Remember me
▼ Content

Rush Limbaugh cited one of my discoveries on his show



Page 1 of 212>
Rush Limbaugh cited one of my discoveries on his show12-03-2022 10:22
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
RE: Natural Arsenic - Regulators blame landowner12-03-2022 10:52
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Government oversight in environmental regulation can be pretty friggin' stupid sometimes.

Some of those guys are actually on a personal vendetta, seeking to blame landowners for things beyond their control.

A few of them.. Fortunately they are the rare exceptions, but a few of them even believe that there is a conspiracy of deception to cover the misdeeds of evil land owners.

My participation began when the landowner was severely punished for doing a good deed.

They had provided dredged sediment, truckloads of it on an emergency basis, to fill in the breach of a levee break. A town was saved from flooding.

An overzealous regulator with no comprehension of science then concluded that the sediments were actually toxic.

Incredibly expensive "remediation" would be required to address the imaginary problem.

We proved that the sediments were harmless, but not until after regulator mandated "pH adjustment" had caused groundwater arsenic to skyrocket.

Then we had to prove that the landowner hadn't dumped arsenic-based pesticides anywhere near where they could have reached groundwater.

The regulator was sure it was all a cover up.

It is very difficult to teach science to someone who has gone so far down the rabbit hole with their belief in evil conspiracies.
RE: Environmental regulator stupidity 2nd exhibit12-03-2022 11:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Government oversight in environmental regulation has its drawbacks.

Imagine a Superfund site being cleared of the most dangerous materials scientists ever played with.

Now you have to backfill it with something.

How about this pristine virgin soil from site X?

Technically, it's not good enough. The naturally occurring materials in it exceed the standard for pristine.

What about soil from site Y? Site Z?

No. You're going to have to buy something a lot more expensive than that.
12-03-2022 17:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Imagine a Superfund site being cleared of the most dangerous materials scientists ever played with.

I can't imagine it without knowing what you consider to be scientists' most dangerous toys.

sealover wrote:Now you have to backfill it with something.

Have to? Backfill? Do you not speak English?

sealover wrote:How about this pristine virgin soil from site X?

I don't eat soil. How about a BBQ restaurant that offers beef ribs and peanut butter chicken?

sealover wrote:Technically, it's not good enough.

You can put lipstick on soil but in the end, it's still soil. What people want are beef ribs and peanut butter chicken.

sealover wrote:The naturally occurring materials in it exceed the standard for pristine.

That's why you order your beef medium rare and your chicken well-cooked.

sealover wrote:What about soil from site Y? Site Z?

Same problem. Get beef ribs and chicken instead from site Y or site Z.

sealover wrote:No. You're going to have to buy something a lot more expensive than that.

Well, beef and chicken tend to cost more than soil. I don't see any way around that.
12-03-2022 20:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

Science is not a proof.


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
12-03-2022 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Government oversight in environmental regulation can be pretty friggin' stupid sometimes.

Some of those guys are actually on a personal vendetta, seeking to blame landowners for things beyond their control.

A few of them.. Fortunately they are the rare exceptions, but a few of them even believe that there is a conspiracy of deception to cover the misdeeds of evil land owners.

My participation began when the landowner was severely punished for doing a good deed.

They had provided dredged sediment, truckloads of it on an emergency basis, to fill in the breach of a levee break. A town was saved from flooding.

An overzealous regulator with no comprehension of science then concluded that the sediments were actually toxic.

Incredibly expensive "remediation" would be required to address the imaginary problem.

We proved that the sediments were harmless, but not until after regulator mandated "pH adjustment" had caused groundwater arsenic to skyrocket.

Then we had to prove that the landowner hadn't dumped arsenic-based pesticides anywhere near where they could have reached groundwater.

The regulator was sure it was all a cover up.

It is very difficult to teach science to someone who has gone so far down the rabbit hole with their belief in evil conspiracies.

Not science.


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: aren't you supposed to call me a liar?13-03-2022 03:43
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Imagine a Superfund site being cleared of the most dangerous materials scientists ever played with.

I can't imagine it without knowing what you consider to be scientists' most dangerous toys.

sealover wrote:Now you have to backfill it with something.

Have to? Backfill? Do you not speak English?

sealover wrote:How about this pristine virgin soil from site X?

I don't eat soil. How about a BBQ restaurant that offers beef ribs and peanut butter chicken?

sealover wrote:Technically, it's not good enough.

You can put lipstick on soil but in the end, it's still soil. What people want are beef ribs and peanut butter chicken.

sealover wrote:The naturally occurring materials in it exceed the standard for pristine.

That's why you order your beef medium rare and your chicken well-cooked.

sealover wrote:What about soil from site Y? Site Z?

Same problem. Get beef ribs and chicken instead from site Y or site Z.

sealover wrote:No. You're going to have to buy something a lot more expensive than that.

Well, beef and chicken tend to cost more than soil. I don't see any way around that.


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

Seems like an opportunity was squandered to call me a liar.

No way could Rush Limbaugh have ever cited my work, right?

An opportunity was squandered to remind me that my nefarious conspiratorial plans are no secret.

More proof of puppethood to masters who wish to denigrate a great American hero.
RE: Tragedy of Overzealous Regulation exhibit 313-03-2022 05:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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
13-03-2022 06:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Seems like an opportunity was squandered to call me a liar.

Seems like you squandered an opportunity to define your terms.

sealover wrote:No way could Rush Limbaugh have ever cited my work, right?

Did Rush provide any unambiguous definitions for your terms?

sealover wrote:An opportunity was squandered to remind me that pure water is not alkaline.

OK, pure water has a pH of 7. It is neutral.
RE: please define your terms13-03-2022 08:48
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Seems like an opportunity was squandered to call me a liar.

Seems like you squandered an opportunity to define your terms.

sealover wrote:No way could Rush Limbaugh have ever cited my work, right?

Did Rush provide any unambiguous definitions for your terms?

sealover wrote:An opportunity was squandered to remind me that pure water is not alkaline.

OK, pure water has a pH of 7. It is neutral.


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

Please define your terms.

What is "alkalinity"?

How do you know what numbers to use for it?

Like so many measurements in chemistry, alkalinity is operationally defined. It is usually acid neutralizing capacity measured in a titration. But then that measure must be converted into some kind of number, right?

Are alkalinity "units" reported as pH? you have never defined your terms. The multiple references to pH suggest that you have no idea what alkalinity is.
RE: Can pH 6 solution have high alkalinity?13-03-2022 08:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Seems like an opportunity was squandered to call me a liar.

Seems like you squandered an opportunity to define your terms.

sealover wrote:No way could Rush Limbaugh have ever cited my work, right?

Did Rush provide any unambiguous definitions for your terms?

sealover wrote:An opportunity was squandered to remind me that pure water is not alkaline.

OK, pure water has a pH of 7. It is neutral.


======================================

Defining terms:

Yes or no.

Is a pH 6 solution alkaline?

Is it in any way possible for a pH 6 solution to have very high alkalinity?
RE: hint13-03-2022 09:03
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Seems like an opportunity was squandered to call me a liar.

Seems like you squandered an opportunity to define your terms.

sealover wrote:No way could Rush Limbaugh have ever cited my work, right?

Did Rush provide any unambiguous definitions for your terms?

sealover wrote:An opportunity was squandered to remind me that pure water is not alkaline.

OK, pure water has a pH of 7. It is neutral.


======================================

Here's a hint.

Most groundwater has pH < 7.

Most groundwater has relatively high alkalinity. (want to learn the units?)

Very few groundwaters have low alkalinity.

No groundwater anywhere has zero alkalinty.

Defining terms:

Yes or no.

Is a pH 6 solution alkaline?

Is it in any way possible for a pH 6 solution to have very high alkalinity?
13-03-2022 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Please define your terms. What is "alkalinity"?

I see that you don't quite get this honest discussion thing.

The one making an affirmative argument bears the full burden of support. Nobody else bears any burden to somehow show your argument to be false. You therefore bear the full responsibility to clarify any uncertainty and to promptly fulfill all requests to unambiguously define terms you use.

You are the one making an affirmative argument. I am not.

sealover wrote:How do you know what numbers to use for it?

Why are you pretending to comment on a topic you understand so poorly that you cannot define the terms you use?

If I had been the one choosing to discuss alkalinity, I would have defined it right up front. Right up front. If you had done so, you could have defined it as independent of pH (as you wish to do) and then even branched into the alkalinity of pure water.

However, you refused all requests for clarification and unambiguous definitions while being totally dishonest on every other front. As such, I have no inclination to help you be better understood, even if I know what you mean.

Pro Tip: Start over. Define alkalinity chemically, as you were previously alluding, as simply the sum of phosphates, bicarbonates and carbonates minus hydronium. Then point out that pH is not mentioned and then proceed with your point.

Pro Tip: Have a point. Don't spew trivia as a method of preaching a religion..

sealover wrote:Like so many measurements in chemistry, alkalinity is operationally defined.

Nope. It's chemically defined.

sealover wrote:It is usually acid neutralizing capacity measured in a titration.

You are making the rookie mistake of confusing the chemical definition with the process for measuring a specific instance. Marxists are quite poor at discerning class from members of the class.

You get unlimited do-overs. Take one.
RE: organic alkalinity alone can be 25%13-03-2022 22:52
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Please define your terms.

[quote]sealover wrote:How do you know what numbers to use for it?

Pro Tip: Start over. Define alkalinity chemically, as you were previously alluding, as simply the sum of phosphates, bicarbonates and carbonates minus hydronium.
.


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

Yes, I have been "alluding" to a chemical definition of alkalinity.

"simply the sum of phosphates, bicarbonates and carbonates minus hydronium"

WRONG!

You got some of the most important ones.

But nobody tries to sum them up.

they don't measure total phosphate and add that to total bicarbonate and total carbonate to have some kind of mystery unit number for alkalinity.

What phosphate, bicarbonate, and carbonate all have in common is that they are oxyanions that can accept a proton, thereby neutralizing acidity.

These three oxyanions all contribute acid neutralizing capacity.

If alkalinity is going to be defined as a list of all the oxyanions that contribute to acid neutralizing capacity, summed up, you are at least a dozen short.

Borate, selenate, molybdate, arsenate... the list goes on.

But what do you do? Measure each one separately and add them up?

And there is something missing from the list that is not an oxyanion.

Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

Organic alkalinity is of great ecological significance.

Organic alkalinity is about 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from saltwater wetlands.

ALKALINITY IS ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY
14-03-2022 01:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Yes, I have been "alluding" to a chemical definition of alkalinity.

There's no need to use quotation marks. You were talking around it and never stated any formal definition, kind of like you don't know exactly what you're talking about.

People who know what they are talking about have no problem unambiguously defining their terms, and they do so right up front. You have never been able to define your terms as can be noted that you still have not done so.

sealover wrote:"simply the sum of phosphates, bicarbonates and carbonates minus hydronium" WRONG!"

I am totally correct. Any such definition you make will be of that form, guaranteed. How do you not know that alkalinity is the total sum of the effects of the bicarbonates, carbonates, phosphates, etc..?

Allow me to repeat: alkalinity (your semantics) is the sum of them all. All you need to do is to state your definition. I have already done most of the legwork for you. Do you still not know enough to define your terms?

sealover wrote:You got some of the most important ones. But nobody tries to sum them up.



sealover wrote: ... they don't measure total phosphate and add that to total bicarbonate and total carbonate to have some kind of mystery unit number for alkalinity.

Correct ... it's expressed chemically ... so go ahead ... take the quantum leap ...

sealover wrote:What phosphate, bicarbonate, and carbonate all have in common is that they are oxyanions that can accept a proton, thereby neutralizing acidity.

Go on ... you're almost there ...

sealover wrote:If alkalinity is going to be defined as a list of all the oxyanions that contribute to acid neutralizing capacity, summed up, you are at least a dozen short.

Correction ... you are at least a dozen short.

sealover wrote:Borate, selenate, molybdate, arsenate... the list goes on.

Good, good ... you are making progress ...

sealover wrote:But what do you do? Measure each one separately and add them up?

You can, or you can say that you are only going to consider the top four or five players ... whatever, it's your defintion.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

You can throw those in as well. I don't think anyone will complain.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is of great ecological significance.

... then I'll expect to see it in your defintion.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is about 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from saltwater wetlands.

ALKALINITY IS ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY

Did you just write that alkalinity is the sum total of all acid neutralizing capacity?
14-03-2022 01:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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


Nice piece of fiction. Is there a purpose to this story?


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
14-03-2022 01:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Seems like an opportunity was squandered to call me a liar.

Seems like you squandered an opportunity to define your terms.

sealover wrote:No way could Rush Limbaugh have ever cited my work, right?

Did Rush provide any unambiguous definitions for your terms?

sealover wrote:An opportunity was squandered to remind me that pure water is not alkaline.

OK, pure water has a pH of 7. It is neutral.


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

Please define your terms.

What is "alkalinity"?

How do you know what numbers to use for it?

Like so many measurements in chemistry, alkalinity is operationally defined. It is usually acid neutralizing capacity measured in a titration. But then that measure must be converted into some kind of number, right?

Are alkalinity "units" reported as pH? you have never defined your terms. The multiple references to pH suggest that you have no idea what alkalinity is.

You are describing yourself.


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: Superfund Site hexavalent chromium14-03-2022 01:51
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
Nice piece of fiction. Is there a purpose to this story?


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

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.
14-03-2022 02:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:But sometimes humans try to blame Mother Nature when it's really our fault.

When you use the possessive pronoun "our", are you using it in the Marxist sense of the word? You're not trying to specify that it is somehow my fault, right? You just want to tie bad behavior to all humanity, right? You aren't including any other animals, right, because they are all good, right? Humans are bad though, right? Anything bad done by a human is collectively done by the Marxist "us", right?

sealover wrote: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.

An "overzealous biogeophlebotoxicologist" is singular. "Their" is plural. The correct pronoun is "his", as in "make his career" ... unless you are using the Marxist "their" and tying "his" bad behavior to all of humanity. Is that what you intended?

sealover wrote:Trust me, ...

Whoa ... easy there Tiger. That's a pretty tall order. You haven't been exactly honest with us here on this board. Why should any rational adult trust you?


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

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

sealover wrote:They showed very high chromium.

Well, duh!

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

... nor has any four-leaf clovers.

sealover wrote:I dutifully reported the numbers.

Yessss!

Wait, did you properly weight the numbers per the checklist, and did you then properly homogenize the resulting summaries? You didn't just turn in raw data, did you? It sounds like you did.

sealover wrote:Even took it upon myself to get additional samples from inside the old septic tank and from the leaching field area.

Hey, any excuse to visit the old septic tank is good by me.

sealover wrote: XRF showed chromium more than ten times higher in those samples than anywhere else on the site.

Sounds like the initials of a Climate Justice team of superheroes, am I right?

sealover wrote:But XRF doesn't extract every atom.

XRF doesn't know you from atom.

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

Don't sell XRF short. It has a keen eye for xenobiotic materials, and it can smell human badness coming a mile away.

sealover wrote: So don't bother checking back up the subsurface flow path from that old septic system. We know it wasn't anthropogenic.

It goes without saying.
RE: you are certainly an apt pupil!14-03-2022 02:58
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
It goes without saying.


---------------------------------------------------------
As a college science instructor, teaching courses with "buzzword" titles like chemistry, environmental science, and natural history...

It would bring joy to my heart when I could see the moment a student really got it. You could practically see the cartoon lightbulb shining over their head. You could see that they really understood it and made the connection. It brought joy to them. And it brought joy to me.

There must be old professors who remember you well and remember you fondly.

You are certainly an apt pupil!
14-03-2022 03:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nice piece of fiction. Is there a purpose to this story?


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

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

Actually, you CAN. This particular fiction, however, seems to be yours. You can't sue yourself.
sealover wrote:
...deleted fiction...
But sometimes humans try to blame Mother Nature when it's really our fault.
...deleted fiction...

What is?


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
14-03-2022 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It goes without saying.


---------------------------------------------------------
As a college science instructor, teaching courses with "buzzword" titles like chemistry, environmental science, and natural history...

You deny science. There is no branch of science called 'environmental'.

You never took the college course in unnatural history?

sealover wrote:
It would bring joy to my heart when I could see the moment a student really got it. You could practically see the cartoon lightbulb shining over their head. You could see that they really understood it and made the connection. It brought joy to them. And it brought joy to me.

There must be old professors who remember you well and remember you fondly.

You are certainly an apt pupil!

Got what?


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: Got what? I'm afraid you wouldn't know14-03-2022 03:16
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It goes without saying.


---------------------------------------------------------
As a college science instructor, teaching courses with "buzzword" titles like chemistry, environmental science, and natural history...

You deny science. There is no branch of science called 'environmental'.

You never took the college course in unnatural history?

sealover wrote:
It would bring joy to my heart when I could see the moment a student really got it. You could practically see the cartoon lightbulb shining over their head. You could see that they really understood it and made the connection. It brought joy to them. And it brought joy to me.

There must be old professors who remember you well and remember you fondly.

You are certainly an apt pupil!

Got what?

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

My point exactly!

You wouldn't know, would you?
14-03-2022 03:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It goes without saying.


---------------------------------------------------------
As a college science instructor, teaching courses with "buzzword" titles like chemistry, environmental science, and natural history...

You deny science. There is no branch of science called 'environmental'.

You never took the college course in unnatural history?

sealover wrote:
It would bring joy to my heart when I could see the moment a student really got it. You could practically see the cartoon lightbulb shining over their head. You could see that they really understood it and made the connection. It brought joy to them. And it brought joy to me.

There must be old professors who remember you well and remember you fondly.

You are certainly an apt pupil!

Got what?

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

My point exactly!

You wouldn't know, would you?

Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.


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: Jurassic Park missed a chance to teach15-03-2022 11:42
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
You never took the college course in unnatural history?



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

Of course I did!

We have to learn to distort the past in order to lie about the future.

But here's where the movie Jurassic Park screwed up.

They said they used frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps of the recovered dinosaur DNA.

Then they said that because some frogs can change gender, this allowed the all-female dinosaur population to reproduce. Some of the girls changed into boys.
That's not easy.

But then the same movie tells us how closely birds are related to dinosaurs.

In fact, birds ARE the surviving dinosaurs.

Why not use bird DNA instead of frog DNA to fill in the missing pieces of the dinosaurs?

And if they chose turkeys as the DNA donor, some of the new dinosaurs could have reproduced by parthenogenesis. No males required.

It would have made the whole thing more plausible. Frog DNA would have been a lousy match anyway.

But the guy who wrote the book didn't really understand much science.

He knew even less about climate change than he did about dinosaur DNA.
15-03-2022 19:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You never took the college course in unnatural history?



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

Of course I did!

We have to learn to distort the past in order to lie about the future.

But here's where the movie Jurassic Park screwed up.

They said they used frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps of the recovered dinosaur DNA.

Then they said that because some frogs can change gender, this allowed the all-female dinosaur population to reproduce. Some of the girls changed into boys.
That's not easy.

But then the same movie tells us how closely birds are related to dinosaurs.

In fact, birds ARE the surviving dinosaurs.

Why not use bird DNA instead of frog DNA to fill in the missing pieces of the dinosaurs?

And if they chose turkeys as the DNA donor, some of the new dinosaurs could have reproduced by parthenogenesis. No males required.

It would have made the whole thing more plausible. Frog DNA would have been a lousy match anyway.

But the guy who wrote the book didn't really understand much science.

He knew even less about climate change than he did about dinosaur DNA.

So he was like you. A story teller that doesn't understand anything about science.


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
15-03-2022 20:24
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1219)
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.


LOL the reservoir without making it clear what one. How does your discovery make sense
RE: Yes! "Total" alkalinity is what they call that15-03-2022 23:41
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
If you ever read a scientific paper about ocean acidification with actual data for alkalinity, it reveals two things:

1. "Total alkalinity" is the simplest measure. Total acid neutralizing capacity from ALL anions capable of accepting a proton. It can be measured by simple titration, measuring how much acid can be added to the solution before it reaches the designated "endpoint" or hits the designated "inflection point". In the data tables it is often abbreviated as ALK total, or something similar.

2. When alkalinity is further characterized, the most common designations are

total inorganic carbon alkalinity = (bicarbonate alkalinity + carbonate alkalinity)

the table will say something like ALK inorg C, ALK HCO3, ALK CO3

3. They will always measure total alkalinity. They will often segregate inorganic carbon alkalinity. They will sometimes even segregate (phosphate + borate +...)

4. And now they are finally segregating ORGANIC ALKALINITY. ALK org

In the past they always had total alkalinity and they often had inorganic carbon alkalinity. They usually just left the difference as other alkalinity of undesignated origin. They used to assume that the difference was just the sum of oxyanions and it would be ridiculous to measure them individually.

Now they know that more often than not, that undesignated origin alkalinity was usually comprised more of ORANIC alkalinity than it was of the other oxyanions.

I won't bother trying to explain the "unit error" again. But alkalinity really is reported in units that have name and meaning, and its not "pH".

I won't bother trying to explain what it means that alkalinity is "operationally defined" in chemical analysis.

Maybe I should, but with a different chemical.

Lignin is a major, non-carbohydrate component of plant tissue.

Lignin is not easy to measure. It's measurement was historically operationally defined as "acid detergent" lignin. The final step in the extraction was with a very strongly acidic detergent.

When you took the final residue that was insoluble in acid detergent, you called it "lignin". It was operationally defined. As such, the units had to be some sort of "equivalents" you could related to a known pure lignin standard.

The amount of "lignin" in the residue you extracted with acid detergent was "equivalent" to some amount of pure lignin standard.

When it got easier and easier to characterize with NMR, people found that much of what was in their "lignin" residue was not lignin at all. Many times it had as much tannin as lignin, if not more.

The disadvantage of operationally defined lignin was that the operation extracted more than just lignin.

Any questions?

Let me rephrase that.

Any meaningful questions about the actual science?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Yes, I have been "alluding" to a chemical definition of alkalinity.

There's no need to use quotation marks. You were talking around it and never stated any formal definition, kind of like you don't know exactly what you're talking about.

People who know what they are talking about have no problem unambiguously defining their terms, and they do so right up front. You have never been able to define your terms as can be noted that you still have not done so.

sealover wrote:"simply the sum of phosphates, bicarbonates and carbonates minus hydronium" WRONG!"

I am totally correct. Any such definition you make will be of that form, guaranteed. How do you not know that alkalinity is the total sum of the effects of the bicarbonates, carbonates, phosphates, etc..?

Allow me to repeat: alkalinity (your semantics) is the sum of them all. All you need to do is to state your definition. I have already done most of the legwork for you. Do you still not know enough to define your terms?

sealover wrote:You got some of the most important ones. But nobody tries to sum them up.



sealover wrote: ... they don't measure total phosphate and add that to total bicarbonate and total carbonate to have some kind of mystery unit number for alkalinity.

Correct ... it's expressed chemically ... so go ahead ... take the quantum leap ...

sealover wrote:What phosphate, bicarbonate, and carbonate all have in common is that they are oxyanions that can accept a proton, thereby neutralizing acidity.

Go on ... you're almost there ...

sealover wrote:If alkalinity is going to be defined as a list of all the oxyanions that contribute to acid neutralizing capacity, summed up, you are at least a dozen short.

Correction ... you are at least a dozen short.

sealover wrote:Borate, selenate, molybdate, arsenate... the list goes on.

Good, good ... you are making progress ...

sealover wrote:But what do you do? Measure each one separately and add them up?

You can, or you can say that you are only going to consider the top four or five players ... whatever, it's your defintion.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

You can throw those in as well. I don't think anyone will complain.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is of great ecological significance.

... then I'll expect to see it in your defintion.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is about 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from saltwater wetlands.

ALKALINITY IS ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY

Did you just write that alkalinity is the sum total of all acid neutralizing capacity?
16-03-2022 01:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
If you ever read a scientific paper about ocean acidification with actual data for alkalinity, it reveals two things:

You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
1. "Total alkalinity" is the simplest measure. Total acid neutralizing capacity from ALL anions capable of accepting a proton. It can be measured by simple titration, measuring how much acid can be added to the solution before it reaches the designated "endpoint" or hits the designated "inflection point". In the data tables it is often abbreviated as ALK total, or something similar.

2. When alkalinity is further characterized, the most common designations are

total inorganic carbon alkalinity = (bicarbonate alkalinity + carbonate alkalinity)

the table will say something like ALK inorg C, ALK HCO3, ALK CO3

3. They will always measure total alkalinity. They will often segregate inorganic carbon alkalinity. They will sometimes even segregate (phosphate + borate +...)

4. And now they are finally segregating ORGANIC ALKALINITY. ALK org

In the past they always had total alkalinity and they often had inorganic carbon alkalinity. They usually just left the difference as other alkalinity of undesignated origin. They used to assume that the difference was just the sum of oxyanions and it would be ridiculous to measure them individually.

Now they know that more often than not, that undesignated origin alkalinity was usually comprised more of ORANIC alkalinity than it was of the other oxyanions.

I won't bother trying to explain the "unit error" again. But alkalinity really is reported in units that have name and meaning, and its not "pH".

Unit error.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother trying to explain what it means that alkalinity is "operationally defined" in chemical analysis.

Maybe I should, but with a different chemical.

Lignin is a major, non-carbohydrate component of plant tissue.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Lignin is not easy to measure.

Easy. Weigh it.
sealover wrote:
It's measurement was historically operationally defined as "acid detergent" lignin. The final step in the extraction was with a very strongly acidic detergent.

Guess you never could figure out how a paper mill works. They don't use acid.
sealover wrote:
When you took the final residue that was insoluble in acid detergent, you called it "lignin". It was operationally defined. As such, the units had to be some sort of "equivalents" you could related to a known pure lignin standard.

There is no 'lignin standard'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The amount of "lignin" in the residue you extracted with acid detergent was "equivalent" to some amount of pure lignin standard.

When it got easier and easier to characterize with NMR, people found that much of what was in their "lignin" residue was not lignin at all. Many times it had as much tannin as lignin, if not more.

The disadvantage of operationally defined lignin was that the operation extracted more than just lignin.

Any questions?

Lignin isn't 'operationally defined'. Lignin simply is.
sealover wrote:
Let me rephrase that.

Any meaningful questions about the actual science?

No science here...move along...move along...


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: The first time I shook Ronald Reagan's hand22-03-2022 19:44
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
The first time I shook Ronald Reagan's hand.

I was still just a kid.

Just turned 14,

I didn't WANT to shake Ronald Reagan's hand, but it would have been a rude distraction if I chose the moment to make a scene.

I politely shook his hand like I was supposed to.

He was the top guy in California, and I was at the ceremony to be awarded the rank of Eagle Scout.

All the new eagles were in a line to shake Reagan's hand.

I was quite the rebel and I contemplated saying or doing something to make a point.

But, being rude and disruptive is a terrible way to make a point.

Right, trolls?

I don't believe Ronald Reagan would have thought highly of Rush Limbaugh.

I'm pretty sure that Ronald Reagan would have DESPISED Donald Trump

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
22-03-2022 20:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Climate-Debate Audience: Prepare Thyselves for Magnus Virtue Signaling

sealover wrote:
Just turned 14, I didn't WANT to shake Ronald Reagan's hand, but it would have been a rude distraction if I chose the moment to make a scene.

I politely shook his hand like I was supposed to. He was the top guy in California, and I was at the ceremony to be awarded the rank of Eagle Scout.

Climate-Debate Audience:

Why didn't seal over just not show up for the event?

Why did seal over need to HATE a man he didn't know personally, who simply wanted to honor him for his achievement?

Many children are raised in the religion of their parents. seal over must have been raised in his parents' Marxist religion of hatred to be that F'ed by the time he was 14. What is most likely the case is that the event mentioned above simply didn't happen as described, but was described as how seal over wants to remember it, for maximum virtue-signaling effect.

Climate-Debate Audience: All we need now is the pretense for speaking for dead people.

sealover wrote:I don't believe Ronald Reagan would have thought highly of Rush Limbaugh.

I'm pretty sure that Ronald Reagan would have DESPISED Donald Trump


... and there we have it.

22-03-2022 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
The first time I shook Ronald Reagan's hand.

I was still just a kid.

Just turned 14,

I didn't WANT to shake Ronald Reagan's hand, but it would have been a rude distraction if I chose the moment to make a scene.

I politely shook his hand like I was supposed to.

He was the top guy in California, and I was at the ceremony to be awarded the rank of Eagle Scout.

All the new eagles were in a line to shake Reagan's hand.

I was quite the rebel and I contemplated saying or doing something to make a point.

But, being rude and disruptive is a terrible way to make a point.

Right, trolls?

I don't believe Ronald Reagan would have thought highly of Rush Limbaugh.

I'm pretty sure that Ronald Reagan would have DESPISED Donald Trump


You don't get to speak for the dead. Omniscience fallacy.

Fiction. Your storytelling to puff yourself up is meaningless here. You are a nothing.

Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.


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: Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.22-03-2022 22:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

Into the Night wrote:


You don't get to speak for the dead. Omniscience fallacy.

"sealover" reply:

YES, I DO!

NO, IT'S NOT!

then genius says -

Fiction. Your storytelling to puff yourself up is meaningless here. You are a nothing.

Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.[/quote]

Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

Spammering. Trollbillying. Non argument presented.

Spamblunkering. Trollbollying. Nope argumopmm;vjs

DOES NOT COMPUTE DOES NOT COMPUTE DOES NOT COMPUTE

ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR

System malfunction.

Meltdown.
22-03-2022 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
"sealover" reply:

YES, I DO!
...deleted excess noise...


No. You do not get to speak for the dead.
Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.


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 Rush Limbaugh Cited as Mother Nature's Fault. Reference.27-03-2022 12:22
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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?
27-03-2022 19:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

What is?
[/quote]
So now you are say Rush Limbaugh was a scientist?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


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
27-03-2022 19:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Into the Night wrote:So now you are say Rush Limbaugh was a scientist????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Careful ... seal over is saying that Rush Limbaugh was a Climate scientist. Check your wording.

Why is it that seal over didn't want Ronald Reagan recognizing his achievement, but he needs for everyone to know that Rush Limbaugh recognized his achievement?

Wait, I figured it out. Ronald Reagan wasn't a Climate scientist whereas Rush Limbaugh was. I get it now.
RE: What Rush Limbaugh Said on RECORD!28-03-2022 03:25
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

There was buzz in the scientific community about a new article in Nature.

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".

Is it possible you don't know how to find an article published in Nature?

Is it possible you know how to find it easily enough, you just have no idea whatsoever what all those gibber babble buzzwords mean?

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.

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!

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


















quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:So now you are say Rush Limbaugh was a scientist????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Careful ... seal over is saying that Rush Limbaugh was a Climate scientist. Check your wording.

Why is it that seal over didn't want Ronald Reagan recognizing his achievement, but he needs for everyone to know that Rush Limbaugh recognized his achievement?

Wait, I figured it out. Ronald Reagan wasn't a Climate scientist whereas Rush Limbaugh was. I get it now.[/quote]
28-03-2022 09:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.


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: Rush Limbaugh tried to help Trump with the Covid gaffe.28-03-2022 17:34
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
Page 1 of 212>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Has Anybody Seen The New Netflix Show, Into The Night?006-05-2020 08:39
▲ 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