WOW! they got me on that one.

Sure did. Easily too.


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
19-03-2022 00:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
If we were having something other than a less-than-genuine "debate", a challenge to the assertions regarding nitrate reduction would have been addressed.

They were. There is no debate here. Just conversations.
sealover wrote:
Just because one is too ignorant to understand the words everyone else uses, they are not entitled to bring the conversation to a complete halt.

Buzzwords are not a conversation. Using them doesn't say anything.
sealover wrote:
This whole "unambiguous definition" thing is transparently absurd crap.

Yes it is. Your crap.
sealover wrote:
Don't criticize what you don't understand.

There is nothing to understand. An undefined buzzword has no meaning.
sealover wrote:
Or maybe you DO understand.

There is nothing to understand.
sealover wrote:
Can nitrate be reduced?

Can nitrate be "deoxidized"?

Yes to both questions. RQAA.
sealover wrote:
Do we need someone to give an unambiguous definition before we can tell when someone is pretending to understand science, but don't have an effing clue?

Yes. Still waiting for your definition of 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Projection of Ignorance Leaves the Trolls Outgunned19-03-2022 01:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
I am ignorant.

Therefore, everyone else is as ignorant as I am.

I pretend to understand science.

Therefore, everyone else pretends to understand science a I do.

I just make shit up.

Therefore, everyone else just makes shit up as I do.

I lie.

Therefore, everyone else lies as I do.

I can be baffled by bullshit when it is expressed in scientific-sounding terms.

Therefore, everyone else can be baffled by bullshit when it is expressed in scientific-sounding terms.

I have no idea what a term means and imagine it must be a "buzzword".

Therefore, everyone else has no idea what a term means and therefore they imagine it must be a buzzword.

When trolls talk to each other, their projection of their own ignorance leaves them all on an equal footing.

When trolls talk to scientists, their projection of their own ignorance leaves them hopelessly outgunned.
19-03-2022 01:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
I am ignorant.

Therefore, everyone else is as ignorant as I am.

I pretend to understand science.

Therefore, everyone else pretends to understand science a I do.

I just make shit up.

Therefore, everyone else just makes shit up as I do.

I lie.

Therefore, everyone else lies as I do.

I can be baffled by bullshit when it is expressed in scientific-sounding terms.

Therefore, everyone else can be baffled by bullshit when it is expressed in scientific-sounding terms.

I have no idea what a term means and imagine it must be a "buzzword".

Therefore, everyone else has no idea what a term means and therefore they imagine it must be a buzzword.

When trolls talk to each other, their projection of their own ignorance leaves them all on an equal footing.

When trolls talk to scientists, their projection of their own ignorance leaves them hopelessly outgunned.

Maybe should actually try to learn physics, math, and logic. I would hurt for you to learn philosophy either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: What scientific papers?19-03-2022 02:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
[/quote]
Maybe should actually try to learn physics, math, and logic. I would hurt for you to learn philosophy either.[/quote]

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

I would really love to be able to understand your position. Seriously.

I'm sure that there is someplace you have written a concise, clear explanation.

Please tell me where I can find your scientific papers so I can read them.

But I'm pretty sure you will say:

"Science is not papers."

You wouldn't dare admit to your more frequent go-to line.

"What scientific papers?"
19-03-2022 03:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:I am ignorant. Therefore, everyone else is as ignorant as I am.

You said it.

sealover wrote:I pretend to understand science.

You said it. In fact, you pretend to be an authority in a nonexistent branch of science that is actually a Church of Green sect of the Climate Change faith. Go figure.

sealover wrote:I just make shit up.

e.g. coral reefs that meet their demise, undefined things changing in unspecified ways, etc...

sealover wrote:I lie.

Like a dog. I listed the ways that you do.

sealover wrote:I can be baffled by bullshit when it is expressed in scientific-sounding terms.

Because you confuse the profundity of your religious faith with bona fide scientific acumen. It's too funny.

sealover wrote:I have no idea what a term means and imagine it must be a "buzzword".

Better wording would be that you feel justified in using buzzwords for which you have no idea what they mean. You lash out at those who ask you for definitions because you don't have any definitions. You simply regurgitate as ordered by the people who do your thinking for you.

sealover wrote:When trolls talk to each other, their projection of their own ignorance leaves them all on an equal footing.

This is why I'm glad tmiddles now has someone with whom to converse about religious matters surrounding Climate Change dogma.

sealover wrote:When trolls talk to scientists, their projection of their own ignorance leaves them hopelessly outgunned.

That's why I am constantly bitch-slapping you. Your crime: being a dishonest warmizombie troll that feels compelled to run his mouth (as it were). Anytime you need me to science-jitsu you, just bring your religion into the discussion and refer to it as science ... and we'll dance.

RE: ATTENTION BIOGEOCHEMISTRY STUDENTS19-03-2022 03:34
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
ATTENTION BIOGEOCHEMISTRY STUDENTS

DO NOT BECOME A MEMBER OF climate-debate.com BEFORE MAY 1.

You can e-mail me your questions until then.

It will be a little slower getting an answer until May 1.

I'll have to transfer the questions and answers from the emails eventually, so they can be posted here for all to see.

HOWEVER, I BEG YOU NOT TO JOIN CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM BEFORE MAY 1.

There is still some pest control required, and I don't want any of you interfering.

If one of you does interfere, and I can figure out by your writing it was you.

NOT COOL!

Why is that a problem?

Because it will be hard to resist the temptation from the low-hanging fruit.

Utterly absurd assertions will be made about chemistry, and you might be tempted to join me in humiliating them.

PLEASE DO NOT ASSIST ME IN THE HUMILIATION OF IGNORAMUS!

Let me take the lead on that one for now, including after May 1.

If the pests refuse to leave, at some point I'll let you have at it.

SHOW OFF WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED HERE AT THAT POINT!

Maybe after you get good at it, you can take those skills to other troll-infested websites where the Ignoramus bullies rule.

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT - STRICTLY HIT-AND-RUN

They will most certainly respond to what you tell them about why their scientific assertions are so utterly absurd.

Their response will be utterly absurd and possibly vicious.

DO NOT EVER, EVER, EVER REPLY TO THEM!

They will drive themselves nuts trying to get you to engage them.

You might get five consecutive messages from them in response as they desperately try to get you to engage them.

Just try to picture them, what they might be going through if it could make them write that. And then that. And then that. And then that. All trying to get you to engage them.

It's okay to giggle about it.

No shame.

Some people really DO have it coming, and it serves them right.
19-03-2022 03:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:ATTENTION BIOGEOCHEMISTRY STUDENTS

There aren't any. Literally every student who might read this post will be totally aware that he is not a biogeochemistry student, and therefore presume you are not speaking to him.

You are literally announcing that you are not talking to anyone.

Too funny.

sealover wrote:DO NOT BECOME A MEMBER OF climate-debate.com BEFORE MAY 1.

So, are all the other students, which is all of them, supposed to join before May 1st because they are specifically not biogeochemicalabuse students?

Too funny.
Attached image:


Edited on 19-03-2022 03:46
RE: Biogeochemistry science lessons since the very first post. DUH!19-03-2022 04:03
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
It is possible that some of the people reading my posts have that noticed that they are, since the very first one, biogeochemistry science lessons.

Irony intended.

It is possible that some of the people reading my posts thought that I just came here to get gang-raped.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Irony intended.
RE: Lessons with flaws, none of it is citable19-03-2022 04:16
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
sealover wrote:
It is possible that some of the people reading my posts have that noticed that they are, since the very first one, biogeochemistry science lessons.

Irony intended.

It is possible that some of the people reading my posts thought that I just came here to get gang-raped.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Irony intended.


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

It is possible that some of the people reading the above post noticed that I messed up the first sentence.

I didn't notice.

And that's the problem.

I'm doing this off the top of my head, with no way save drafts for editing.

NONE OF THIS IS CITABLE IN ANY WAY.

Just trust me that all the basic stuff was right.

Some of you believe in the credibility of my credentials.

Irony intended.

But sometimes I'm thinking about what arsenate does as a biogeochemical player and I accidentally write "arsenite"

I didn't have a chance to compile and polish it all, making sure I didn't accidentally eff it up.
19-03-2022 04:35
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
Forum police? This a first. Most forums have moderators and administrators to police their sites. Never been on one, where on just shows up, and attempt to take control of a website, with self-appointed, authority. Obviously, a democrat, with an unwavering faith in the doomsday prophecies. Authoritarian, egotistical, condescending. nanny.

Most people who don't like a website, the either google for one better suited, or create their own. There are several free hosting options, but get loaded with advertisements. Of course, running a website is a lot of work, near impossible for a control-freak, specially a democrat. Not everyone thinks the same way, or believes the same things, as the democrat party, so there are hurt feelings to deal with. Banning all non-democrats, leaves you with just a bunch of boot-lickers, who just regurgitate the party-approved message of the day. What's to discuss, if everyone agrees?

I've never been banned permanently on any forum. I enjoy the challenge of still expressing myself, within the confines of the enforced rules. I'm not sure what someone would need to do here, to even get banned briefly. Probably stuff that is illegal, or just totally offensive, even for a Norwegian. I don't think self-declared authority buys much control here.

What happens on May 1st? Super-volcano, earthquake, hurricane? How many SafeMoon coins to save humanity? Oops, wrong savior...
RE: Go ahead and QUOTE the science, just don't cite it19-03-2022 05:34
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Forum police? This a first. Most forums have moderators and administrators to police their sites. Never been on one, where on just shows up, and attempt to take control of a website, with self-appointed, authority. Obviously, a democrat, with an unwavering faith in the doomsday prophecies. Authoritarian, egotistical, condescending. nanny.

Most people who don't like a website, the either google for one better suited, or create their own. There are several free hosting options, but get loaded with advertisements. Of course, running a website is a lot of work, near impossible for a control-freak, specially a democrat. Not everyone thinks the same way, or believes the same things, as the democrat party, so there are hurt feelings to deal with. Banning all non-democrats, leaves you with just a bunch of boot-lickers, who just regurgitate the party-approved message of the day. What's to discuss, if everyone agrees?

I've never been banned permanently on any forum. I enjoy the challenge of still expressing myself, within the confines of the enforced rules. I'm not sure what someone would need to do here, to even get banned briefly. Probably stuff that is illegal, or just totally offensive, even for a Norwegian. I don't think self-declared authority buys much control here.

What happens on May 1st? Super-volcano, earthquake, hurricane? How many SafeMoon coins to save humanity? Oops, wrong savior...
19-03-2022 08:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:

I would really love to be able to understand your position. Seriously.

I'm sure that there is someplace you have written a concise, clear explanation.

Please tell me where I can find your scientific papers so I can read them.

But I'm pretty sure you will say:

"Science is not papers."

You wouldn't dare admit to your more frequent go-to line.

"What scientific papers?"

RQAA. Science is not papers.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-03-2022 08:10
19-03-2022 08:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
It is possible that some of the people reading my posts have that noticed that they are, since the very first one, biogeochemistry science lessons.

Irony intended.

It is possible that some of the people reading my posts thought that I just came here to get gang-raped.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Irony intended.


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

It is possible that some of the people reading the above post noticed that I messed up the first sentence.

I didn't notice.

And that's the problem.

I'm doing this off the top of my head, with no way save drafts for editing.

NONE OF THIS IS CITABLE IN ANY WAY.

Just trust me that all the basic stuff was right.

Some of you believe in the credibility of my credentials.

Irony intended.

But sometimes I'm thinking about what arsenate does as a biogeochemical player and I accidentally write "arsenite"

I didn't have a chance to compile and polish it all, making sure I didn't accidentally eff it up.

Trolling yourself again, eh?


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
19-03-2022 08:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
...


Another good post from you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Newcomer Welcome! from "sealover", PhD biogeochemist:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1318-08-2022 06:25
National Climate Change Is Real Day (sealover please do not read this it is a surprise)529-04-2022 20:08
sealover, an actual PhD biogeochemist with relevant knowledge to share.3025-04-2022 22:58
Safe Friends of "sealover" - Troll-free Library Networking. Join the List.622-03-2022 05:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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