The Data Mine

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Data Mine > Page 9

Page 9 of 9

27-08-2026 01:55
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining and ranting... Branner does not. In one case Branner DID remove some of the posts in which IBdaMann doxed another member, including information about several of my family members. Actually scared the shit out of my son, who believed the guy wasn't just an ugly troll, but probably a dangerous pychopath who wanted the world to know he knew exactly where we lived so we could be harmed. It worked. My son was so spooked by the ugly-clowns-killing-people videos that IBdaMann posted for me that he insisted I stop posting here. But after a two month pause, I convinced my son there was no need to fear IBdaMann, and I started posting again. You doxed yourself, Robert. IBDaMann didn't dox anyone. Magick Words (dox, psychopath). Buzzword fallacies. Stop making shit up. Did you know you can be sued for slander and libel? No forum operator will protect you.[/quote] "Did you know you can be sued for slander and libel?" - Into the Night Before I got doxed, the false accusations made against me didn't qualify as slander or libel. They were lies, but they did not defame the person I actually am. But you insist on doxing me and calling me "Robert". Now your false accusations DO qualify as libel. How could this possibly turn into a lawsuit? Let's pretend that I applied for a job in a laboratory doing chemical analysis. Something goes haywire with the vetting process, and the only records they can find about my skills are on the Internet. They see that Into the Night claims I lie about everything, I have never set foot in the lab, I am NOT a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind, I don't understand anything about chemistry and nearly everything I might say is just made up shit. Let's say that is the only thing that prevented me from getting the job. But otherwise, I really can't claim any actual harm has resulted from your libel and slander. Nobody is going to take anything you post about me seriously. Even if you somehow discovered some incriminating secret about me, who is going to believe ANYTHING that this lying troll says? It's funny how you justify IBdaMann doxing other members, yet invoke the possibility that I might be sued for libel or slander, I suppose the "protection" that the forum operator could deny me would be to refuse to comply with requests to provide records of exactly how, when, where, etc., IBdaMann listed names and other identifying information about my family members, Google maps to our home, phone numbers, email address, from my Mom to my brother and nephews. IBdaMann did a dragnet for everything he could find to post about me. Branner deleted MOST of it. There is still that one post up with the photo of a house I lived in 20 years ago, as IBdaMann doxes someone else's car and motorcycle details because they are the current residents. But I would need Branner to "protect" me with records of the absolutely inexcusable shit that IBdaMann posted and Branner deleted in his doxing binge of May, 2022. So, thanks for the warning of the legal liabilities I face as a poster who might be held to account in some way for doing something sleazy and inexcusable here.
27-08-2026 08:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM wrote: Before I got doxed, the false accusations made against me didn't qualify as slander or libel. They were lies, but they did not defame the person I actually am. You doxed yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: But you insist on doxing me and calling me "Robert". You doxed yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Now your false accusations DO qualify as libel. You doxed yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Let's pretend that I applied for a job in a laboratory doing chemical analysis. You don't qualify. Im a BM wrote: Something goes haywire with the vetting process, and the only records they can find about my skills are on the Internet. They see that Into the Night claims I lie about everything, I have never set foot in the lab, I am NOT a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind, I don't understand anything about chemistry and nearly everything I might say is just made up shit. Let's say that is the only thing that prevented me from getting the job. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry. You are not a scientist. You deny many theories of science. You deny statistical and random number mathematics and even algebra. Im a BM wrote: But otherwise, I really can't claim any actual harm has resulted from your libel and slander. Nobody is going to take anything you post about me seriously. Nah. It's obvious you don't know anything about chemistry or science or mathematics. Im a BM wrote: Even if you somehow discovered some incriminating secret about me, who is going to believe ANYTHING that this lying troll says? You can't blame your trolling on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: It's funny how you justify IBdaMann doxing other members, yet invoke the possibility that I might be sued for libel or slander, You doxed yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: I suppose the "protection" that the forum operator could deny me would be to refuse to comply with requests to provide records of exactly how, when, where, etc., IBdaMann listed names and other identifying information about my family members, Google maps to our home, phone numbers, email address, from my Mom to my brother and nephews. IBdaMann did a dragnet for everything he could find to post about me. Branner deleted MOST of it. You doxed yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: There is still that one post up with the photo of a house I lived in 20 years ago, as IBdaMann doxes someone else's car and motorcycle details because they are the current residents. But I would need Branner to "protect" me with records of the absolutely inexcusable shit that IBdaMann posted and Branner deleted in his doxing binge of May, 2022. You doxed yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: So, thanks for the warning of the legal liabilities I face as a poster who might be held to account in some way for doing something sleazy and inexcusable here. You doxed yourself, Robert. 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
27-08-2026 15:22
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Tim the plumber wrote: climate scientist wrote: Hi Into the Night Anyone who knows anything about science, will know that correlation and causation do not always go hand in hand see: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Just because you do not see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, it does not mean that they are not linked. But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way. It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support. October, 2015, and less than a week after Into the Night started this thread, there were multiple members even discussing "The Data Mine". Going back through the website archives to October, 2015, one can see that "The Data Mine" was just one of many threads being discussed by multiple members. Other threads had far higher rates of participation by more members. One can see from the introductory thesis post by Into the Night (page 1) why the majority of active members at the time found it to be of little interest or worthy of reply. Climate Scientist gets this response from Tim the Plumber, to what Climate Scientist wrote in response to Into the Night's "The Data Mine" thesis post. Very different, those two, but they both got driven away by the inexcusable trolling and doxing by IBdaMann. Climate Scientist was a PhD climate scientist who posted in good faith, in the interest of sharing accurate scientific information about a most important topic. Tim the Plumber was a militant "skeptic", and presumably a brother in arms with IBdaMann in the struggle to "debunk" manmade climate change. But only one fish can be the biggest in the toilet, and Tim the Plumber did not kiss the ring. As of October, 2015, IBdaMann hadn't poisoned the well badly enough yet to drive them all away. His eleven year trolling rampage had only begun near the end of September, 2015. But it didn't take a lot longer for IBdaMann to make things so ugly that Tim the Plumber and Climate Scientist both stopped participating. Into the Night hung in there, with popular and informative threads such as this.
27-08-2026 15:24
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Tim the Plumber is one of the members who IBdaMann doxed, in order to prove he was right about the science related to climate. In the "Put your money where your mouth is" thread, on December 27, 2022, IBdaMann posted a photo of what he claimed to be the place where Tim the Plumber lived, worked, or both. Into the Night wrote: "Doxing is a real problem" IBdaMann responded: "It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both." ("THIS" was highlighted in blue, and clicking it opened up a photo with address) To which Tim the Plumber responded: "Or if I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble" Even Elon Musk draws the line at doxing as a limit to free speech absolutism. Branner does not. In one case Branner DID remove some of the posts in which IBdaMann doxed another member, including information about several of my family members. Actually scared the shit out of my son, who believed the guy wasn't just an ugly troll, but probably a dangerous pychopath who wanted the world to know he knew exactly where we lived so we could be harmed. It worked. My son was so spooked by the ugly-clowns-killing-people videos that IBdaMann posted for me that he insisted I stop posting here. But after a two month pause, I convinced my son there was no need to fear IBdaMann, and I started posting again. DISCLAIMER: I have been informed and am aware that I may be SUED for this.
27-08-2026 17:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM wrote: October, 2015, and less than a week after Into the Night started this thread, there were multiple members even discussing "The Data Mine". ...deleted remain off topic material... Stay on topic. This is the Data Mine. This is not a War room for your rants. 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
27-08-2026 18:03
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"Since anyone can make up numbers of quote numbers form someone else.." Let me instead show you the numbers that I calculated with my own measurements for LIGNIN. However, it would be extremely difficult to satisfy all the conditions you seem to require.. My lignin numbers are published in the highly-prestigious scientific journal Nature, among other places. Most chemists would be satisfied with the requirements Naturesets for the kind of data they allowed me to publish. The paper spells out the methodology. Paper: RR Northup, et al. 1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature volume 377, pages 227-229. Methodology: Lignin was extracted and measured using the acid detergent method (Goering and Van Soest, 1970). Lignin concentrations in decomposing pine litter samples ranged from 22-39%. And so far, this was all enough proof of data quality for the journal Nature. I can only assume this is NOT enough for Into the Night. Into the Night, it is very EASY to find my Nature paper for reference, and as a "chemist" and lignin "expert", you are surely familiar with the Goering and Van Soest method, standardized by the USDA in 1970 for "reportable" lignin numbers. As you are well aware, the Kraft lignin extraction is not used as an analytical method, but rather an industrial process. So, before you will accept my lignin numbers in your Data Mine, be very specific about what more you need, that can't be found in my Nature paper, or requires more explanation than reference to the standardized acid detergent method. The range of 22-39 percent lignin is somewhat misleading, as most samples were within a much narrower range around 30% lignin. This roughly average 30% lignin content is a striking contrast to how much the condensed tannin and total phenolic content varied among the same samples. One of our more important findings was to show how polyphenol concentration more than doubled in nearly linear fashion across the soil acidity gradient, whereas lignin showed no correlation at all to soil pH. HEY! I'll come back with my soil pH data for the Data Mine! You can apply your chemistry genius to show me what I need to do with my OWN published soil pH data to qualify for the Data Mine. Meanwhile, tell me what more I need, SPECIFICALLY, before you accept my LIGNIN data. Into the Night wrote: It has occurred to me that there is a lot of numbers being thrown around to prove this or prove that. This thread will concentrate on presenting data that either support or falsifies whether global warming is taking place, and if so, by how much. A few rules (as always!): 1. Since anyone can make up numbers or quote numbers from someone else that did, any data presented here must conform to the following limitations: a. the source must be known. It does not have be well known, but it must be known. b. the data must be in raw form (no fudging allowed, and no composites of data allowed) unless you can show the equation the modification used and the justification for that equation. Note that composite data such as central NOAA composite temperatures are not admissible here. Individual station data, however, is. 2. the data must be presented in the actual forum. A link may be used to back up the quotation, but a copy of the data must be here for all to see without using the link. 3. The methodology of collecting the data must be available. In other words, how was the data actually collected (the mechanisms, the instrumentation, etc). Be prepared to produce that information on demand. It would be best to show it up front. 4. The range of the data must be shown. The range of collection period, in other words. 5. The reliability of the data collection apparatus must be shown. Data collected over a long period of time is particularly susceptible to equipment failures or failures related to influences not part of the collection methodology. 6. If a plot is used, the scales must be linear (unless the units themselves are logarithmic), and must be referenced against a zero for the ground reference (axis reference). 7. Computed or modeled data is not data and is therefore not admissible. 8. Conclusions based on the data should be restricted to that data only. No conclusions from conclusions. In other words, you can show a town is warming, but concluding that proves global warming is not permissible. Neither is listing or conjecturing catastrophes that will result from a particular plot or dataset. This leaves the reader free to determine their own conclusion of the data from the actual data, not unrelated conclusions presented with it. In my own experience I have found numbers thrown out there a lot. I suspect all numbers until I know where the number came from, who generated it, how the number was generated, and for what purpose. Until I know these things, the number is nothing more than a random number to me. These rules may seem stringent, and they are. I believe they are necessary at the least, however, to cut through the wad of random numbers that keep getting thrown around. The floor is open to contributors.
28-08-2026 09:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15381)	Im a BM wrote: Most chemists would be satisfied with the requirements Naturesets for the kind of data they allowed me to publish. Nope. Actual chemists would discard all of your data that is not properly detailed and curated, and that is missing the collection plan showing how the data so collected meets the requirements to draw conclusions within the target margin of error. Nature is a gibberish rag that accepts any trivia you throw its way. Im a BM wrote: The paper spells out the methodology. What was the target margin of error? Im a BM wrote:Methodology: Lignin was extracted and measured using the acid detergent method (Goering and Van Soest, 1970). Using what instrumentation? How was it calibrated? What is the manufacturer's engineering tolerances. Where is your report detailing your adherence to the NIST SP GUM? Real chemists would need to look at that first. Im a BM wrote:Lignin concentrations in decomposing pine litter samples ranged from 22-39%. You've given real chemists absolutely no reason to trust your numbers. As far as it appears, you seem no different from leftist political hacks who simply fabricate whatever numbers they please. Of course Nature will publish anything you give them without performing any due diligence and without requiring you to provide any of the materials I mentioned above. Nature couldn't give a rat's tail if anything you write is even true; they just need content by their publication deadline. The major problem that you don't seem able to overcome is that you are trying to measure lignins, for which there are only proxy measures. You won't even identify the proxy measures that you use because you know that would generate a vast array of questions that you are not equipped to answer. So you instead take the dishonesty route and conceal the proxy nature of your data measurements. This gets your data summarily discarded by any serious readers. Further, you don't even provide the data, you only provide your folded, spindled and mutilated conclusions, which gets your conclusions summarily discarded by any serious readers. If Into the Night includes your completely invalid conclusions in the Data Mine as data, I will chastize the shit out of him. Nonetheless, I don't believe there is any chance that he will suffer a brain fart of the magnitude necessary to allow that to happen in the first place. Im a BM wrote: And so far, this was all enough proof of data quality for the journal Nature. My point exactly. Nature isn't a serious publication. Comedians peruse Nature for material. Im a BM wrote: I can only assume this is NOT enough for Into the Night. I would hope that Into the Night has (much) higher standards. I wouldn't accept your (potentially fabricated) trivia as any sort of basis for drawing any sort of important conclusions. You probably don't even know what a "margin of error" is or why it is needed. Im a BM wrote:The range of 22-39 percent lignin is somewhat misleading, as most samples were within a much narrower range around 30% lignin. I'm envisioning you using a defective analytical balance with a failed detector, balance, or ADC, stuck always returning a ~30% signal without you ever catching on. It's not like you included the calibration schedule, perhaps for a reason. Im a BM wrote:HEY! I'll come back with my soil pH data for the Data Mine! Great! Be sure to bring the other necessary stuff as well. Get with Into the Night if you need any clarification.
28-08-2026 18:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." - IBdaMann "You have never set foot in a laboratory." - Into the Night "Go and learn some science." "You don't even know what science is." "Nature is a shit rag." "Soil has no pH." "CO3(2-) is not a chemical." "Dilution is buffering." "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." - IBdaMann & Into the Night (duet) IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Most chemists would be satisfied with the requirements Naturesets for the kind of data they allowed me to publish. Nope. Actual chemists would discard all of your data that is not properly detailed and curated, and that is missing the collection plan showing how the data so collected meets the requirements to draw conclusions within the target margin of error. Nature is a gibberish rag that accepts any trivia you throw its way. Im a BM wrote: The paper spells out the methodology. What was the target margin of error? Im a BM wrote:Methodology: Lignin was extracted and measured using the acid detergent method (Goering and Van Soest, 1970). Using what instrumentation? How was it calibrated? What is the manufacturer's engineering tolerances. Where is your report detailing your adherence to the NIST SP GUM? Real chemists would need to look at that first. Im a BM wrote:Lignin concentrations in decomposing pine litter samples ranged from 22-39%. You've given real chemists absolutely no reason to trust your numbers. As far as it appears, you seem no different from leftist political hacks who simply fabricate whatever numbers they please. Of course Nature will publish anything you give them without performing any due diligence and without requiring you to provide any of the materials I mentioned above. Nature couldn't give a rat's tail if anything you write is even true; they just need content by their publication deadline. The major problem that you don't seem able to overcome is that you are trying to measure lignins, for which there are only proxy measures. You won't even identify the proxy measures that you use because you know that would generate a vast array of questions that you are not equipped to answer. So you instead take the dishonesty route and conceal the proxy nature of your data measurements. This gets your data summarily discarded by any serious readers. Further, you don't even provide the data, you only provide your folded, spindled and mutilated conclusions, which gets your conclusions summarily discarded by any serious readers. If Into the Night includes your completely invalid conclusions in the Data Mine as data, I will chastize the shit out of him. Nonetheless, I don't believe there is any chance that he will suffer a brain fart of the magnitude necessary to allow that to happen in the first place. Im a BM wrote: And so far, this was all enough proof of data quality for the journal Nature. My point exactly. Nature isn't a serious publication. Comedians peruse Nature for material. Im a BM wrote: I can only assume this is NOT enough for Into the Night. I would hope that Into the Night has (much) higher standards. I wouldn't accept your (potentially fabricated) trivia as any sort of basis for drawing any sort of important conclusions. You probably don't even know what a "margin of error" is or why it is needed. Im a BM wrote:The range of 22-39 percent lignin is somewhat misleading, as most samples were within a much narrower range around 30% lignin. I'm envisioning you using a defective analytical balance with a failed detector, balance, or ADC, stuck always returning a ~30% signal without you ever catching on. It's not like you included the calibration schedule, perhaps for a reason. Im a BM wrote:HEY! I'll come back with my soil pH data for the Data Mine! Great! Be sure to bring the other necessary stuff as well. Get with Into the Night if you need any clarification. Edited on 28-08-2026 18:21
29-08-2026 07:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM wrote: "Since anyone can make up numbers of quote numbers form someone else.." Let me instead show you the numbers that I calculated with my own measurements for LIGNIN. However, it would be extremely difficult to satisfy all the conditions you seem to require.. My lignin numbers are published in the highly-prestigious scientific journal Nature, among other places. Lignin is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Most chemists would be satisfied with the requirements Naturesets for the kind of data they allowed me to publish. The paper spells out the methodology. There is no methodology. Im a BM wrote: Methodology: Lignin was extracted and measured using the acid detergent method (Goering and Van Soest, 1970). Lignin concentrations in decomposing pine litter samples ranged from 22-39%. Lignin is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: And so far, this was all enough proof of data quality for the journal Nature. No data. Im a BM wrote: I can only assume this is NOT enough for Into the Night. Go read the rules of the Data Mine. 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
29-08-2026 14:51
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"Lignin is not a chemical." - Into the Night "Lignin is a carbohydrate." - Into the Night Unlike CO3(2-), the carbonate ion, lignin is not a single chemical. But lignin sure as hell is NOT a "carbohydrate" While the term "polyphenol" usually refers to tannins, both condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins, it technically includes lignin as well. Lignin is a polyphenol, a polymer of aromatic alcohols, benzene rings with hydroxyl groups attached. Not even close to a "carbohydrate". But not a "tannin" either, because lignin does NOT have the carboxylic acid groups on those benzene rings that make tannin polyphenols "phenol, carboxylic acids". The Data Mine was bogus from Day 1 (October 13, 2015). But the climate-debate website wasn't bogus back then. There were still a lot of intelligent, well-informed members attempting to have a rational discussion about the website topic, and doing so in good faith. Eleven years ago, these two ugly trolls hadn't driven them away yet. On October 13, 2015, Into the Night had only been posting here for ONE week. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Since anyone can make up numbers of quote numbers form someone else.." Let me instead show you the numbers that I calculated with my own measurements for LIGNIN. However, it would be extremely difficult to satisfy all the conditions you seem to require.. My lignin numbers are published in the highly-prestigious scientific journal Nature, among other places. Lignin is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Most chemists would be satisfied with the requirements Naturesets for the kind of data they allowed me to publish. The paper spells out the methodology. There is no methodology. Im a BM wrote: Methodology: Lignin was extracted and measured using the acid detergent method (Goering and Van Soest, 1970). Lignin concentrations in decomposing pine litter samples ranged from 22-39%. Lignin is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: And so far, this was all enough proof of data quality for the journal Nature. No data. Im a BM wrote: I can only assume this is NOT enough for Into the Night. Go read the rules of the Data Mine.
29-08-2026 20:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Unlike CO3(2-), the carbonate ion, lignin is not a single chemical. But lignin sure as hell is NOT a "carbohydrate" While the term "polyphenol" usually refers to tannins, both condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins, it technically includes lignin as well. Lignin is a polyphenol, a polymer of aromatic alcohols, benzene rings with hydroxyl groups attached. Not even close to a "carbohydrate". But not a "tannin" either, because lignin does NOT have the carboxylic acid groups on those benzene rings that make tannin polyphenols "phenol, carboxylic acids". CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Lignin is not a chemical. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Tannin is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: The Data Mine was bogus from Day 1 (October 13, 2015). ...deleted remaining off topic material... This is the Data Mine. Please restrict your posting to presenting data according to the rules of the Data Mine. 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
30-08-2026 01:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15381)	Im a BM wrote: But lignin sure as hell is NOT a "carbohydrate" Lignin does not deviate from a single unambiguous definition of "carbohydrate" that you have provided. Im a BM wrote: While the term "polyphenol" usually refers to tannins, both condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins, it technically includes lignin as well.[/quote[ Not according to a single unambiguous definition you have provided. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Lignin is a polyphenol, a polymer of aromatic alcohols, benzene rings with hydroxyl groups attached. Did you want to unambiguosly define all of these terms, or shall anyone define them as he wishes? Im a BM wrote: The Data Mine was bogus from Day 1 (October 13, 2015). i.e. the day that reasonable requirements were imposed.
30-08-2026 06:19
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: But lignin sure as hell is NOT a "carbohydrate" Lignin does not deviate from a single unambiguous definition of "carbohydrate" that you have provided. Im a BM wrote: While the term "polyphenol" usually refers to tannins, both condensed tannins and hydrolyzable tannins, it technically includes lignin as well.[/quote[ Not according to a single unambiguous definition you have provided. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Lignin is a polyphenol, a polymer of aromatic alcohols, benzene rings with hydroxyl groups attached. Did you want to unambiguosly define all of these terms, or shall anyone define them as he wishes? Im a BM wrote: The Data Mine was bogus from Day 1 (October 13, 2015). i.e. the day that reasonable requirements were imposed. Google is God's gift to ME! Google makes a great attack dog against trolls. Trolls can kick and scream about the legitimacy of Google, but they know that anyone can do a quick fact check at home to see if they believe Google. For a question as straightforward as which major category of organic compounds doe a major natural product such as lignin fall into, Google can give an answer that makes SENSE, without pulling any "RQAA" bullshit, or hiding behind word games without any citable source for extraordinary contrarian claims. Google, in thy infallible wisdom and eternal omniscience, please tell me: "Is lignin a carbohydrate?" Google doesn't pHuck around with an evasive bullshit obfuscation. Google say: "No" And unlike a scientifically-illiterate troll, Google gives a coherent explanation for WHY it says "No, it's not". Google say: "No, lignin is not a carbohydrate; it is an irregular phenolic polymer made of aromatic alcohols. KEY DIFFERENCES * Chemical Structure: Carbohydrates are sugars or starches made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in specific ring structures. Lignin is a complex, cross-linked aromatic polymer built from phenylpropanoid units (monolignols like coniferyl alcohol). * Function in plants: Blah blah blah, not the same as what carbs to.. * Association: Although distinct, lignin is often chemically-bound to cell wall carbohydrates to form lignin-carbohydrate complexes." The "white liquor" used in wood pulp and paper processing contains strong base (NaOH) to raise pH enough to make lignin soluble, and sodium sulfide, a strong chemical reducing agent to tear apart the bonds that link lignin to cellulose and hemicellulose.
30-08-2026 07:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15381)	Im a BM wrote: Google makes a great attack dog against trolls. You don't know what a "troll" is. Trolls can kick and scream about how Google is God's infallible gift, but they have no idea how to recognize when they are being fed errors, and thus simply regurgitate whatever the internet commands them to believe. If only they had paid attention in school. Im a BM wrote:For a question as straightforward as which major category of organic compounds doe a major natural product such as lignin fall Who determines the categories? Give me a name. Im a BM wrote: Google doesn't pHuck around with an evasive bullshit obfuscation. 95% of what Google provides is not relevant to what one is searching. Why do you believe everything that is on the internet, just because it is on the internet?
30-08-2026 08:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM wrote: Google is God's gift to ME! Google makes a great attack dog against trolls. Trolls can kick and scream about the legitimacy of Google, but they know that anyone can do a quick fact check at home to see if they believe Google. For a question as straightforward as which major category of organic compounds doe a major natural product such as lignin fall into, Google can give an answer that makes SENSE, without pulling any "RQAA" bullshit, or hiding behind word games without any citable source for extraordinary contrarian claims. Lignin is not a chemical. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Im a BM wrote: Google, in thy infallible wisdom and eternal omniscience, please tell me: "Is lignin a carbohydrate?" Google doesn't pHuck around with an evasive bullshit obfuscation. Google say: "No" And unlike a scientifically-illiterate troll, Google gives a coherent explanation for WHY it says "No, it's not". Google say: "No, lignin is not a carbohydrate; it is an irregular phenolic polymer made of aromatic alcohols. Lignin is not a chemical. Phenolic polymer is not a chemical. [b]Im a BM wrote: KEY DIFFERENCES * Chemical Structure: Carbohydrates are sugars or starches made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in specific ring structures. Lignin is a complex, cross-linked aromatic polymer built from phenylpropanoid units (monolignols like coniferyl alcohol). Lignin is not a chemical. Carbohydrate is not a chemical. Aromatic polymer is not a chemical. Penylpropanoid is not a chemical. Monolignaol is not a chemical. Coniferyl alchohol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: * Function in plants: Blah blah blah, not the same as what carbs to.. * Association: Although distinct, lignin is often chemically-bound to cell wall carbohydrates to form lignin-carbohydrate complexes."[/b] Carbohydrate is not a chemical. Lignin is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: The "white liquor" used in wood pulp and paper processing contains strong base (NaOH) to raise pH enough to make lignin soluble, and sodium sulfide, a strong chemical reducing agent to tear apart the bonds that link lignin to cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin is not a chemical. Carbohydrate is not a chemical. You still don't know how to process wood pulp into paper. 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 30-08-2026 08:21
30-08-2026 17:15
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"I don't use Usenet." - Into the Night Maybe not today, but... Google inquiry: "Examples of posts by internet persona 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site" Google say: "The internet persona 'Into the Night' is a highly prolific and notoriously dogmatic contrarian who has frequented Usenet groups (such as alt.global-warming and alt.politics) and various off-shoot political discussion boards for years. This persona is widely known for using a highly repetitive, formulaic, and aggressive style of argumentation to deny anthropogenic climate change. Rather than engaging in nuanced debate, 'Into the Night' relies heavily on rigid interpretations of classical physics and mathematics to dismiss mainstream science. Typical examples, arguments, and stylistic traits that characterize posts by Into the Night include: 1. The Thermodynamics Argument (Denial of the Greenhouse Effect) The most common trope used by this persona is the claim that the greenhouse effect is physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics. 2. The 'Real Greenhouses' Semantic Argument (with more details) ..asserting that because the atmosphere does not have a physical glass ceiling, the term 'greenhouse' is a fraud. 3. Dismissal of CO2 as a Forcing Agent (with more details) 4. Categorizing Arguments as 'Logical Fallacies' (with more details) Summary of Posting Style If you encounter this persona in a global-warming thread, the interaction almost always follows a specific pattern. * Short punchy sentences delivered with absolute certainty. * Accusing opponents of being uneducated or 'denying mathematics/physics'. * Endless evasion of data by demanding definitions or moving goalposts to abstract philosophical laws, rather than addressing real world observations." According to Google, this "Into the Night" did this as a user at Usenet. The uncanny similarity to what he posts right here can't be mere coincidence. Maybe it's not a LIE to say "I don't use Usenet" (today!). Will Into the Night try to pretend that Google is talking about a DIFFERENT "Into the Night" at Usenet? The irony is that in a decade and a half of posting, he has been unable to learn anything new.
31-08-2026 00:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Stop spamming and trolling.
31-08-2026 15:21
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming and trolling. "Stop spamming and trolling"? Translation: "Do as I say, not as I do". Teaching by example was never your strong suit, Into the Night! Science is not blah blah blah. Blah blah is not a chemical. You cannot blah blah a blah. There is no such thing as "blah blah blah". It is not possible to measure global blah. You don't even know what blah blah blah is. You deny blah. You are a blah. You are describing your own blah. Falsified feces fallacy. Mantra mantra. When Into the Night reaches that 25,000 post threshold, he may be the last troll still spamming... still standing at climate-debate.com Hooray for the King of the Hill! Oh, shit! What's that smell? What is that hill made of? How shall we celebrate the 11th anniversary of ITN's first post here? Less than forty days to organize some kind of party for it. WOO HOO! Eleven years of trolling! Almost... And, apparently, an even longer history of trolling elsewhere!
31-08-2026 19:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Stop whining.
01-09-2026 02:47
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Dear Data Mine, I have actually published a lot of data in widely cited peer reviewed scientific papers. I know a few things about dealing with data. For example, I published a LOT of organic nitrogen data. Specifically, the concentration of dissolved organic forms of nitrogen in water samples. My data was reported as milligrams N per liter. I know that The Data Mine couldn't handle MY data. It is for parameters that DON'T EVEN EXIST. According to Into the Night, there is no such thing as "organic nitrogen". So, my data is meaningless, regardless of instrumentation, etc. My published data includes measurement of soil pH. Reported as regular pH units, with the specification of whether the soil slurry was made with pure water or dilute calcium chloride. According to Into the Night, "Soil has no pH". So, my data is meaningless. As with the organic nitrogen, I measured something that doesn't exist. All those fancy rules for the Data Mine become irrelevant for my own data. And yet, it was good enough to pass rigorous peer review and get published. Suck on THAT, Parrot Boy! "I don't use Usenet." - Into the Night Maybe not today, but... Google inquiry: "Examples of posts by internet persona 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site" Google say: "The internet persona 'Into the Night' is a highly prolific and notoriously dogmatic contrarian who has frequented Usenet groups (such as alt.global-warming and alt.politics) and various off-shoot political discussion boards for years. This persona is widely known for using a highly repetitive, formulaic, and aggressive style of argumentation to deny anthropogenic climate change. Rather than engaging in nuanced debate, 'Into the Night' relies heavily on rigid interpretations of classical physics and mathematics to dismiss mainstream science. Typical examples, arguments, and stylistic traits that characterize posts by Into the Night include: 1. The Thermodynamics Argument (Denial of the Greenhouse Effect) The most common trope used by this persona is the claim that the greenhouse effect is physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics. 2. The 'Real Greenhouses' Semantic Argument (with more details) ..asserting that because the atmosphere does not have a physical glass ceiling, the term 'greenhouse' is a fraud. 3. Dismissal of CO2 as a Forcing Agent (with more details) 4. Categorizing Arguments as 'Logical Fallacies' (with more details) Summary of Posting Style If you encounter this persona in a global-warming thread, the interaction almost always follows a specific pattern. * Short punchy sentences delivered with absolute certainty. * Accusing opponents of being uneducated or 'denying mathematics/physics'. * Endless evasion of data by demanding definitions or moving goalposts to abstract philosophical laws, rather than addressing real world observations." According to Google, this "Into the Night" did this as a user at Usenet. The uncanny similarity to what he posts right here can't be mere coincidence. Maybe it's not a LIE to say "I don't use Usenet" (today!). Will Into the Night try to pretend that Google is talking about a DIFFERENT "Into the Night" at Usenet? The irony is that in a decade and a half of posting, he has been unable to learn anything new. Spam is as spam does.
01-09-2026 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Stop spamming. You obviously have no data to present.
02-09-2026 16:46
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:.." - Into the Night Reminds me of the most corrupt president in US history calling it "fake news" when the truth is not flattering. "FakeGoogle" is available to anyone! In the underlying post, "FakeGoogle" was asked for: "Examples of posts by internet persona known as 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site." Anyone can prove that the methodology and results are reproducible by placing this same inquiry at google.com, the fake store front for "FakeGoogle". Dear Data Mine, I have actually published a lot of data in widely cited peer reviewed scientific papers. I know a few things about dealing with data. For example, I published a LOT of organic nitrogen data. Specifically, the concentration of dissolved organic forms of nitrogen in water samples. My data was reported as milligrams N per liter. I know that The Data Mine couldn't handle MY data. It is for parameters that DON'T EVEN EXIST. According to Into the Night, there is no such thing as "organic nitrogen". So, my data is meaningless, regardless of instrumentation, etc. My published data includes measurement of soil pH. Reported as regular pH units, with the specification of whether the soil slurry was made with pure water or dilute calcium chloride. According to Into the Night, "Soil has no pH". So, my data is meaningless. As with the organic nitrogen, I measured something that doesn't exist. All those fancy rules for the Data Mine become irrelevant for my own data. And yet, it was good enough to pass rigorous peer review and get published. Suck on THAT, Parrot Boy! "I don't use Usenet." - Into the Night Maybe not today, but... Google inquiry: "Examples of posts by internet persona 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site" Google say: "The internet persona 'Into the Night' is a highly prolific and notoriously dogmatic contrarian who has frequented Usenet groups (such as alt.global-warming and alt.politics) and various off-shoot political discussion boards for years. This persona is widely known for using a highly repetitive, formulaic, and aggressive style of argumentation to deny anthropogenic climate change. Rather than engaging in nuanced debate, 'Into the Night' relies heavily on rigid interpretations of classical physics and mathematics to dismiss mainstream science. Typical examples, arguments, and stylistic traits that characterize posts by Into the Night include: 1. The Thermodynamics Argument (Denial of the Greenhouse Effect) The most common trope used by this persona is the claim that the greenhouse effect is physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics. 2. The 'Real Greenhouses' Semantic Argument (with more details) ..asserting that because the atmosphere does not have a physical glass ceiling, the term 'greenhouse' is a fraud. 3. Dismissal of CO2 as a Forcing Agent (with more details) 4. Categorizing Arguments as 'Logical Fallacies' (with more details) Summary of Posting Style If you encounter this persona in a global-warming thread, the interaction almost always follows a specific pattern. * Short punchy sentences delivered with absolute certainty. * Accusing opponents of being uneducated or 'denying mathematics/physics'. * Endless evasion of data by demanding definitions or moving goalposts to abstract philosophical laws, rather than addressing real world observations." According to Google, this "Into the Night" did this as a user at Usenet. The uncanny similarity to what he posts right here can't be mere coincidence. Maybe it's not a LIE to say "I don't use Usenet" (today!). Will Into the Night try to pretend that Google is talking about a DIFFERENT "Into the Night" at Usenet? The irony is that in a decade and a half of posting, he has been unable to learn anything new. Spam is as spam does.
02-09-2026 19:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	stop spamming
04-09-2026 18:22
sealover ★★★★★ (2158)	Into the Night, I have repeatedly invited you to review and critique my data that is already in the public domain as a widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific paper. I have provided you with references on multiple occasions. I would especially be interested in your feedback as a "chemist", because you claim that there is no such thing as the parameters I measured and published. You say, "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'.", or "Nitrogen is not organic", or "Organic nitrogen is not a chemical." Any you say, "Soil has no pH". So my 1995 paper in the journal Nature, "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", and my 1994 laboratory method published in the journal Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-nitrogen" are both available for your review in most any science library database. Try Google Scholar, scholar.google.com, if you don't know where else to start. So, especially the new lab method paper is all about proving that the data was of high quality. We wanted to show other scientists how pHucking good our new method was, compared to the classic Kjeldahl digestion procedure. So, read our paper because I think you'll see we handled the math and data pretty well. But then you've still got the issue that there is "no such thing as organic nitrogen", and some of those words are NOT "chemicals", are they? My 1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil gets the most into measure of soil pH. Into the Night says "soil has no pH". Yet, my 1995 paper, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation". You could easily look it up to read my methodology section for how we measured soil pH. The "soil acidity gradient" was a steep one, with soil pH more than two pH units lower in the ancient acid white sand soils of the highest terraces, compared to younger more fertile soils of the lowest terrace. Made soil slurries with pure water or dilute calcium chloride to give us our two columns of soil pH data in the paper. You may not like data for something that doesn't even exist.. But for the LIGNIN question... Into the Night believes that there IS such as thing as "lignin". Lignin really does exist, so maybe lignin data can be presented. The most complete explanation and most extensive data set I published regarding lignin was in my *1998 paper in the journal Biogeochemistry.* "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: A positive feedback?"** Into the Night says "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.", so he may not like the title of the highly-respected peer-reviewed journal my 1998 paper was published in. But it discusses lignin chemistry more than any other paper I published. Into the Night, you could CRITICIZE the data that I published by using your research skills to (very easily) find my published data. You could tell me why the way I measured it was wrong, or what was wrong with my calculations. Or if you wanted to evade any data discussion, you could make a list of words that are not a "chemical", according to your secret redefinition of the term "chemical". That could take up a lot a post space without saying anything. Or how about explain WHY you have religious faith that there can be "no such thing" as "organic nitrogen", why "soil has no pH", and why the journal Biogeochemistry is named for something that doesn't even exist. --------------------------------------------- "Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:.." - Into the Night Reminds me of the most corrupt president in US history calling it "fake news" when the truth is not flattering. "FakeGoogle" is available to anyone! In the underlying post, "FakeGoogle" was asked for: "Examples of posts by internet persona known as 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site." Anyone can prove that the methodology and results are reproducible by placing this same inquiry at google.com, the fake store front for "FakeGoogle". Dear Data Mine, I have actually published a lot of data in widely cited peer reviewed scientific papers. I know a few things about dealing with data. For example, I published a LOT of organic nitrogen data. Specifically, the concentration of dissolved organic forms of nitrogen in water samples. My data was reported as milligrams N per liter. I know that The Data Mine couldn't handle MY data. It is for parameters that DON'T EVEN EXIST. According to Into the Night, there is no such thing as "organic nitrogen". So, my data is meaningless, regardless of instrumentation, etc. My published data includes measurement of soil pH. Reported as regular pH units, with the specification of whether the soil slurry was made with pure water or dilute calcium chloride. According to Into the Night, "Soil has no pH". So, my data is meaningless. As with the organic nitrogen, I measured something that doesn't exist. All those fancy rules for the Data Mine become irrelevant for my own data. And yet, it was good enough to pass rigorous peer review and get published. Suck on THAT, Parrot Boy! "I don't use Usenet." - Into the Night Maybe not today, but... Google inquiry: "Examples of posts by internet persona 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site" Google say: "The internet persona 'Into the Night' is a highly prolific and notoriously dogmatic contrarian who has frequented Usenet groups (such as alt.global-warming and alt.politics) and various off-shoot political discussion boards for years. This persona is widely known for using a highly repetitive, formulaic, and aggressive style of argumentation to deny anthropogenic climate change. Rather than engaging in nuanced debate, 'Into the Night' relies heavily on rigid interpretations of classical physics and mathematics to dismiss mainstream science. Typical examples, arguments, and stylistic traits that characterize posts by Into the Night include: 1. The Thermodynamics Argument (Denial of the Greenhouse Effect) The most common trope used by this persona is the claim that the greenhouse effect is physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics. 2. The 'Real Greenhouses' Semantic Argument (with more details) ..asserting that because the atmosphere does not have a physical glass ceiling, the term 'greenhouse' is a fraud. 3. Dismissal of CO2 as a Forcing Agent (with more details) 4. Categorizing Arguments as 'Logical Fallacies' (with more details) Summary of Posting Style If you encounter this persona in a global-warming thread, the interaction almost always follows a specific pattern. * Short punchy sentences delivered with absolute certainty. * Accusing opponents of being uneducated or 'denying mathematics/physics'. * Endless evasion of data by demanding definitions or moving goalposts to abstract philosophical laws, rather than addressing real world observations." According to Google, this "Into the Night" did this as a user at Usenet. The uncanny similarity to what he posts right here can't be mere coincidence. Maybe it's not a LIE to say "I don't use Usenet" (today!). Will Into the Night try to pretend that Google is talking about a DIFFERENT "Into the Night" at Usenet? The irony is that in a decade and a half of posting, he has been unable to learn anything new. Spamming is fun for everyone!
04-09-2026 20:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15381)	sealover wrote:Into the Night, I have repeatedly invited you to review and critique my data that is already in the public domain as a widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific paper. There is so much to unpack here: 1) You need to first learn what data is. A paper bearing your conclusions and findings is not the data from which you can validly draw your conclusions and findings 2) You need to learn what science is. Your paper has no science and is not a scientific paper. 3) Telling us how widely-cited your paper is is like telling us how many pounds of napalm was dropped on Vietnam, i.e. it is uninteresting trivia that serves no purpose 4) Telling us that your paper is peer-reviewed explains why you think that any gibberish you write was somehow magically transformed into science. If you were to ever learn what science is, your happy-bubble would burst and you would be forced to face the truth of your science illiteracy, and we both know that the pain would be too great to bear. 5) Your paper is a boring research paper on a boring topic. You have no choice but to refer to it as "scientific" in order to infuse some excitement and authority into the false advertising. sealover wrote: I have provided you with references on multiple occasions. You haven't provided your data, right here, in this thread. Enough said. sealover wrote:I would especially be interested in your feedback as a "chemist", because you claim that there is no such thing as the parameters I measured and published. The bottom line is that you never published any valid data set that supports the conclusions you drew in your paper. Please let me know when you publish the valid data set upon which your conclusions are drawn so that I can review it and scrutinize it. sealover wrote: You say, "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'.", or "Nitrogen is not organic", or "Organic nitrogen is not a chemical." Any you say, "Soil has no pH". Instead of correcting your errors, you repeat your chanting of "review my data". sealover wrote: So my 1995 paper in the journal Nature, "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", and my 1994 laboratory method published in the journal Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-nitrogen" are both available for your review in most any science library database. Notice that your data is not available here in this thread. Enough said. sealover wrote: So, especially the new lab method paper is all about proving that the data was of high quality. You don't get to simply declare that your data is of "high quality". You need to provide all the materials that I mentioned in a previous post or your paper is summarily discarded by anyone who is a serious researcher. sealover wrote: We wanted to show other scientists how pHucking good our new method was, compared to the classic Kjeldahl digestion procedure. Then post your data and your collection plan here in this thread. I'll tell you how good your data is. sealover wrote: So, read our paper because I think you'll see we handled the math and data pretty well. Postage and Handling isn't the issue. Did you collect the correct data from the correct locations, what instrumentation did you use and when/how was it calibrated, does your data support your conclusions, etc.? What was your collection plan and how well did you follow it? sealover wrote: But then you've still got the issue that there is "no such thing as organic nitrogen", and some of those words are NOT "chemicals", are they? Not to mention your faux pas of asserting that soil has pH. At least you don't claim to be a chemist, or that the people who cite your paper are, in any way, chemists. My 1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil gets the most into measure of soil pH. Into the Night says "soil has no pH". [/quote] You like to keep reliving Into the Night's chemistry lesson in which he taught you that soil has no pH. I don't think you ever thanked him for bringing to your attention that any "pH value" misleadingly assigned to soil is actually the pH value of some other solution that includes that soil as one ingredient, and is then "assigned" to that soil. It has to be that way because soil itself cannot have pH. Yet your 1995 paper "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation" misleadingly implies that you are measuring the pH of soil when you are measuring the pH of some solution that you concocted. You don't tell your readers that you are reporting the pH of the solution you concocted; you dishonestly tell your readers who don't know that soil doesn't have pH that you are somehow reporting the pH of soil. You report data for something that doesn't even exist.. [b]sealover wrote: The most complete explanation and most extensive data set I published regarding lignin was in my *1998 paper in the journal Biogeochemistry.* "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: A positive feedback?" This does not bode well. Post your data here in this thread. Make sure to include your data collection plan. sealover wrote: Into the Night says "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.", You have a point. He can't possibly know every religious denomination that springs into existence every time strange prayers are uttered concerning invisible data of carbon-based elements and other science fiction. sealover wrote:** But it discusses lignin chemistry more than any other paper I published. Please post in this thread the part where it explains how lignin is a hydrcarbon.
05-09-2026 16:34
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Can the Data Mine please TEACH BY EXAMPLE? Clearly, Into the Night is hesitant to read my published data to offer comment. Maybe it would be easier to just teach by example. Into the Night, can you provide just ONE example of where published data conforms to your requirements? Is there even ONE "white paper", book, citable internet blog... ANYTHING besides your own not-self-evident infallible omniscience to show how it's done? There must be ONE scientist, somewhere, who published ONE (paper, book, something) where the data was properly acquired and reported. If I could just read that ONE example, maybe that would help me understand what scientists are supposed to do. Into the Night, I am assuming that there is at least ONE published document whose author you respect as a competent scientist, and whose data acquisition and reporting meets the high standards set for The Data Mine. I cannot imagine any good reason for you to keep such documentation SECRET. It would be a way for The Data Mine to make sense and be understood. You cannot imagine that "RQAA" would be an honest reply, can you? Because you never cited any actual source, never named any credible scientist, and never identified any place in the public domain where the high standards of The Data Mine are followed. Just ONE example would go a long way to proving this thread isn't just more proof that you have been a scientifically-illiterate troll here for 11 years. sealover wrote: Into the Night, I have repeatedly invited you to review and critique my data that is already in the public domain as a widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific paper. I have provided you with references on multiple occasions. I would especially be interested in your feedback as a "chemist", because you claim that there is no such thing as the parameters I measured and published. You say, "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'.", or "Nitrogen is not organic", or "Organic nitrogen is not a chemical." Any you say, "Soil has no pH". So my 1995 paper in the journal Nature, "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", and my 1994 laboratory method published in the journal Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-nitrogen" are both available for your review in most any science library database. Try Google Scholar, scholar.google.com, if you don't know where else to start. So, especially the new lab method paper is all about proving that the data was of high quality. We wanted to show other scientists how pHucking good our new method was, compared to the classic Kjeldahl digestion procedure. So, read our paper because I think you'll see we handled the math and data pretty well. But then you've still got the issue that there is "no such thing as organic nitrogen", and some of those words are NOT "chemicals", are they? My 1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil gets the most into measure of soil pH. Into the Night says "soil has no pH". Yet, my 1995 paper, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation". You could easily look it up to read my methodology section for how we measured soil pH. The "soil acidity gradient" was a steep one, with soil pH more than two pH units lower in the ancient acid white sand soils of the highest terraces, compared to younger more fertile soils of the lowest terrace. Made soil slurries with pure water or dilute calcium chloride to give us our two columns of soil pH data in the paper. You may not like data for something that doesn't even exist.. But for the LIGNIN question... Into the Night believes that there IS such as thing as "lignin". Lignin really does exist, so maybe lignin data can be presented. The most complete explanation and most extensive data set I published regarding lignin was in my *1998 paper in the journal Biogeochemistry.* "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: A positive feedback?"** Into the Night says "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.", so he may not like the title of the highly-respected peer-reviewed journal my 1998 paper was published in. But it discusses lignin chemistry more than any other paper I published. Into the Night, you could CRITICIZE the data that I published by using your research skills to (very easily) find my published data. You could tell me why the way I measured it was wrong, or what was wrong with my calculations. Or if you wanted to evade any data discussion, you could make a list of words that are not a "chemical", according to your secret redefinition of the term "chemical". That could take up a lot a post space without saying anything. Or how about explain WHY you have religious faith that there can be "no such thing" as "organic nitrogen", why "soil has no pH", and why the journal Biogeochemistry is named for something that doesn't even exist. --------------------------------------------- "Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:.." - Into the Night Reminds me of the most corrupt president in US history calling it "fake news" when the truth is not flattering. "FakeGoogle" is available to anyone! In the underlying post, "FakeGoogle" was asked for: "Examples of posts by internet persona known as 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site." Anyone can prove that the methodology and results are reproducible by placing this same inquiry at google.com, the fake store front for "FakeGoogle". Dear Data Mine, I have actually published a lot of data in widely cited peer reviewed scientific papers. I know a few things about dealing with data. For example, I published a LOT of organic nitrogen data. Specifically, the concentration of dissolved organic forms of nitrogen in water samples. My data was reported as milligrams N per liter. I know that The Data Mine couldn't handle MY data. It is for parameters that DON'T EVEN EXIST. According to Into the Night, there is no such thing as "organic nitrogen". So, my data is meaningless, regardless of instrumentation, etc. My published data includes measurement of soil pH. Reported as regular pH units, with the specification of whether the soil slurry was made with pure water or dilute calcium chloride. According to Into the Night, "Soil has no pH". So, my data is meaningless. As with the organic nitrogen, I measured something that doesn't exist. All those fancy rules for the Data Mine become irrelevant for my own data. And yet, it was good enough to pass rigorous peer review and get published. Suck on THAT, Parrot Boy! "I don't use Usenet." - Into the Night Maybe not today, but... Google inquiry: "Examples of posts by internet persona 'Into the Night' at Usenet global-warming discussion site" Google say: "The internet persona 'Into the Night' is a highly prolific and notoriously dogmatic contrarian who has frequented Usenet groups (such as alt.global-warming and alt.politics) and various off-shoot political discussion boards for years. This persona is widely known for using a highly repetitive, formulaic, and aggressive style of argumentation to deny anthropogenic climate change. Rather than engaging in nuanced debate, 'Into the Night' relies heavily on rigid interpretations of classical physics and mathematics to dismiss mainstream science. Typical examples, arguments, and stylistic traits that characterize posts by Into the Night include: 1. The Thermodynamics Argument (Denial of the Greenhouse Effect) The most common trope used by this persona is the claim that the greenhouse effect is physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics. 2. The 'Real Greenhouses' Semantic Argument (with more details) ..asserting that because the atmosphere does not have a physical glass ceiling, the term 'greenhouse' is a fraud. 3. Dismissal of CO2 as a Forcing Agent (with more details) 4. Categorizing Arguments as 'Logical Fallacies' (with more details) Summary of Posting Style If you encounter this persona in a global-warming thread, the interaction almost always follows a specific pattern. * Short punchy sentences delivered with absolute certainty. * Accusing opponents of being uneducated or 'denying mathematics/physics'. * Endless evasion of data by demanding definitions or moving goalposts to abstract philosophical laws, rather than addressing real world observations." According to Google, this "Into the Night" did this as a user at Usenet. The uncanny similarity to what he posts right here can't be mere coincidence. Maybe it's not a LIE to say "I don't use Usenet" (today!). Will Into the Night try to pretend that Google is talking about a DIFFERENT "Into the Night" at Usenet?
RE: Obviously Robert is not a Scientist10-09-2026 18:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15381)	Im a BM wrote: Because you never named any credible scientist, and never identified any place in the public domain where the high standards of The Data Mine are followed. In the science domain, one points to applicable science, not to one's "credible" minister of faith. The more science is provided to you, the more you insist that some credible clergyman of yours be quoted. Why do you HATE science so? Public Domain that exceed Data Mine standards: * NIST, NPL, PTB * CERN, Fermilab * Pharmaceutical clinical trials * Aerospace and spacecraft engineering * Semiconductor manufacturing * Nuclear engineering
10-09-2026 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Because you never named any credible scientist, and never identified any place in the public domain where the high standards of The Data Mine are followed. In the science domain, one points to applicable science, not to one's "credible" minister of faith. The more science is provided to you, the more you insist that some credible clergyman of yours be quoted. Why do you HATE science so? Public Domain that exceed Data Mine standards: * NIST, NPL, PTB * CERN, Fermilab * Pharmaceutical clinical trials * Aerospace and spacecraft engineering * Semiconductor manufacturing * Nuclear engineering I would add: * petroleum engineering * chemical engineering * Battery manufacturing * Foundries, and metallurgic processes The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 9 of 9

Join the debate The Data Mine:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Real Perspective on Warming - NASA Data	17	27-04-2024 04:30
CDC Data Reveals. Majority of COVID-19 Deaths in America Occur Among the Vaccinated & Boosted	0	30-11-2022 20:38
Could space debris be a challenge for collecting data on climate change?	10	23-03-2021 04:28
Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data	36	20-10-2020 20:28
80 year moving average data	88	13-05-2020 01:32