Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Im a BM wrote:
"You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told 'this is a scientific journal'" - IBdaMann

The journal NATURE, is NOT a "truly scientific journal", according to IBdaMann.

The journal SCIENCE doesn't even exist, according to Into the Night, because "Science is not a journal".

So what gullible Marxist followers of the Church of Global Warming worship as the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.. They aren't really scientific journals at all.

I WILL RISE TO THE CHALLENGE

Please provide just ONE example of a "truly scientific journal", tell me "this is a scientific journal", and see if I am capable of recognizing it.

We know that NATURE and SCIENCE don't make the list of "truly scientific journals".

Is there even ONE journal that meets the standard of "truly scientific"?

Heck, there might even be MORE than one.

But I'll shut up about it if you can provide just ONE example.

Is there ONE published journal that you can give an actual name to, which meets your high standards for being "truly scientific"?

God, I hope you don't say "Energy and Environment"

But we'll work with that if that's all you got.

On second thought, please DO pick Energy and Environment.

It is the go-to climate denial journal that pretends to be "scientific". It even has a pseudo peer-review process.

When the disciples of the Church of Thermodenial put together lists of "scientific" papers to support their assertions, articles from Energy and Environment usually make up the bulk of the list.

What do I LIKE about Energy and Environment?

THEY NEVER DEFINE THEIR TERMS!

The articles make CONSTANT reference to "climate change".

Never ONCE do ANY of the authors provide an unambiguous definition for the term they all use. I guess they expect us to be mind readers and know what "climate change" is without somebody spoon feeding us a definition.

Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

"In fact, it sounds like a dumb-shit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards." - IBdaMann

A tough guy to satisfy.

"You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told 'this is a scientific journal'" - IBdaMann

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

"You don't even know what science is." - IBdaMann

And that is probably WHY I wouldn't understand how INCORRECT the incomprehensible non-science gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords are in those dumb-shit rags.

"I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn." - IBdaMann

And that is the tragic part.

Imagine if I had recognized the value of the wisdom I could have had access to, if I only had the courage to come to you with questions about the hard stuff.

I could have learned so much...

I'll have to live with the burden of that loss.

That golden opportunity that I missed.

The chance to learn TRUE SCIENCE (not the gibber babble fake stuff) from a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS.

Well, it's good to see that there aren't any others who will have to live with that deep regret.

They all know enough to come to IBdaMann with their questions about the hard stuff.

IBdaMann, you know that I am a lost cause.

Your efforts would be better spent on all those who are NOT too stupid to learn.

Don't be distracted by a hopeless case of one of the unteachables.

Go back to your disciples who are smart enough to benefit from your wisdom.

They need you to help them with the hard stuff.

I am not capable of comprehending it. I don't even know what science is.

Be free, my Guru. You have done all you can here. Your gift is needed elsewhere.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE, cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers, begins with the following sentence:

Whoaaaa! Dial it back a bit. What makes you think they were "scientific" papers as opposed to just regular, ordinary, vanilla papers? Why the "scientific" modifier? You don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote: "The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

I know several entire 3rd-grade classes who don't understand the subject matter either.

Im a BM wrote: The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

And there's your answer, i.e. it's not a scientific paper.

Im a BM wrote: "Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Thanks, but we don't need any additional evidence that the paper is not scientific. We have enough to draw our conclusions.

Im a BM wrote: Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

I said "Thanks." We're done because that is not how scientists communicate in any papers. You have been very convincing.

Im a BM wrote: For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Terms need to be defined everywhere. It's all part of communication. All stuck-up highbrow snobs who don't define all their terms should be kicked to the curb as pretenders who obviously don't even know what they are talking about and only have gibberish to peddle.

Im a BM wrote: Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

It sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like a dumbshit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards.

Im a BM wrote: They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

So now you know what I'm talking about. This really shouldn't be the first time you are learning this.

Im a BM wrote: That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

Nope. Nobody can read minds. Submissions that don't define their terms should be automatically rejected. Try submitting something in the real world where the absolute smartest people are, e.g. engineering firms, commercial science labs, Defense contractors, etc., without defining your terms and see how far you get. Nobody cares how much bravado you have, if you don't define your terms, out the door you go.

You, in contrast, refuse to define your terms because you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about ... and look, surprise, surprise, ... you aren't one of the world's smart people working for a commercial firm that actually produces results.

Do you see the direct correlation? If you don't, it's because you aren't one of the world's smart people. Ask me how I know that Lockheed won't be hiring you anytime soon.

I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told "this is a scientific journal."

sealover wrote:
Please provide just ONE example of a "truly scientific journal", tell me "this is a scientific journal", and see if I am capable of recognizing it.

We know that NATURE and SCIENCE don't make the list of "truly scientific journals".

Is there even ONE journal that meets the standard of "truly scientific"?

Heck, there might even be MORE than one.

But I'll shut up about it if you can provide just ONE example.

Is there ONE published journal that you can give an actual name to, which meets your high standards for being "truly scientific"?

God, I hope you don't say "Energy and Environment"

sealover wrote:
It is the go-to climate denial journal that pretends to be "scientific". It even has a pseudo peer-review process.

sealover wrote:
When the disciples of the Church of Thermodenial put together lists of "scientific" papers to support their assertions, articles from Energy and Environment usually make up the bulk of the list.

What do I LIKE about Energy and Environment?

THEY NEVER DEFINE THEIR TERMS!

sealover wrote:
The articles make CONSTANT reference to "climate change".

sealover wrote:
Never ONCE do ANY of the authors provide an unambiguous definition for the term they all use. I guess they expect us to be mind readers and know what "climate change" is without somebody spoon feeding us a definition.