Remember me
▼ Content

Rush Limbaugh cited one of my discoveries on his show



Page 2 of 2<12
RE: Unambiguous definition of terms for these guys28-03-2022 18:13
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Unambiguous definition of terms for these guys.

Rush Limbaugh is Rash Lamebrain.

Donald Trump is Little Orange Loser (LOL).

Into the Night is Parrot Boy.

I B da Mann is Dumb Ugly Clown Kook (DUCK).

And "sealover" is the liar who pretends to have some kind of degree in science.

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

sealover wrote:
Rush Limbaugh tried to help Trump with the Covid gaffe.

Rush was MUCH better at the fake science than Trump.

Trump had made a fool of himself again.

He thought the world would praise him for his medical science genius when he suggested use of powerful light inside the body, or washing Covid out with some kind of disinfectant.

Rush rushed to aid Trump.

Rush dug up some actual medical science articles about using ultraviolet light inside major body cavities to kill infections.

Rush knew how to obfuscate the science better than Trump.

Rush gave the little sore loser a way to pretend he was right about the science.

But then LSL (little sore loser) had to say he was just being SARCASTIC!

Rush was pissed! LSL was supposed to stick to his story!

Rush had already found a way to pretend that Trump was speaking real science.

Rush had already PUBLISHED the validation of LSL's "sarcasm" so he wouldn't have to recant.

But LSL recanted anyway.

He was "obviously being sarcastic".

He was obviously being SOMETHING!

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

























Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
What Rush Limbaugh Said on RECORD!

I do not speak for Rush Limbaugh.

I do not HAVE TO. He spoke about it just fine for himself.

You are speaking for Rush Limbaugh right now, dumbass.
sealover wrote:
There was buzz in the scientific community about a new article in Nature.

Science isn't a community or a magazine.
sealover wrote:
Rush didn't provide the volume number or pages, but he named the journal as "Nature".

He wanted to play up that is was perhaps in a tie for the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the article supported the Rush Limbaugh Paradigm.

You see, in those rare cases when they believe that science is on their side, suddenly scientists become credible after all.

Like when they correctly measured surface temperatures in the year following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. But ONLY during THAT year.

I dare suggest that either Rush Limbaugh or Ronald Reagan could have bested either of you in a scientific "debate".

Science isn't a debate.
Science isn't any scientist or group of scientists. It isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Is it possible you don't know how to find an article published in Nature?

Science isn't a magazine. False authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Is it possible you know how to find it easily enough, you just have no idea whatsoever what all those gibber babble buzzwords mean?

They are meaningless.
sealover wrote:
Tough to offer plausible criticism of what you can't begin to understand.

I don't blame you for being afraid to say anything about my pubs.

They are not your magazine. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
It would expose your ignorance too readily.

Let's pretend that there is no way to look up an article in Nature if one only knows the year, title, volume number and pages.

My failure to post a "link" means I lose by default, right?

Come on!

This is your chance to play debate with a REAL SCIENTIST!

Science is not a magazine. False authority fallacy. True Scotsman fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
RE: Donald Trump is LOL28-03-2022 20:25
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Donald Trump is LOL.

Little orange loser.

Little orange liar.

Lying orange loser.

Laughable old lunatic.

Loud obnoxious lamebrain.

Add your own.
RE: "sealover" - Saving Taxpayers and Landowners MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!29-03-2022 00:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
"sealover" - Saving Taxpayers and Landowners MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

It's true.

That was one of the reasons Rush Limbaugh loved it so much.

The state agency in charge of forest management was being sued by the municipal agency in charge of providing drinking water to more than a million people.

Now and again, too much nitrate in stream water fertilized algae blooms in reservoirs, with eutrophication followed by hypoxia and massive fish kills.

This was the drinking water supply we're talking about.

We were contracted to help defend the state taxpayers from a baseless lawsuit.

As biogeochemists specialized in forest watersheds, we knew that state forest management was not in any way responsible for contaminating the drinking water supply.

The stakes were VERY high if the state agency was held liable and financial compensation to the municipal agency were required.

That's how sealover saved the taxpayers MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

What about private landowners?

SEA LOVER SAVED PRIVATE LANDOWNERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOO.

Like when they were falsely accused of poisoning the surface water supply after they saved a delta town from flooding.

Like when they were falsely accused of poisoning the groundwater with arsenic.

Like when they followed government mandates at the old mine and created a methyl mercury hazard they were then expected to pay to fix.

Come on guys!

Don't be hatin'!

It's true. "sealover" saved taxpayers and landowners MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

That counts for something, doesn't it?

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

sealover wrote:
Government environmental regulators mandated "pH adjustment" of a very large volume of dredged sediments that had been exposed to oxidation in a storage area. This environmental chemotherapy was required because a scientifically illiterate individual believed they were "toxic".

After all, the sediments were strongly acidic. The pH was often as low as 4. They must be toxic, right?

They needed to be detoxified.

Beet lime, a highly soluble form of calcium carbon was applied liberally. The liming requirements were enormous. The target pH had to be at least 6.5.

The solubility of soil organic matter is highly pH dependent - more soluble at higher pH. Liming released a whole lot of soil organic matter into soluble form.

When the organic-carbon rich soil solution leached down into the low oxygen zone, the giant dose of organic carbon started a feeding frenzy.

Reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic by bacteria that consumed that organic carbon caused groundwater arsenic to increase 500%.

And the paranoid regulator thought the landowner illegally dumped arsenic herbicide and would have to be taken to the cleaners to clean it up.

Through an agonizing process, regulators were finally persuaded that there was no liability. Perhaps the fact that they were the ones who mandated the environmental chemotherapy had something to do with it.

But nobody wanted to talk about groundwater arsenic after that.

As part of an unbelievably expensive required investigation, more than 300 monitoring wells were installed and sampled for regular testing throughout a sub sea level (leveed off) delta island.

An enormous data set had already been collected, reports had been filed, and the regulators were satisfied that all was well.

That was all before I got there.

The people who prepared the reports excluded virtually all the data from the wells with highest arsenic.

Statisticians saw way too much variability within those wells and followed the official method for excluding the data based on its high variability.

That's seasonal variability for you.

So, buried deep in the appendix of the report was the complete original data set showing the exceptionally high arsenic. But none of that got into the main body of the report.

Years later, the botched "pH adjustment" brought arsenic to attention.

We had an incredible data set I could have published, just from the report for bureaucratic paperwork. The correlation between dissolved organic carbon and arsenic was highly significant. Nobody ever published that before. It was a chance to make an important contribution to science, with implications for environmental management and public health.

I didn't even have to go to the field or lab. All the data, methodology, etc. was already handed complete on a silver platter.

But it would have revealed too many controversial issues.

Nobody wanted that data or those findings to see the light of day in a scientific journal.

When my report was finally filed as a Technical Memorandum, it was years after the dust had settled. Even then a NEW paranoid regulator was sure that this was a major scandal. Just getting official approval for the Technical Memorandum was going to be over his dead body. He looked everywhere for evidence of the conspiracy and cover up and finally had to be overruled.

By then, biogeochemical discovery had gone stale. Others beat me to the punch publishing the correlation between dissolved organic carbon and arsenic.


Bureaucrats were already satisfied that ever
RE: Speaking Startrekese - The Art of Sounding Scientific02-04-2022 22:21
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Speaking Startrekese - The Art of Sounding Scientific

The highest ranking bullshitter I ever confronted in federal court will remain nameless in this story.

The master of BS actually had a PhD! In engineering, but STILL a PhD!

So, sealover is sworn in as an expert witness to testify in federal court.

Credentials and other irrefutable qualifications clarified.

So, the PhD engineer set the standards for chemical analysis to be used to identify which materials are hazardous to water quality.

Using a citrate buffer, it is possible to extract alarmingly high concentrations of potentially toxic metals from dredged sediments exposed to oxidation.

According to Dr. BS, this PROVES that the dredge sediments cause contamination of surface waters.

According to Dr. BS, this proves that dredged sediments CANNOT BE USED AS LEVEE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL.

That's going to make it hard to maintain the levee system.

According to Dr. BS, the results from the citrate buffer extraction PROVE that dredged sediments must be stored as potentially hazardous waste, at an incredibly high cost.

But Dr. BS was just BS'ing.

When sealover pointed out that citrate anion formed an inner sphere chelation complex with the potentially toxic metals of concern, the look on Dr. BS face was worth a million dollars.

He had no idea what the gibber babble buzzwords meant!

He had no response that would mean shit in federal court.

The dredged sediments were reclassified back again as useful, safe construction material.

The citrate buffer test was rescinded as a predictor of toxicity to surface waters.

Dr. BS had been sitting on his little throne for years and years.

"sealover" pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, and the jury agreed.

A landowner was spared MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF USELESS MITIGATION COSTS.

A levee system was spared having to search far and wide for material to fill in the breach during levee breaks, and to shore up the system as sea level rises.

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

sealover wrote:
"sealover" - Saving Taxpayers and Landowners MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

It's true.

That was one of the reasons Rush Limbaugh loved it so much.

The state agency in charge of forest management was being sued by the municipal agency in charge of providing drinking water to more than a million people.

Now and again, too much nitrate in stream water fertilized algae blooms in reservoirs, with eutrophication followed by hypoxia and massive fish kills.

This was the drinking water supply we're talking about.

We were contracted to help defend the state taxpayers from a baseless lawsuit.

As biogeochemists specialized in forest watersheds, we knew that state forest management was not in any way responsible for contaminating the drinking water supply.

The stakes were VERY high if the state agency was held liable and financial compensation to the municipal agency were required.

That's how sealover saved the taxpayers MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

What about private landowners?

SEA LOVER SAVED PRIVATE LANDOWNERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOO.

Like when they were falsely accused of poisoning the surface water supply after they saved a delta town from flooding.

Like when they were falsely accused of poisoning the groundwater with arsenic.

Like when they followed government mandates at the old mine and created a methyl mercury hazard they were then expected to pay to fix.

Come on guys!

Don't be hatin'!

It's true. "sealover" saved taxpayers and landowners MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

That counts for something, doesn't it?

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

sealover wrote:
Government environmental regulators mandated "pH adjustment" of a very large volume of dredged sediments that had been exposed to oxidation in a storage area. This environmental chemotherapy was required because a scientifically illiterate individual believed they were "toxic".

After all, the sediments were strongly acidic. The pH was often as low as 4. They must be toxic, right?

They needed to be detoxified.

Beet lime, a highly soluble form of calcium carbon was applied liberally. The liming requirements were enormous. The target pH had to be at least 6.5.

The solubility of soil organic matter is highly pH dependent - more soluble at higher pH. Liming released a whole lot of soil organic matter into soluble form.

When the organic-carbon rich soil solution leached down into the low oxygen zone, the giant dose of organic carbon started a feeding frenzy.

Reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic by bacteria that consumed that organic carbon caused groundwater arsenic to increase 500%.

And the paranoid regulator thought the landowner illegally dumped arsenic herbicide and would have to be taken to the cleaners to clean it up.

Through an agonizing process, regulators were finally persuaded that there was no liability. Perhaps the fact that they were the ones who mandated the environmental chemotherapy had something to do with it.

But nobody wanted to talk about groundwater arsenic after that.

As part of an unbelievably expensive required investigation, more than 300 monitoring wells were installed and sampled for regular testing throughout a sub sea level (leveed off) delta island.

An enormous data set had already been collected, reports had been filed, and the regulators were satisfied that all was well.

That was all before I got there.

The people who prepared the reports excluded virtually all the data from the wells with highest arsenic.

Statisticians saw way too much variability within those wells and followed the official method for excluding the data based on its high variability.

That's seasonal variability for you.

So, buried deep in the appendix of the report was the complete original data set showing the exceptionally high arsenic. But none of that got into the main body of the report.

Years later, the botched "pH adjustment" brought arsenic to attention.

We had an incredible data set I could have published, just from the report for bureaucratic paperwork. The correlation between dissolved organic carbon and arsenic was highly significant. Nobody ever published that before. It was a chance to make an important contribution to science, with implications for environmental management and public health.

I didn't even have to go to the field or lab. All the data, methodology, etc. was already handed complete on a silver platter.

But it would have revealed too many controversial issues.

Nobody wanted that data or those findings to see the light of day in a scientific journal.

When my report was finally filed as a Technical Memorandum, it was years after the dust had settled. Even then a NEW paranoid regulator was sure that this was a major scandal. Just getting official approval for the Technical Memorandum was going to be over his dead body. He looked everywhere for evidence of the conspiracy and cover up and finally had to be overruled.

By then, biogeochemical discovery had gone stale. Others beat me to the punch publishing the correlation between dissolved organic carbon and arsenic.


Bureaucrats were already satisfied that ever
RE: Nothing Runs Like a Snake - Soil Sensor Catch and Kill.17-04-2022 05:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Nothing Runs Like a Snake - Soil Sensor Catch and Kill.

Variable rate technology can dramatically reduce the use of agricultural chemicals and improve yields at the same time.

"Farming by the foot" allows higher rates to be applied where higher rates are needed, while avoiding over application everywhere else.

In 1996 I was contracted by some aerospace engineers in a high tech start up to help develop a soil sensor for on the go variable rate fertilizer application.

The initial plan was to reverse engineer a device that turned out to be a scam.

We'll just call it "soil nurse".

It was a glorified salt meter.

It actually gave decent correlation to fertilizer needs in many cases, but all it was measuring was specific conductance.

But near infrared reflectance spectroscopy was showing great promise in research I was familiar with.

These engineers were freaking SMART. Combining hyperspectral imaging with the known wavelengths of near infrared absorption of major organic bonds.

All they needed then was a good calibration data set.

The variable of interest was total organic matter content, which correlated nicely with nitrogen supplying capacity.

But soil has a lot more than organic matter to interfere with near infrared spectroscopy. No one size fits all algorithm could be obtained from one single soil type.

So I found six different sites of agricultural soil to collect from.

Knowing the geologic parent material at each site to ensure a broad range of agricultural soil types.

Finding a site off the edge of each field under a tree.

Then collecting just the top six inches. One quarter inch at a time.

So, each soil set contained a range of organic matter content, highest at the top.

Each soil set contained a unique mineral matrix that was essentially uniform in the top six inches.

With that we had a sensor with an algorithm that could measure organic matter content across a broad range of soil types.

Got a very attractive offer from a major tractor company.

A contract would give them rights of first refusal.

They would finance it to the tune of millions if the prototype worked.

The prototype worked perfectly.

But it was catch and kill.

They had no intention of ever developing the sensor.

They just wanted to be sure that nobody else could.

Each year, there was a new excuse for the last minute budget change that required them to temporarily cut the funding for the sensor. Just for now.

After the third year passed, the US Navy bought it for an entirely different application. Now it can't even be used as a soil sensor because its military.

Nothing runs like a snake.


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



sealover wrote:
Rush was a funny guy.

He was a local celebrity here before he went national.

In the fall of 1998, he cited one of my discoveries on his show.

It had just been published in the journal Nature, but it wasn't my big one.

He used it as "proof" to support his assertion.

Humans are not responsible for eutrophication and fish kills in the reservoir.

It's actually Mother Nature's fault.

Rush loved it. It was more proof that he had been right all along.

Rush was a funny guy.

I loved it when he explained how climate change is a hoax.

He even had a graph illustrated with cartoons to prove it.

Mt. Pinatubo had emitted megatons of sun-blocking aerosols.

The earth had cooled for a year.

Rush showed us the scientific proof that global warming was a hoax.
17-04-2022 06:31
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4436)
Excuses, excuses... They own the device, not the technology used. You could have done another similar sensor, better the second time around... The reality was a limited use/application, of an over-engineered concept. Expensive to build/calibrate/train, with limited market. The results probably wasn't great enough to justify the expense or hassle, when fertilizer for the whole field was cheap. With hyper, liberal, inflation here to stay. Might be a good time to revisit. If you can do it cheap and simple (unlikely). Your ego demands that it be expensive, and to complicated for Joe farmer to afford or comprehend. But, you could send it over to China, where it will get re-engineer, simplified, China-fied, so anyone can buy something functionally as good, at a fraction the cost.

Manure story anyway. Farm soil is turned (plowed) deeper than 6 inches... Whole lot of stuff gets flung off to the side of fields. Shade trees, are also a great place to work on busted equipment, clean them off, drink some beer... Yeah, I spent a few summers in my youth.
17-04-2022 07:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12978)
squeal over wrote:The highest ranking bullshitter I ever confronted in federal court will remain nameless in this story.

The bad guys don't stand a chance when you arrive to save the day!

squeal over wrote: So, sealover is sworn in as an expert witness to testify in federal court.

Yesss! The government lit up the bat-signal and you answered! Thank you. It's a good thing we have you on our side.

Those bad guys, they make me so mad ...

squeal over wrote:Credentials and other irrefutable qualifications clarified.

Damn straight! Credentials! Clarified! I bet the bad guys were shaking in their boots.

(did you have the gamma-spec slung across your back?)

squeal over wrote:Using a citrate buffer, it is possible to extract alarmingly high concentrations of potentially toxic metals from dredged sediments exposed to oxidation.

Obviously, they cause Climate Change and they acidify the ocean.

squeal over wrote:When squeal over pointed out that citrate anion formed an inner sphere chelation complex with the potentially toxic metals of concern, the look on Dr. BS face was worth a million dollars.

You had him dead to rights!

squeal over wrote:
"squeal over" pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, and the jury agreed.
A landowner was spared MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF USELESS MITIGATION COSTS.

All thanks to you and your heart of gold. We need a million of you ... and a million times the spam. That would make the world complete.

On behalf of the entire planet for whom I speak, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Is there any way humanity can repay you?
Attached image:

RE: Proof that it is just a LIE21-04-2022 02:46
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Proof that is is just a LIE

It is VERY EASY to find this publication.

Anyone with basic knowledge of science could make sense of it.

Ad hominem attacks based on the FALSE ACCUSATION of LYING.

Pretty sleazy.

Is it because the buzzwords are too hard to understand, or just an unwillingness to engage in honest debate.

Yo! Trolls who pretend to understand science. This should be EASY to tear apart and prove what a LIAR sealover is.

Or, better still, try to understand it and then ask meaningful questions.

Maybe you could learn something about geologic nitrogen as a source of eutrophication, hypoxia, and massive fish kills in surface waters.

Wouldn't it be cool to know more about the natural world?

And Rush REALLY DID praise this work.

I have had many many opportunities to call one poster or another a "liar".

I figure that the truth in those cases is so self evident, there is no need for me to point it out.

Still, isn't anyone at all interested in learning more about some of nature's secrets that have been discovered in recent years?

"Science is not papers", right?

Proof that it is just a LIE.

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

sealover wrote:
What Rush Limbaugh Cited as Mother Nature's Fault. Reference.

1998. Contribution of bedrock nitrogen to high nitrate in stream water.
Nature. 395:785-788.

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































Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Nice piece of fiction. Is there a purpose to this story?


sealover wrote:
...deleted fiction...
But sometimes humans try to blame Mother Nature when it's really our fault.
...deleted fiction...

What is?
21-04-2022 03:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12978)
squeal over wrote:It is VERY EASY to find this publication.

... and yet you cannot.

Let us know when you can find it, and post a link.

squeal over wrote:Anyone with basic knowledge of science could make sense of it.

... and yet you cannot.

Let us know when you can address the topic without having to bluff your way through by inventing buzzwords as placeholders for the concepts you don't understand.

Cheers!
Attached image:

RE: To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.01-05-2022 22:36
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.

Ronald Reagan ensured that there was plenty of funding for the National Science Foundation to provide grants for acidic deposition research.

The cynical interpretation was that he was just stalling for time.

Claim that no policy decisions could be made until the research was complete, and then just drag out the research for years and years.

But Reagan believed in science, mostly.

He had been convinced that the research would vindicate the choice to do nothing.

He had been given bad advice by bad advisors which led him to believe that the whole "acid rain" thing was just hype.

When the jury came in with the verdict, Reagan respected it.

Major policy changes were then supported by Reagan to mitigate acidic deposition.

And the NSF paid the costs for me to get a degree.

I never agreed with the man's ideology, but I respect the honest.

The Grievance Obsessed Party (GOP) could use another Ronald Reagan.

The "base" would never vote for a man like him again.

To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.
RE: Also, to Reagan's credit, the OZONE LAYER.02-05-2022 00:17
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
Also, to Reagan's credit, the OZONE LAYER.

It is kind of ironic that two presidents that I grew up hating for their vicious policies leave a legacy major environmental accomplishments.

Richard Nixon gave us the EPA, clean water act, and more.

Ronald Reagan may have accomplished more than any man on Earth to protect the ozone layer.

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

sealover wrote:
To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.

Ronald Reagan ensured that there was plenty of funding for the National Science Foundation to provide grants for acidic deposition research.

The cynical interpretation was that he was just stalling for time.

Claim that no policy decisions could be made until the research was complete, and then just drag out the research for years and years.

But Reagan believed in science, mostly.

He had been convinced that the research would vindicate the choice to do nothing.

He had been given bad advice by bad advisors which led him to believe that the whole "acid rain" thing was just hype.

When the jury came in with the verdict, Reagan respected it.

Major policy changes were then supported by Reagan to mitigate acidic deposition.

And the NSF paid the costs for me to get a degree.

I never agreed with the man's ideology, but I respect the honest.

The Grievance Obsessed Party (GOP) could use another Ronald Reagan.

The "base" would never vote for a man like him again.

To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.
02-05-2022 00:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12978)
sealover wrote:
To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.

But Reagan believed in science, mostly.

I never agreed with the man's ideology, but I respect the honest.

To Reagan's credit, he DID respect science and truth.

... but you didn't even want to receive recognition from him to honor your achievements ... because then you might have to shake his hand which would certainly make your soul wither and die right there on the spot.

You are certainly one of the most dishonest, two-faced morons I have encountered.
02-05-2022 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19779)
Im a BM wrote:
Also, to Reagan's credit, the OZONE LAYER.

Reagan didn't create the ozone layer.
Im a BM wrote:
Richard Nixon gave us the EPA, clean water act, and more.

The EPA is not only unconstitutional, it has not cleaned up anything in the entire history of its existence. NONE of it is science.
Im a BM wrote:
Ronald Reagan may have accomplished more than any man on Earth to protect the ozone layer.

The ozone layer does not need protecting. Banning R-12 does nothing for the ozone layer. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on oxygen. It is destroyed by sunlight acting on ozone.

R-12 in a tank of ozone does not react.

As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. There is nothing we can do to prevent or harm the ozone layer.


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 02-05-2022 22:45
RE: Why do you hate Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon?04-05-2022 00:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Why do you hate Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon?

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

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Also, to Reagan's credit, the OZONE LAYER.

Reagan didn't create the ozone layer.
Im a BM wrote:
Richard Nixon gave us the EPA, clean water act, and more.

The EPA is not only unconstitutional, it has not cleaned up anything in the entire history of its existence. NONE of it is science.
Im a BM wrote:
Ronald Reagan may have accomplished more than any man on Earth to protect the ozone layer.

The ozone layer does not need protecting. Banning R-12 does nothing for the ozone layer. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on oxygen. It is destroyed by sunlight acting on ozone.

R-12 in a tank of ozone does not react.

As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. There is nothing we can do to prevent or harm the ozone layer.
RE: Clearing deep rooted perennials for pasture - a missed opportunity.09-05-2022 10:15
sealover
★★★☆☆
(805)
Clearing deep rooted perennials for pasture - a missed opportunity.

I completed my part of the investigation in 1995, but the paper didn't come out until 1998. At least they acknowledged my initial field work.

Finding the first nitrogen rich tributary was an accident. Following it upstream for the most nitrogen rich one of all was deliberate.

Rattlesnake Creek was unusual. The trees had fine roots branching into the water. Tons of them.

The chaparral vegetation had been cleared for pasture in that part of the watershed. The deep rooted perennials had been replaced with shallow rooted annual grasses and shrubs.

Human activity had removed the natural mechanism that intercepted the nitrogen released from the weathering bedrock.

Without deep roots to pick it up, ammonium released from bedrock was oxidized to nitrate, a highly mobile anion that found its way into subsurface flow and eventually into surface water such as Rattlesnake Creek.

There was a reason the eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills had not happened in previous decades. Humans hadn't cleared the chaparral yet.

But all they really had proof for was that the bedrock was the source of nitrogen getting into the reservoir.

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

sealover wrote:
What Rush Limbaugh Cited as Mother Nature's Fault. Reference.

1998. Contribution of bedrock nitrogen to high nitrate in stream water.
Nature. 395:785-788.

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































Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Nice piece of fiction. Is there a purpose to this story?


sealover wrote:
...deleted fiction...
But sometimes humans try to blame Mother Nature when it's really our fault.
...deleted fiction...

What is?
09-05-2022 10:46
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Lots of natural waterways have been affected by clearing and mining however since Earth day 1970 a lot of waterways have been restored and even improved.Some even stocked with recreational fish.
10-05-2022 01:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19779)
sealover wrote:
Clearing deep rooted perennials for pasture - a missed opportunity.

I completed my part of the investigation in 1995, but the paper didn't come out until 1998. At least they acknowledged my initial field work.

Making up shit again. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Finding the first nitrogen rich tributary was an accident. Following it upstream for the most nitrogen rich one of all was deliberate.

Rattlesnake Creek was unusual. The trees had fine roots branching into the water. Tons of them.

The chaparral vegetation had been cleared for pasture in that part of the watershed. The deep rooted perennials had been replaced with shallow rooted annual grasses and shrubs.

Human activity had removed the natural mechanism that intercepted the nitrogen released from the weathering bedrock.

Nitrogen is a gas in the atmosphere.
sealover wrote:
Without deep roots to pick it up, ammonium released from bedrock was oxidized to nitrate, a highly mobile anion that found its way into subsurface flow and eventually into surface water such as Rattlesnake Creek.

No such chemicals.
sealover wrote:
There was a reason the eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills had not happened in previous decades. Humans hadn't cleared the chaparral yet.

But all they really had proof for was that the bedrock was the source of nitrogen getting into the reservoir.

Nitrogen is a gas in the atmosphere.

You are just making shit up again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Other places where chromium will come back to haunt us12-05-2022 22:42
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
Other places where chromium will come back to haunt us.

Hexavalent chromium was widely used in the past for many purposes.

Virtually all of it was reduced to the harmless form, chromium-3.

In most places where it got disposed of, it was accompanied by a lot of organic carbon, with additional organic carbon continuously added.

The hazard now it that the supply of fresh organic carbon has been cut off.

Most of the septic tanks that kept adding new organic carbon to subsurface flow paths are no longer operating.

Many of the landfill sites where chromium-3 is bound to organic matter, along with manganese(II), are no longer receiving new material, with its fresh organic carbon content.

As the humic-bound chromium-3 and manganese(II) has its organic matrix decomposed, both metals become free to oxidize.

As manganese(II) oxidizes to manganese(IV) through microbial metabolism, there is a tiny bit of by-product manganese(VII).

Manganese(VII) is a powerful enough oxidant to abiotically transform chromium-3 into hexavalent chromium.

Hexavalent chromium will start showing up in groundwater where they never saw it before, decades after the initial disposal of anthropogenic Cr-6.

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

The good thing about "fiction" is that it can't get you prosecuted for violating non disclosure agreements.

In the previous story about groundwater arsenic, there was hazardous material of genuinely natural origin. Humans were being falsely accused of being responsible.

Rush Limbaugh loved that we showed humans were being falsely accused of causing eutrophication, hypoxia, and occasional massive fish kills in a reservoir.

But sometimes humans try to blame Mother Nature when it's really our fault.

It doesn't help if an overzealous biogeochemist wants to make their career being the first to show "natural" hexavalent chromium in any groundwater outside of a desert.

Trust me, it wasn't me. My part was ten years earlier.

My job was to use Gamma Spec and Beta Scint to measure radium and strontium 90. And to use x-ray fluorescence to measure lead, mercury, and chromium.

These particular samples didn't come from the radioactive zone. They were from the leaching field by the old septic tank.

They showed very high chromium.

But chromium wasn't an issue. No hexavalent Cr had ever been found in any groundwater samples.

I dutifully reported the numbers. Even took it upon myself to get additional samples from inside the old septic tank and from the leaching field area.

x-ray fluoresesclej... I can't even spell today. XRF showed chromium more than ten times higher in those samples than anywhere else on the site.

x-ray fluorescence is a rapid convenient tool, but it can only see the very surface of soil particles. It picks up atoms in surface coatings on soil particles, but can't see inside the crystal lattice of a rock mineral.

I dutifully reported my findings. A higher up looked into it.

Well, the soil in this area is naturally rich in chromium.

In fact, if the most extreme digestion procedure is used to extract every last atom of chromium, the numbers were similar to what I was getting with XRF.

But XRF doesn't extract every atom. That's why all the other samples showed chromium only a tenth as high. Even though an extreme digestion would have been able to get the same ten times higher number in all.

It was over my head. Nothing to chase here. Besides, there's never been an issue with chromium at the site. They were only testing it because they had to.

Nothing to see here. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

The XRF was able to see the anthropogenic chromium because it had deposited as the uppermost layer in coatings on soil surfaces.

Ten years later, they finally got their hexavalent chromium in groundwater problem. And it kept getting worse.

And another scientist thought this was so cool because he could prove that naturally occurring hexavalent chromium was being found for the first time in an environment not at the margins of a desert.

And they stuck to their guns. And they "remediated" with calcium polysulfide.

Temporary reduction in hex chrome as the powerful reductant Ca polysulfide turned it back into chromium(III).

The reductant also turned a bunch of Mn(IV) back into Mn(II).

When aerobic conditions were reestablished, the Mn(II) oxidized back to Mn(IV). Some by product Mn(VII), a very powerful oxidant, then oxidized some of the chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium.

Now the groundwater hex chrome was even higher than before they "fixed" it.

But it was "natural". So don't bother checking back up the subsurface flow path from that old septic system. We know it wasn't anthropogenic.

We'll just have to do some more environmental chemotherapy with polysulfide.[/quote]
13-05-2022 00:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19779)
Im a BM wrote:
Other places where chromium will come back to haunt us.

Hexavalent chromium was widely used in the past for many purposes.

Virtually all of it was reduced to the harmless form, chromium-3.

In most places where it got disposed of, it was accompanied by a lot of organic carbon, with additional organic carbon continuously added.

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
The hazard now it that the supply of fresh organic carbon has been cut off.

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Most of the septic tanks that kept adding new organic carbon to subsurface flow paths are no longer operating.

Carbon isn't organic. You have no idea how a septic system works.
Im a BM wrote:
Many of the landfill sites where chromium-3 is bound to organic matter, along with manganese(II), are no longer receiving new material, with its fresh organic carbon content.

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
As the humic-bound chromium-3 and manganese(II) has its organic matrix decomposed, both metals become free to oxidize.

Manganese isn't a matrix. A matrix isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
As manganese(II) oxidizes to manganese(IV) through microbial metabolism, there is a tiny bit of by-product manganese(VII).

Manganese(VII) is a powerful enough oxidant to abiotically transform chromium-3 into hexavalent chromium.

Manganese isn't oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
Hexavalent chromium will start showing up in groundwater where they never saw it before, decades after the initial disposal of anthropogenic Cr-6.

You're in the SDTC. The SDTC has very little groundwater to worry about.


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: note to SD at bottom of post13-05-2022 00:10
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
Im a BM wrote:
Other places where chromium will come back to haunt us.

Hexavalent chromium was widely used in the past for many purposes.

Virtually all of it was reduced to the harmless form, chromium-3.

In most places where it got disposed of, it was accompanied by a lot of organic carbon, with additional organic carbon continuously added.

The hazard now it that the supply of fresh organic carbon has been cut off.

Most of the septic tanks that kept adding new organic carbon to subsurface flow paths are no longer operating.

Many of the landfill sites where chromium-3 is bound to organic matter, along with manganese(II), are no longer receiving new material, with its fresh organic carbon content.

As the humic-bound chromium-3 and manganese(II) has its organic matrix decomposed, both metals become free to oxidize.

As manganese(II) oxidizes to manganese(IV) through microbial metabolism, there is a tiny bit of by-product manganese(VII).

Manganese(VII) is a powerful enough oxidant to abiotically transform chromium-3 into hexavalent chromium.

Hexavalent chromium will start showing up in groundwater where they never saw it before, decades after the initial disposal of anthropogenic Cr-6.

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

The good thing about "fiction" is that it can't get you prosecuted for violating non disclosure agreements.

In the previous story about groundwater arsenic, there was hazardous material of genuinely natural origin. Humans were being falsely accused of being responsible.

Rush Limbaugh loved that we showed humans were being falsely accused of causing eutrophication, hypoxia, and occasional massive fish kills in a reservoir.

But sometimes humans try to blame Mother Nature when it's really our fault.

It doesn't help if an overzealous biogeochemist wants to make their career being the first to show "natural" hexavalent chromium in any groundwater outside of a desert.

Trust me, it wasn't me. My part was ten years earlier.

My job was to use Gamma Spec and Beta Scint to measure radium and strontium 90. And to use x-ray fluorescence to measure lead, mercury, and chromium.

These particular samples didn't come from the radioactive zone. They were from the leaching field by the old septic tank.

They showed very high chromium.

But chromium wasn't an issue. No hexavalent Cr had ever been found in any groundwater samples.

I dutifully reported the numbers. Even took it upon myself to get additional samples from inside the old septic tank and from the leaching field area.

x-ray fluoresesclej... I can't even spell today. XRF showed chromium more than ten times higher in those samples than anywhere else on the site.

x-ray fluorescence is a rapid convenient tool, but it can only see the very surface of soil particles. It picks up atoms in surface coatings on soil particles, but can't see inside the crystal lattice of a rock mineral.

I dutifully reported my findings. A higher up looked into it.

Well, the soil in this area is naturally rich in chromium.

In fact, if the most extreme digestion procedure is used to extract every last atom of chromium, the numbers were similar to what I was getting with XRF.

But XRF doesn't extract every atom. That's why all the other samples showed chromium only a tenth as high. Even though an extreme digestion would have been able to get the same ten times higher number in all.

It was over my head. Nothing to chase here. Besides, there's never been an issue with chromium at the site. They were only testing it because they had to.

Nothing to see here. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

The XRF was able to see the anthropogenic chromium because it had deposited as the uppermost layer in coatings on soil surfaces.

Ten years later, they finally got their hexavalent chromium in groundwater problem. And it kept getting worse.

And another scientist thought this was so cool because he could prove that naturally occurring hexavalent chromium was being found for the first time in an environment not at the margins of a desert.

And they stuck to their guns. And they "remediated" with calcium polysulfide.

Temporary reduction in hex chrome as the powerful reductant Ca polysulfide turned it back into chromium(III).

The reductant also turned a bunch of Mn(IV) back into Mn(II).

When aerobic conditions were reestablished, the Mn(II) oxidized back to Mn(IV). Some by product Mn(VII), a very powerful oxidant, then oxidized some of the chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium.

Now the groundwater hex chrome was even higher than before they "fixed" it.

But it was "natural". So don't bother checking back up the subsurface flow path from that old septic system. We know it wasn't anthropogenic.

We'll just have to do some more environmental chemotherapy with polysulfide.
[/quote]

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

note to SD

This particular thread includes more than just the local hexavalent Cr thing.

It also covers groundwater arsenic in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, and methyl mercury generation upstream of Cache Creek.

And, as the first post indicates, geologic nitrogen in the Mokelumne River.
RE: 2nd note to SD - methyl mercury on different thread13-05-2022 08:49
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
2nd note to SD - methyl mercury in different thread

A different thread, called "Maximizing carbon sequestration in wetlands", which was started on March 11, includes the methyl mercury to Cache Creek stuff

The post is titled "Chemical pitfalls of new wetlands", just before mid March.

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

note to SD

This particular thread includes more than just the local hexavalent Cr thing.

It also covers groundwater arsenic in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, and methyl mercury generation upstream of Cache Creek.

And, as the first post indicates, geologic nitrogen in the Mokelumne River.[/quote]
13-05-2022 20:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12978)
Im a BM wrote:This particular thread includes more than just the local hexavalent Cr thing.

It also covers groundwater arsenic in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, and methyl mercury generation upstream of Cache Creek.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 13-05-2022 20:37
RE: Wild ideas in science are not always wrong.14-05-2022 05:46
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
Wild ideas in science are not always wrong.

The first post of this thread (below) was about a surprise discovery that was published in the journal Nature in 1998.

It turned out that ammonium contained in bedrock was the source of nitrate entering surface waters to periodically cause eutrophication, hypoxia, and massive fish kills in a northern California reservoir that was a major source of drinking water in the east Bay.

The nitrate didn't get picked up by the river until it came down to a very narrow zone of elevation in the area known as the "Mother Lode" during the California Gold rush.

Before I came to work with RD a few years before this discovery, he had already published another surprise discovery in the journal Nature about another site where ammonium in bedrock was causing extreme soil acidification in a relatively small area of watershed.

When oxygen is present, bacteria oxidize ammonium to nitrite, then others oxidize nitrite to nitric acid (hydrogen nitrate). This nitric acid made a the soil in part of a watershed extremely acidic. That issue of Nature selected this paper as one considered important enough for a separate review article titled "California acid rock".

What did the Mother Lode and this other site have in common?

They were in the narrow range of altitude in the lower Sierras where the bedrock is comprised of uplifted sea floor sediments that only experienced low grade metamorphism. These sea floor sediments were loaded with the remains of dead microorganisms full of organic carbon and nitrogen. Low grade metamorphism wasn't enough to bake out the nitrogen or squeeze it out, so it remained as ammonium.

RD loved to quote his former mentor as saying that to make big advances in science, "You cannot think rationally. You have to think irrationally."

You have to set aside the biases of what was assumed to be true.

None the textbooks with lists of sources of nitrogen known to enter waters included rocks as a potential suspect.

But when the geologic map revealed the very same metasedimentary rock formation underlying both sites, the irrational became the obvious.

Reflexive naysayers, even on this very project, insisted it was not possible.

They were overruled by the evidence when the chemical analysis of the rocks came back from the lab.

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

sealover wrote:
Rush was a funny guy.

He was a local celebrity here before he went national.

In the fall of 1998, he cited one of my discoveries on his show.

It had just been published in the journal Nature, but it wasn't my big one.

He used it as "proof" to support his assertion.

Humans are not responsible for eutrophication and fish kills in the reservoir.

It's actually Mother Nature's fault.

Rush loved it. It was more proof that he had been right all along.

Rush was a funny guy.

I loved it when he explained how climate change is a hoax.

He even had a graph illustrated with cartoons to prove it.

Mt. Pinatubo had emitted megatons of sun-blocking aerosols.

The earth had cooled for a year.

Rush showed us the scientific proof that global warming was a hoax.
14-05-2022 05:59
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
And I'm pursuing an experiment in atmospheric chemistry based on research, the lack of a conclusion and Occam's Razor. The lack of a conclusion allows for a hypothesis based on what could allow for a hypothetical conclusion.
This would show where allowing for an accepted scientific philosophy to be used is within what science allows for and is a part of its basis. It's almost like science needs to be reminded of one of its founding principles.


Im a BM wrote:
Wild ideas in science are not always wrong.

The first post of this thread (below) was about a surprise discovery that was published in the journal Nature in 1998.

It turned out that ammonium contained in bedrock was the source of nitrate entering surface waters to periodically cause eutrophication, hypoxia, and massive fish kills in a northern California reservoir that was a major source of drinking water in the east Bay.

The nitrate didn't get picked up by the river until it came down to a very narrow zone of elevation in the area known as the "Mother Lode" during the California Gold rush.

Before I came to work with RD a few years before this discovery, he had already published another surprise discovery in the journal Nature about another site where ammonium in bedrock was causing extreme soil acidification in a relatively small area of watershed.

When oxygen is present, bacteria oxidize ammonium to nitrite, then others oxidize nitrite to nitric acid (hydrogen nitrate). This nitric acid made a the soil in part of a watershed extremely acidic. That issue of Nature selected this paper as one considered important enough for a separate review article titled "California acid rock".

What did the Mother Lode and this other site have in common?

They were in the narrow range of altitude in the lower Sierras where the bedrock is comprised of uplifted sea floor sediments that only experienced low grade metamorphism. These sea floor sediments were loaded with the remains of dead microorganisms full of organic carbon and nitrogen. Low grade metamorphism wasn't enough to bake out the nitrogen or squeeze it out, so it remained as ammonium.

RD loved to quote his former mentor as saying that to make big advances in science, "You cannot think rationally. You have to think irrationally."

You have to set aside the biases of what was assumed to be true.

None the textbooks with lists of sources of nitrogen known to enter waters included rocks as a potential suspect.

But when the geologic map revealed the very same metasedimentary rock formation underlying both sites, the irrational became the obvious.

Reflexive naysayers, even on this very project, insisted it was not possible.

They were overruled by the evidence when the chemical analysis of the rocks came back from the lab.

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

sealover wrote:
Rush was a funny guy.

He was a local celebrity here before he went national.

In the fall of 1998, he cited one of my discoveries on his show.

It had just been published in the journal Nature, but it wasn't my big one.

He used it as "proof" to support his assertion.

Humans are not responsible for eutrophication and fish kills in the reservoir.

It's actually Mother Nature's fault.

Rush loved it. It was more proof that he had been right all along.

Rush was a funny guy.

I loved it when he explained how climate change is a hoax.

He even had a graph illustrated with cartoons to prove it.

Mt. Pinatubo had emitted megatons of sun-blocking aerosols.

The earth had cooled for a year.

Rush showed us the scientific proof that global warming was a hoax.
14-05-2022 19:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19779)
Im a BM wrote:
Wild ideas in science are not always wrong.

The first post of this thread (below) was about a surprise discovery that was published in the journal Nature in 1998.

Science isn't a magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
It turned out that ammonium

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
contained in bedrock was the source of nitrate

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
entering surface waters to periodically cause eutrophication, hypoxia, and massive fish kills in a northern California reservoir that was a major source of drinking water in the east Bay.

Doomsday scenario.
Im a BM wrote:
The nitrate

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
didn't get picked up by the river until it came down to a very narrow zone of elevation in the area known as the "Mother Lode" during the California Gold rush.

Can't wash a buzzword down a river.
Im a BM wrote:
Before I came to work with RD a few years before this discovery, he had already published another surprise discovery in the journal Nature about another site where ammonium

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
in bedrock was causing extreme soil acidification

You can't acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
in a relatively small area of watershed.

When oxygen is present, bacteria oxidize ammonium

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
to nitrite,

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
then others oxidize nitrite

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
to nitric acid (hydrogen nitrate). This nitric acid made a the soil in part of a watershed extremely acidic. That issue of Nature selected this paper as one considered important enough for a separate review article titled "California acid rock".

You can't make acid out of non-chemicals.
Im a BM wrote:
What did the Mother Lode and this other site have in common?

They were in the narrow range of altitude in the lower Sierras where the bedrock is comprised of uplifted sea floor sediments that only experienced low grade metamorphism. These sea floor sediments were loaded with the remains of dead microorganisms full of organic carbon

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
and nitrogen.

Nitrogen is a gas.
Im a BM wrote:
Low grade metamorphism wasn't enough to bake out the nitrogen

You don't have to bake out a gas.
Im a BM wrote:
or squeeze it out, so it remained as ammonium.

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
RD loved to quote his former mentor as saying that to make big advances in science, "You cannot think rationally. You have to think irrationally."

You have to set aside the biases of what was assumed to be true.

None the textbooks with lists of sources of nitrogen known to enter waters included rocks as a potential suspect.

But when the geologic map revealed the very same metasedimentary rock formation underlying both sites, the irrational became the obvious.

Paradox.
Im a BM wrote:
Reflexive naysayers, even on this very project, insisted it was not possible.

They were overruled by the evidence when the chemical analysis of the rocks came back from the lab.

What evidence?? Fiction.


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
14-05-2022 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19779)
James_ wrote:
And I'm pursuing an experiment in atmospheric chemistry based on research,

Chemistry isn't research
James_ wrote:
the lack of a conclusion and Occam's Razor.

Chemistry isn't a conclusion or Occam's Razor.
James_ wrote:
The lack of a conclusion allows for a hypothesis based on what could allow for a hypothetical conclusion.

A hypothesis comes from a theory, not the other way around.
James_ wrote:
This would show where allowing for an accepted scientific philosophy

Science isn't a branch of philosophy.
James_ wrote:
to be used is within what science allows for and is a part of its basis.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all it allows for.
James_ wrote:
It's almost like science needs to be reminded of one of its founding principles.

There are no 'founding principles'. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.


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 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Rush Limbaugh cited one of my discoveries on his show:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
B-17 and Bell King Cobra collided at Dallas air show today. Story at 11013-11-2022 01:38
Thwarting the Warmizombies' Rush to Wikipedia6408-08-2021 05:10
The Recent Floods In Europe & Fire In Frozen America Show How Stupid Their Government Are118-07-2021 20:36
I The Messiah Will Help The Jewish Zionism Group Have Their Final Settlement If They Show Desire603-02-2021 21:24
Limbaugh Is Suggesting Secession1113-12-2020 21:06
▲ 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