seal lover

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 .

keepit wrote: You have to understand that sealover is highly educated with numerous publications, even the Nature magazine.

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

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

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

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.

keepit wrote: Gas, He teaches at the level he wants to and we can take it or leave it.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

sealover wrote:
"Does Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?"

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

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

sealover wrote:
I will continue to post about biogeochemistry,

sealover wrote:
with updates on the most recent papers that cite my research and its applications in relation to climate 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.

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...

sealover wrote:
Perhaps there are learning disabilities involved.

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

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

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.

keepit wrote: ibd, Have you read about the degrees he has and where he got them from?

keepit wrote: The california school system is really tough!

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

keepit wrote: ibd, You're just spewing your party line and i'm not buying it.

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

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

sealover wrote: Thank you, keepit.

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

sealover wrote: I will continue to post about biogeochemistry

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

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...

Im a BM wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that YOU are NOT responsible for MY problems?

keepit wrote:
ibd,
You go on about claims that i don't think for myself

keepit wrote:
and then you ramble on spewing party line without a single deviation that i know of.

keepit wrote:
Then you rant about marxists in the california system and you rant about me being a marxist.

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

keepit wrote:
That post is a bunch of baloney.

keepit wrote:
Itn,
You're arguing with your own filaments (figments of your imagination).

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.

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.

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.

keepit wrote:
itn,
You're wrong again.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonate is not a chemical" - the definer of words.

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?

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
My terrestrial ecology research already hit the mark.

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

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, coastal wetland groundwater biogeochemistry research

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Im a BM wrote:
And if you are a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS, you know that seals are "amphibians".

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

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.

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

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.

Im a BM wrote:
But, apparently, "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry".

Im a BM wrote:
As per infallible decree.