Sabine

keepit wrote: Sabine Hossenfelder has done 800 videos that can be accessed on youtube, many of which are on the subject of climate change.
It would behoove many people to study them.

keepit wrote: ibd, She's a scientist and not a preacher.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
She's a scientist and not a preacher. False characterizations are significant lie.

keepit wrote:
They do a lot of lectures and discussions on you tube.

keepit wrote: They do a lot of lectures and discussions on you tube.

keepit wrote: ibd, i don't understand that last post at all.

keepit wrote: ibd, Do you ever listen to yourself?

keepit wrote:
ibd,
She's a scientist and not a preacher. False characterizations are significant lie.

keepit wrote:
Some of the discoveries i'm talking about are really just hypothesis. They're part of the scientific process. Try not to discourage it.

keepit wrote: You trash sabine because ...

keepit wrote: Take it from me

keepit wrote: Many words have more than one meaning.

keepit wrote: The writer decides which meaning is to be used.

keepit wrote:Your posts just don't connect with my reality.

keepit wrote: Let's see now... you trash sabine,

keepit wrote: you trash [Robert R. Northup]

keepit wrote: When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.

keepit wrote:
Many words have more than one meaning. The writer decides which meaning is to be used.

keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.

"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

keepit wrote:
itn,
it's your filaments that make you think such things. "Speaking for cern" isn't something i want do.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.

"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.

"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.

That's kind of the point.

You don't speak for ANY scientists.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.

"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.

That's kind of the point.

You don't speak for ANY scientists.

Yes I do. I speak for myself.

Im a BM wrote: You are NOT a scientist.

keepit wrote:
When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.

sealover wrote:

keepit wrote: When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.

Keepit makes a good point.

sealover wrote: IBdaMann WINS every round of every debate.

sealover wrote: A master of semantics word games.

sealover wrote: He even won the "alligators are AMPHIBIANS" debate!

sealover wrote: And ask him about magic petroleum! He can explain how there is no place on Earth that you won't find oil if you just drill deep enough, because fossil fuel was NOT formed from ancient dead organisms closer to the surface.

sealover wrote: Some rational adults might fail to recognize his genius, and agree with keepit that IBdaMann looks "very inept" when trashing people who have actually studied science

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:

keepit wrote: When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.

Keepit makes a good point.

While the obvious self-serving nature of this response is noted, ...

... no, keepit never makes a good point.

sealover wrote: IBdaMann WINS every round of every debate.

Were you expecting some other result? Please tell me that you didn't bet money against me. Never bet against me, or you're just flusing money down the toilet.

sealover wrote: A master of semantics word games.

If you are recognizing my masterful communication and wordcraft, I totally understand your awe, but remember that semantics are all we have in a forum of ideas, and you can do your part by unambiguously defining all your terms.

sealover wrote: He even won the "alligators are AMPHIBIANS" debate!

You should be embarrassed for having chosen the wrong side of the debate on which to reside. You know that otters, ducks, polar bears, alligators and many more are very much amphibious. You know that being amphibious makes something amphibian. Nonetheless, you decided to forego common sense and instead be a complete contrarian.

Well, can all have a good laugh about it. No harm, no foul, as I always say.

sealover wrote: And ask him about magic petroleum! He can explain how there is no place on Earth that you won't find oil if you just drill deep enough, because fossil fuel was NOT formed from ancient dead organisms closer to the surface.

You are misrepresenting what Into the Night expressed. Let's unpack, shall we? Yes, we shall.

1. Petroleum is not magick, as you claim CO2 to be. Into the Night does not specify any magickal superpowers held by petroleum, whereas you claim that CO2 does.

2. I don't want to speak for Into the Night, but I believe that he specified that the earth is creating petroleum (hydrocarbons) in all regions of the planet, with some places of creation being deeper than others, not that petroleum is being created at every point on the planet at every moment, i.e. there is no petrosphere (hydrocarbosphere).

3. You use the term "fossil fuels" because you are a Marxist, not because you are any sort of chemist. Chemists understand that fossils do not use any fuel, and that no fossils are burned for fuel. Chemists understand that petroleum and natural gas are hydrocarbons. If only you were a chemist ...

4. Into the Night is entirely correct in noting that your claim of dead organisms gaining magickal superpowers is beyond absurd, but downright stupid (note: this is my characterization, not Into the Night's). Your religious dogma holds that dead organisms somehow drill deep into the earth because they have died, that they know to stop drilling by having drilled through a half-kilometer or more of impermeable rock, and that they then rot/decay into a higher form of energy in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that you don't understand. Neither you nor anyone you know has ever witnessed any dead organism decay into hydrocarbons, so you have no rational basis for believing what you believe. You only have religious reasons, which have no business in any science discussion.

@ Into the Night, please feel free to correct any misunderstanding I might have on the matter.

sealover wrote: Some rational adults might fail to recognize his genius, and agree with keepit that IBdaMann looks "very inept" when trashing people who have actually studied science

... noting that keepit believes that having "actually studied science" means being "full of baloney."

I would remind you that you have never demonstrated having studied science, and have only demonstrated being full of baloney. You still refuse to answer direct clarification questions, you still refuse to unambiguously define your terms (i.e. you still insist on playing stupid word games), you believe that strange physics violations are settled science, you apparently don't even know what science is, and now keepit is recognizing you in his own way for being full of baloney. You look identical to a scientifically illiterate moron who is demanding to be accepted as a science genius. Whenever an opportunity arises for you to make a valid contribution, you reject the idea outright and simply begin whining and griping and complaining ... and spamming.

I'm just making some simple observations for your edification. I know that you want desperately to be accepted with all the authority of a religious minister, but for that to ever happen, you are going to have to demonstrate some competence beyond your insistence that you are some sort of science genius.

Where's your "library" anyway? I offered you a home for your library and you were immediately horrified at the thought of everyone realizing that you have no library ... or that you don't even have any content whatsoever.

You seem to be placing all your eggs in the one basket of ocean alkalinity. You seem to know that the ocean gets most of its alkalinity from carbonates and bicarbonates. Unfortunately, that knowledge is insufficient to WOW! anyone. Even more unfortunate is the manner in which you pull the rug out from under yourself by not even knowing how the ocean gets its alkalinity. Any rational biogeoadult knows that the ocean's alkalinity stems from geological activity and erosion of rocks and minerals, i.e. the 2nd LoT that you don't understand.

Your religion requires you to kick away your one foothold on science. Otherwise your posts, when you aren't spamming or whining or trolling, hardly ever qualify as "contributions."

There's no time like the present to turn this around and to start being a productive contributor to Climate-Debate. Hint: don't worry about what other's write, but only about what you write.

.