Remember me
▼ Content

seal lover


seal lover24-05-2024 18:06
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
You have to understand that sealover is highly educated with numerous publications, even the Nature magazine. You have to be highly qualified to get into Nature.
Now sealover isn't here to teach at a beginning level of science. He's truly much more advanced and capable than that and teaches at a high level. Keep in mind that in college and grad school you have to have taken previous courses in order to qualify for upper level courses. In other words do you homework before harassing sealover .
24-05-2024 18:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
keepit wrote:
Now sealover isn't here to teach at a beginning level of science. He's truly much more advanced and capable than that and teaches at a high level .


You're a funny little critter, keepit!

This "PhD" is not teaching any science. He is preaching and asking us to BELIEVE in his religion. He has some chemistry knowledge, but his favorite move is the climate change hit and run.

I, as well as others have asked for his definition of climate change, but we've yet to see it.

So I ask you, keepit... just how advanced and capable is someone who cannot even define the terms they use?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
24-05-2024 18:50
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Gas,
He teaches at the level he wants to and we can take it or leave it. He doesn't want to be harassed about the semantics of the phrase "climate change". We can take that or leave that too.
He teaches at too high a level for me. I've given up reading some of his explanations. I like one liners better.
He deserves respect for his accomplishments in academia though.
After all, it's not like you're paying him to teach at the level you choose.
It's fundamental my dear watson.
Edited on 24-05-2024 18:53
24-05-2024 18:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: You have to understand that sealover is highly educated with numerous publications, even the Nature magazine.

As far as I can tell, only two sets of authors allowed Robert to include his name in the author list for being a helper.

Otherwise, he refers to "organic carbon" and "inorganic carbon" as though carbon is somehow not carbon. The truth is that all carbon atoms are identical, but Robert apparently doesn't know this.

Robert claims the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity and he can't explain why he believes this beyond his mistaken belief that sea water somehow does not evaporate. Does this sound like a chemist to you?

All scientists define their terms unambiguously, but Robert refuses to define any of his terms in his mistaken belief that scientists somehow never define their terms. Robert is definitely no scientist.

Robert won't answer any clarification questions. This precludes him being a teacher.

keepit wrote: You have to be highly qualified to get into Nature.

Nope. Nature posts a lot of poorly-written crap. All that is required is that the article be technical; accuracy and understandability are optional.

keepit wrote: Now sealover isn't here to teach at a beginning level of science.

He's not here to teach and he's not interested in any science. Robert is here to preach Climate Change in strictly one-way sermons.

keepit wrote: He's truly much more advanced and capable than that and teaches at a high level.

It's more likely that he doesn't teach at all.

keepit wrote: Keep in mind that in college and grad school you have to have taken previous courses in order to qualify for upper level courses.

Yep. I think he learned what he knows in the Peace Corp, errors and all. I'm not buying his claims of credentials. All scientists define their terms unambiguously, and he cannot define any of his terms. If asked to define his terms, he immediate lashes out with "WORD GAMES!" as he arches his back and hisses.

so keepit, lay off the baloney.
24-05-2024 19:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: Gas, He teaches at the level he wants to and we can take it or leave it.

He doesn't teach anything. Robert preaches Climate Change.

keepit wrote: He doesn't want to be harassed about the semantics of the phrase "climate change".

In that case, he doesn't get to call it "science." He must recognize it as the religion that it is. Religious terms always remain undefined.

keepit wrote: He teaches at too high a level for me. I've given up reading some of his explanations.

All that you are saying is that you will gullibly believe anyone spewing gibber-babble and who claims to have credentials. That makes you stupid.

Robert's gibberish is full of errors and he won't clarify and he won't define his terms. He is dismissed.

keepit wrote: He deserves respect for his accomplishments in academia though.

I don't think he has any accomplishments, except perhaps helping to bring drinking water to a village, which is notable. Unfortunately even that is suspect because he lies all the time. Nothing he says can be believed. He's full of baloney, just like you are.
24-05-2024 19:11
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
ibd,
You're just spewing your party line and i'm not buying it.
You complain that he won't define his terms.
In the same song and dance, why don't you explain your education and tell us about your cult, if in fact, you do belong to one. No semantics arguments about the definition of cult allowed.
24-05-2024 19:30
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
ibd,
Have you read about the degrees he has and where he got them from?
The california school system is really tough! They don't give those degrees away, especially is you hand them juvenile arguments, which what most of your arguments are.
24-05-2024 19:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1681)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
You're just spewing your party line and i'm not buying it.
You complain that he won't define his terms.
In the same song and dance, why don't you explain your education and tell us about your cult, if in fact, you do belong to one. No semantics arguments about the definition of cult allowed.



Thank you, keepit.

The "define your terms" BS is just a way to turn science into an endless word game and prevent any actual discussion of the thread topics.

Except on the one thread where it has been specifically INVITED.

"Does Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?"

Got the vaguest references to how "thermodynamics does not cancel gravity".

My specialized training is not atmospheric physics anyway.

I will continue to post about biogeochemistry, with updates on the most recent papers that cite my research and its applications in relation to climate change.

And I won't "dumb down" my posts to make it easier for someone with no scientific education whatsoever to get it.

If someone STILL doesn't have any idea what the term "climate change" refers to, especially after discussing it for eight or nine years...

Perhaps there are learning disabilities involved.

Or maybe it serves as proof of cognitive dissonance as the unifying concept that binds the anti science religious cult.

Whatever it is, any attempt to "define your terms" falls on deaf ears and opens another round of stupid word games.
24-05-2024 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
sealover wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd,
You're just spewing your party line and i'm not buying it.
You complain that he won't define his terms.
In the same song and dance, why don't you explain your education and tell us about your cult, if in fact, you do belong to one. No semantics arguments about the definition of cult allowed.



Thank you, keepit.

The "define your terms" BS is just a way to turn science into an endless word game and prevent any actual discussion of the thread topics.

You cannot blame YOUR problem on science, Sock.
sealover wrote:
Except on the one thread where it has been specifically INVITED.

You don't get to control the content of any thread, Sock.
sealover wrote:
"Does Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?"

Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
Got the vaguest references to how "thermodynamics does not cancel gravity".

It doesn't, though YOU tried to show it does!
sealover wrote:
My specialized training is not atmospheric physics anyway.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
I will continue to post about biogeochemistry,

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
with updates on the most recent papers that cite my research and its applications in relation to climate change.

Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
And I won't "dumb down" my posts to make it easier for someone with no scientific education whatsoever to get it.

You already have, since you deny science. Your religion is not science.
sealover wrote:
If someone STILL doesn't have any idea what the term "climate change" refers to, especially after discussing it for eight or nine years...

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps there are learning disabilities involved.

Mantra 1a.
sealover wrote:
Or maybe it serves as proof of cognitive dissonance as the unifying concept that binds the anti science religious cult.

You are describing yourself.
sealover wrote:
Whatever it is, any attempt to "define your terms" falls on deaf ears and opens another round of stupid word games.

YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on 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
25-05-2024 01:14
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd,
You're just spewing your party line and i'm not buying it.
You complain that he won't define his terms.
In the same song and dance, why don't you explain your education and tell us about your cult, if in fact, you do belong to one. No semantics arguments about the definition of cult allowed.



Thank you, keepit.

The "define your terms" BS is just a way to turn science into an endless word game and prevent any actual discussion of the thread topics.

You cannot blame YOUR problem on science, Sock.
.

You don't get to control the content of any thread, Sock.
.

Climate cannot change.
.

It doesn't, though YOU tried to show it does!
.

No such thing.
,

No such thing.
.

Climate cannot change.
.

You already have, since you deny science. Your religion is not science.
sealover wrote:
If someone STILL doesn't have any idea what the term "climate change" refers to, especially after discussing it for eight or nine years...

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps there are learning disabilities involved.

Mantra 1a.
sealover wrote:
Or maybe it serves as proof of cognitive dissonance as the unifying concept that binds the anti science religious cult.

You are describing yourself.
sealover wrote:
Whatever it is, any attempt to "define your terms" falls on deaf ears and opens another round of stupid word games.

YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on science.


Are you trying to tell me that YOU are NOT responsible for MY problems?
25-05-2024 09:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: ibd, Have you read about the degrees he has and where he got them from?

Have you verified that he has any degrees whatsoever?

keepit, if an eight-year-old correctly explains Stefan-Boltzmann to you, is he wrong on account of not having any credentials? If a man claiming to be a PhD from California feeds you a bunch of absurd errors, do you nonetheless believe every word he says just because you don't understand any of the gibberish and you don't want to risk looking stupid?

keepit, why do you believe in Climate Change? You confess to not understanding a single word of the gibberish, yet your OBEDIENCE to the faith is unconditional. Why?

That's the difference between the two of us, i.e. I will never allow others to do my thinking for me whereas you are a mindless zombie who regurgitates everything you are ordered to believe by others.

keepit wrote: The california school system is really tough!

Nope. The University of California system, is totally WOKE. The emphasis is not on any maintaining any sort of high education standards but on squashing all dissenting opinions. The California State University system goes one better. They crank out the hard-core Marxists like a factory. I have a particularly advantageous insight into Marxism because of this. I lost two particularly close childhood/teenage friends to the Marxist corruption of their minds at the same particular CSUx. At least I got the better part of a decade of Marxism immersion, that began with simple political debates, which eventually turned into angry arguments, which evolved into insult fests, leading to never speaking again. The kicker is that the CSU system cranks out the full spectrum of Marxism; one of my former friends became a rabid communist while the other became an ardent socialist, i.e. diametrically opposed to each other. The point to note is that one of them became indoctrinated through his engineering curiculum.

keepit wrote: They don't give those degrees away,

Yes they do. There are a bajillion people as brain-dead stupid as you are with degrees from California universities. Other California schools such as Standford teach the "new" economics instead of the old, tired, tried-and-true boring economics that is soooooo last century.

Now, I have a friend who studied at UC Davis and it is possible to learn some very useful things in California, I'll give you that much, but he had no intention of making a career in agriculture (he just needed to complete an undergraduate program and get a degree).

So no, I don't fawn over California schools. Maybe someday they'll be respectable but they aren't at present.

.
25-05-2024 09:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: ibd, You're just spewing your party line and i'm not buying it.

You're full of baloney, keepit, but it's true that I am a one-man party. Of course you aren't buying anything that I tell you; you only believe stupid things that stupid people order you to believe. You are a commensurate idiot, and a very entertaining one at that.

keepit wrote: You complain that he won't define his terms.

Nope.

keepit wrote: In the same song and dance, why don't you explain your education and tell us about your cult,

OK. I have zero education. I never even went to kindergarten. My hope is that you keep on rejecting all accurate information so I can monitor you as a case study.

Have a great day.
25-05-2024 09:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
sealover wrote: Thank you, keepit.

Your only friend. Hold on to him.

sealover wrote: My specialized training is not atmospheric physics anyway.

Your training is the quick-draw of a gamma-spec to shoot from the hip. You never did tell us how you score at the range.

sealover wrote: I will continue to post about biogeochemistry

Translation: I will continue to preach Global Warming theology and to deliver Climate Change sermons, focusing on mangrove salvation.

sealover wrote: And I won't "dumb down" my posts to make it easier for someone with no scientific education whatsoever to get it.

Good, your posts are already dumb enough.

sealover wrote: If someone STILL doesn't have any idea what the term "climate change" refers to, especially after discussing it for eight or nine years...

... then this religion probably isn't for him.
Edited on 25-05-2024 09:48
25-05-2024 10:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that YOU are NOT responsible for MY problems?

LIF. Grow up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2024 17:09
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
ibd,
You go on about claims that i don't think for myself and then you ramble on spewing party line without a single deviation that i know of. Then you rant about marxists in the california system and you rant about me being a marxist.
It's all laughable.
Credibility! ibd. credibilty.
25-05-2024 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
You go on about claims that i don't think for myself

You don't. You just cut and paste from religious scripture and blame your problem on everybody else.
keepit wrote:
and then you ramble on spewing party line without a single deviation that i know of.

You are describing yourself again.
keepit wrote:
Then you rant about marxists in the california system and you rant about me being a marxist.

You ARE a Marxist. You are also illiterate.

* Proper nouns are always capitalized.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth, Venus, or any other planet.
* You cannot measure the global sea level.
* You cannot measure the global concentration of any gas in the atmosphere.

You discard capitalism. You embrace socialism. You think coal, oil, and natural gas companies are 'evil'. You think heavily subsidized and inefficient solar and wind power are 'good'. That's Marxism right there, dude.

keepit wrote:
It's all laughable.
Credibility! ibd. credibilty.

You don't get to declare 'credibility' for everyone, keepit. Omniscience 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
25-05-2024 20:59
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
That post is a bunch of baloney.
25-05-2024 23:28
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Itn,
You're arguing with your own filaments (figments of your imagination).
26-05-2024 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
That post is a bunch of baloney.

And you're it.
That post is describing YOU.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2024 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
Itn,
You're arguing with your own filaments (figments of your imagination).

LIF. Grow up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2024 04:53
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
You go on about claims that i don't think for myself and then you ramble on spewing party line without a single deviation that i know of. Then you rant about marxists in the california system and you rant about me being a marxist.
It's all laughable.
Credibility! ibd. credibilty.



Hey keepit,

Having read enough posts, I think I can summarize the assertions made by both IBdaMann and Into the Night, in regard to sealover.

1. sealover does not know anything about chemistry or any other field of science. sealover came here to preach the WACKY religion of the Church of Global Warming. sealover is a liar and any claims of credibility are false. sealover's attempt to cite credentials or publications are based in fraud.

2. IBdaMann and Into the Night have an understanding of chemistry, and all other fields of science, that is far superior to that of sealover.


Thanks for the acknowledgement with the thread.

Sincerely,
26-05-2024 05:22
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
sealover,
I think they're on a mission and i don't think it's to find the truth. I think their world is small and they won't accept anything outside that world. Live with it.
Personally, i'd like to find another website.
26-05-2024 12:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
sealover,
I think they're on a mission and i don't think it's to find the truth. I think their world is small and they won't accept anything outside that world. Live with it.
Personally, i'd like to find another website.


Having trouble with Google?


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
26-05-2024 16:39
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
You're wrong again.
26-05-2024 18:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
keepit wrote:
sealover,
I think they're on a mission and i don't think it's to find the truth. I think their world is small and they won't accept anything outside that world. Live with it.
Personally, i'd like to find another website.



There are certainly other choices in websites.

I don't get the impression that you get banned from discussion sites, and you are not here because it's the only place that didn't kick you out.

If there were no hope whatsoever that anyone besides the trolls would read it, I wouldn't bother posting here.

It would only take ONE new member who is also a trained scientist to create a very informative discussion.

Then climate-debate.com would be a valuable resource and not just a troll-infested rabbit hole of a dead website.

Meanwhile, if ITN can't think of something more intelligent to say than "carbonate is not a chemical" or "science is not a banana", I can see no reason to bother responding. And I won't.

Yes, they are on a mission. Retribution. They have been wronged by the Church of Global Warming and they want revenge. Gosh, are they angry!
26-05-2024 18:47
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
Your last post is another example of wishful thinking.
If you filtered out the wishful thinking, the lies, the misinterpretations, the name calling etc., what would be left?
26-05-2024 18:56
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
sealover,
I did get kicked off one website, the physics forum i think it was called. They're a bunch of highly qualified physicists there who are devoted to teaching peer reviewed information. The truth of it is that i wasn't qualified to be there. I was proposing a hypothesis of dark energy which wasn't peer reviewed. Since then someone has proposed a similar theory which he did get peer reviewed.
Basically it was that the extra space that is occurring is actually coming from the extra dimensions in the absence of an abundance of gravity in empty space. I wrote a paper utilizing the friedman equation to verify my theory. If someone gets a prize for the theory i'm going to have mixed feelings.
26-05-2024 23:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
You're wrong again.

About what? It's YOUR statement, keepit!


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
27-05-2024 00:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
sealover,
I think they're on a mission and i don't think it's to find the truth. I think their world is small and they won't accept anything outside that world. Live with it.
Personally, i'd like to find another website.



There are certainly other choices in websites.

I don't get the impression that you get banned from discussion sites, and you are not here because it's the only place that didn't kick you out.

If there were no hope whatsoever that anyone besides the trolls would read it, I wouldn't bother posting here.

Stop whining.
Im a BM wrote:
It would only take ONE new member who is also a trained scientist to create a very informative discussion.

Science is a 'training'. Science is not 'experts'. You have been shown the laws of science that you ignore, yet you still ignore them.
Im a BM wrote:
Then climate-debate.com would be a valuable resource and not just a troll-infested rabbit hole of a dead website.

Stop whining.
Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, if ITN can't think of something more intelligent to say than "carbonate is not a chemical" or "science is not a banana", I can see no reason to bother responding. And I won't.

I never science is not a banana. YOU did.
Carbonate is not a chemical, yet you continue to try to imagine a chemical that is so named so you can use the term as a buzzword.
Im a BM wrote:
Yes, they are on a mission. Retribution. They have been wronged by the Church of Global Warming and they want revenge. Gosh, are they angry!

At least you recognize that you are nothing more than a believer in a religion now.


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 27-05-2024 00:03
27-05-2024 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Your last post is another example of wishful thinking.
If you filtered out the wishful thinking, the lies, the misinterpretations, the name calling etc., what would be left?

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

To IBDaMann: I think you better your headscrews out for keepit 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
27-05-2024 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
sealover,
I did get kicked off one website, the physics forum i think it was called. They're a bunch of highly qualified physicists there who are devoted to teaching peer reviewed information. The truth of it is that i wasn't qualified to be there. I was proposing a hypothesis of dark energy which wasn't peer reviewed. Since then someone has proposed a similar theory which he did get peer reviewed.
Basically it was that the extra space that is occurring is actually coming from the extra dimensions in the absence of an abundance of gravity in empty space. I wrote a paper utilizing the friedman equation to verify my theory. If someone gets a prize for the theory i'm going to have mixed feelings.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science isn't 'experts'.
A hypothesis isn't a theory.


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
27-05-2024 01:12
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
"Carbonate is not a chemical" - the definer of words.

Perhaps in a rigid overinterpretation of definitions, a reference to "carbonate ion" can be countered with "carbonate is not a chemical" So what?

The chemical behavior of carbonate ion in solution will be the same whether or not it is technically considered a "chemical", according to the definer of words.

"Science is not training" "Science is not experts", and NO, science is NOT a banana.

Science is not understood by Mr. 22,000 posts of trolling and spamming.

Is it possible that ITN is not aware that he fits the definition of a "troll", and that his posts are the very definition of "spam"?



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
sealover,
I think they're on a mission and i don't think it's to find the truth. I think their world is small and they won't accept anything outside that world. Live with it.
Personally, i'd like to find another website.



There are certainly other choices in websites.

I don't get the impression that you get banned from discussion sites, and you are not here because it's the only place that didn't kick you out.

If there were no hope whatsoever that anyone besides the trolls would read it, I wouldn't bother posting here.

Stop whining.
Im a BM wrote:
It would only take ONE new member who is also a trained scientist to create a very informative discussion.

Science is a 'training'. Science is not 'experts'. You have been shown the laws of science that you ignore, yet you still ignore them.
Im a BM wrote:
Then climate-debate.com would be a valuable resource and not just a troll-infested rabbit hole of a dead website.

Stop whining.
Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, if ITN can't think of something more intelligent to say than "carbonate is not a chemical" or "science is not a banana", I can see no reason to bother responding. And I won't.

I never science is not a banana. YOU did.
Carbonate is not a chemical, yet you continue to try to imagine a chemical that is so named so you can use the term as a buzzword.
Im a BM wrote:
Yes, they are on a mission. Retribution. They have been wronged by the Church of Global Warming and they want revenge. Gosh, are they angry!

At least you recognize that you are nothing more than a believer in a religion now.
27-05-2024 08:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonate is not a chemical" - the definer of words.

I am not defining any words here.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps in a rigid overinterpretation of definitions, a reference to "carbonate ion" can be countered with "carbonate is not a chemical" So what?

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The chemical behavior of carbonate ion in solution will be the same whether or not it is technically considered a "chemical", according to the definer of words.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
"Science is not training" "Science is not experts", and NO, science is NOT a banana.

Science is not understood by Mr. 22,000 posts of trolling and spamming.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame your problems on me or anybody else.
Im a BM wrote:
Is it possible that ITN is not aware that he fits the definition of a "troll", and that his posts are the very definition of "spam"?

LIF. Grow up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-05-2024 23:33
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
keepit wrote:
sealover,
I did get kicked off one website, the physics forum i think it was called. They're a bunch of highly qualified physicists there who are devoted to teaching peer reviewed information. The truth of it is that i wasn't qualified to be there. I was proposing a hypothesis of dark energy which wasn't peer reviewed. Since then someone has proposed a similar theory which he did get peer reviewed.
Basically it was that the extra space that is occurring is actually coming from the extra dimensions in the absence of an abundance of gravity in empty space. I wrote a paper utilizing the friedman equation to verify my theory. If someone gets a prize for the theory i'm going to have mixed feelings.



keepit, I truly appreciate what you do at this website.

I shot myself in the foot in the past because I was so resentful that someone else got credit for something that I, alone, was the first to discover.

It is one thing for someone to steal credit for an idea that they learned from someone else. It is quite another when they published the data that you generated as the initiator of the research and originator of the hypothesis.

My brother got it worse, though. A Nobel Prize, LITERALLY! The major professor who originally OPPOSED my brother's hypothesis and discouraged him from wasting his time pursuing it... Once the research was done and the data was there, he changed his mind about its value, and got a Nobel Prize.

I like that the thread title says "seal lover", rather than "sealover"

I DO love seals. They are beautiful, intelligent, playful creatures.

I took "sealover" to be a sea lover.

My terrestrial ecology research already hit the mark.

The "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems" thread includes the many recent citations of my research now being applied.

On the other hand, coastal wetland groundwater biogeochemistry research is something I spent the last years of my career on, without being able to publish it in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
28-05-2024 08:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit, I truly appreciate what you do at this website.

I shot myself in the foot in the past because I was so resentful that someone else got credit for something that I, alone, was the first to discover.

You haven't discovered anything.
Im a BM wrote:
It is one thing for someone to steal credit for an idea that they learned from someone else. It is quite another when they published the data that you generated as the initiator of the research and originator of the hypothesis.

You have no data. You obviously don't even know what a hypothesis is.
Im a BM wrote:
My brother got it worse, though. A Nobel Prize, LITERALLY! The major professor who originally OPPOSED my brother's hypothesis and discouraged him from wasting his time pursuing it... Once the research was done and the data was there, he changed his mind about its value, and got a Nobel Prize.

Making up stories about yourself won't work, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
I like that the thread title says "seal lover", rather than "sealover"

I DO love seals. They are beautiful, intelligent, playful creatures.

I took "sealover" to be a sea lover.

They are also amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
My terrestrial ecology research already hit the mark.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
The "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems" thread includes the many recent citations of my research now being applied.

A thread full of BS is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, coastal wetland groundwater biogeochemistry research

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
is something I spent the last years of my career on, without being able to publish it in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Science is not a journal or magazine. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

You deny science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny chemistry. You also deny mathematics.

Your religion is 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
Edited on 28-05-2024 08:40
28-05-2024 18:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Spamming won't help you.

"You obviously don't even know what a hypothesis is".

Because in the Troll Book of Definitions, "science" has NOTHING to do with the "Scientific Method", NOR requires reproducible results from a testable hypothesis.

You can find literally THOUSANDS of ITN definitions for all the things that "Science is NOT..", on this website.

But you'll never get more than a seven word answer for what "Science IS.."

Apparently, if you understand "science" well enough, you get that "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity", and therefore the Physics Police need to arrest trillions of helium atoms for "violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" as they leave the atmosphere.

And if you are a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS, you know that seals are "amphibians".

And you don't need no stinkin' books to prove it!



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords.

You haven't discovered anything.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

You have no data. You obviously don't even know what a hypothesis is.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

Making up stories about yourself won't work, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

They are also amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

A thread full of BS is not science.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

Science is not a journal or magazine. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

You deny science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny chemistry. You also deny mathematics.

Your religion is not science.
28-05-2024 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
Spamming won't help you.

Take your own advice.
Im a BM wrote:
"You obviously don't even know what a hypothesis is".

Because in the Troll Book of Definitions, "science" has NOTHING to do with the "Scientific Method", NOR requires reproducible results from a testable hypothesis.

Learn what 'hypothesis' means. A hypothesis is not a theory. No theory can be proven True. Science is not a method. Science is not results.
Im a BM wrote:
You can find literally THOUSANDS of ITN definitions for all the things that "Science is NOT..", on this website.

Because you keep calling all kinds of wacky things 'science'.
Im a BM wrote:
But you'll never get more than a seven word answer for what "Science IS.."

Already given. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, if you understand "science" well enough, you get that "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity", and therefore the Physics Police need to arrest trillions of helium atoms for "violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" as they leave the atmosphere.

They don't leave the atmosphere. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
And if you are a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS, you know that seals are "amphibians".

They are.
Im a BM wrote:
And you don't need no stinkin' books to prove it!

Science is not a book. A book is not a proof.

Redefinition fallacies.


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
01-06-2024 19:10
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
(sealover et al). 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's Pygmy Forest: A positive feedback? Biogeochemistry Volume 42 pages 189-220


This paper, published in the journal Biogeochemistry, and cited in 468 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks, includes a hypothesis.

But, apparently, "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry".

As per infallible decree.



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Spamming won't help you.

Take your own advice.
Im a BM wrote:
"You obviously don't even know what a hypothesis is".

Because in the Troll Book of Definitions, "science" has NOTHING to do with the "Scientific Method", NOR requires reproducible results from a testable hypothesis.

Learn what 'hypothesis' means. A hypothesis is not a theory. No theory can be proven True. Science is not a method. Science is not results.
Im a BM wrote:
You can find literally THOUSANDS of ITN definitions for all the things that "Science is NOT..", on this website.

Because you keep calling all kinds of wacky things 'science'.
Im a BM wrote:
But you'll never get more than a seven word answer for what "Science IS.."

Already given. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, if you understand "science" well enough, you get that "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity", and therefore the Physics Police need to arrest trillions of helium atoms for "violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" as they leave the atmosphere.

They don't leave the atmosphere. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
And if you are a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS, you know that seals are "amphibians".

They are.
Im a BM wrote:
And you don't need no stinkin' books to prove it!

Science is not a book. A book is not a proof.

Redefinition fallacies.
01-06-2024 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
(sealover et al). 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's Pygmy Forest: A positive feedback? Biogeochemistry Volume 42 pages 189-220

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science is not a paper.
Im a BM wrote:
This paper, published in the journal Biogeochemistry, and cited in 468 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks, includes a hypothesis.

Science is not a paper, journal, or textbook. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. A hypothesis is not a theory. Redefinition fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
But, apparently, "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry".

There isn't.
Im a BM wrote:
As per infallible decree.

I am not decreeing anything. You simply make up BS words and try to call them 'sCiEnCe'.

Your religion is 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




Join the debate seal lover:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
As a CO2 lover, I'd like to see Trump and Democrat congress win 2020 election1021-06-2019 22:08
▲ 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