There is still no Global Warming science.

Im a BM wrote:
...
Those days are gone. IBdaMann is still here.

IBdaMann wrote:

branner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
you moron
...
you are a religious WACK-JOB
...
ignore any of your crap
...
you are a fraud
...

Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com.

It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language.

Ok?

I'm with you and I'm open to suggestions. I'd appreciate the board's recommended way to:

1) point out a religious WACK-job
2) identify crap for what it is
3) point out a complete fraud
4) respond to someone who is engaging in uncivilized sarcasm (or is that, by definition, civilized)?

I'm all for keeping discussions civilized except when I encounter abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck...and it's for those instances that I ask for your guidance.

IBdaMann wrote:

branner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
you moron
...
you are a religious WACK-JOB
...
ignore any of your crap
...
you are a fraud
...

Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com.

It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language.

Ok?

I'm with you and I'm open to suggestions. I'd appreciate the board's recommended way to:

1) point out a religious WACK-job
2) identify crap for what it is
3) point out a complete fraud
4) respond to someone who is engaging in uncivilized sarcasm (or is that, by definition, civilized)?

I'm all for keeping discussions civilized except when I encounter abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck...and it's for those instances that I ask for your guidance.

Im a BM wrote: Nine years ago, when IBdaMann was just getting into it here, he had to put up with a lot of crap.

Im a BM wrote: His courage to persevere, despite the "abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck" is most admirable.

Im a BM wrote: And the worst part was the "religious WACK-jobs", hiding behind PhDs and non science gibber babble to preach their WACKY religion.

IBdaMann wrote:

branner wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
you moron
...
you are a religious WACK-JOB
...
ignore any of your crap
...
you are a fraud
...

Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com.

It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language.

Ok?

Im a BM wrote:
Nine years ago, ...deleted whining...
Intellectual honesty in a truly scientific discussion is violated when another member is "a complete fraud".

Im a BM wrote:
The kind of fraud who pretends to have some exceptional and superior knowledge of science,

Im a BM wrote:
even though they never passed a single college-level course in ANY field of natural science.

Im a BM wrote:
The kind of "abusive troll frauds" who use undefined meaningless buzzwords because they don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote:
It was horrible, nine years ago, when a new participant in the discussion would get treated so disrespectfully

Im a BM wrote:
And the worst part was the "religious WACK-jobs", hiding behind their PhDs and using non science gibber babble to preach their WACKY religion.

Im a BM wrote:
Yeah, nine years ago there used to be a lot of ugly, abusive troll frauds who made it impossible to have a rational discussion about science and climate.

IBdaMann wrote:

branner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
you moron
...
you are a religious WACK-JOB
...
ignore any of your crap
...
you are a fraud
...

Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com.

It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language.

Ok?

I'm with you and I'm open to suggestions. I'd appreciate the board's recommended way to:

1) point out a religious WACK-job
2) identify crap for what it is
3) point out a complete fraud
4) respond to someone who is engaging in uncivilized sarcasm (or is that, by definition, civilized)?

I'm all for keeping discussions civilized except when I encounter abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck...and it's for those instances that I ask for your guidance.

Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann.

During my tenure at Climate-Debate, nobody has posted any Global Warming or Climate science, or even defined unambiguously any of the key terms.

None of the site's many warmizombies ever caught on that what they believed in their heart of hearts was "settled science" was actually nothing more than a WACKY religion based on regurgitating someone else's Marxism.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann.

During my tenure at Climate-Debate, nobody has posted any Global Warming or Climate science, or even defined unambiguously any of the key terms.

None of the site's many warmizombies ever caught on that what they believed in their heart of hearts was "settled science" was actually nothing more than a WACKY religion based on regurgitating someone else's Marxism.

Thank you for sharing that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann.

During my tenure at Climate-Debate, nobody has posted any Global Warming or Climate science, or even defined unambiguously any of the key terms.

None of the site's many warmizombies ever caught on that what they believed in their heart of hearts was "settled science" was actually nothing more than a WACKY religion based on regurgitating someone else's Marxism.

Thank you for sharing that.

Anytime! Go Trump!

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann.

During my tenure at Climate-Debate, nobody has posted any Global Warming or Climate science, or even defined unambiguously any of the key terms.

None of the site's many warmizombies ever caught on that what they believed in their heart of hearts was "settled science" was actually nothing more than a WACKY religion based on regurgitating someone else's Marxism.

Thank you for sharing that.

Anytime! Go Trump!

So, regarding intellectual honesty, what is the pH of a 1.5 N solution of HNO3?

I think that you and I both know that the pH = -0.41, approximately.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it is WRONG to assert that "pH cannot be negative"?

Are you honest enough to admit that such an assertion displays IGNORANCE of basic chemistry concepts?

Like just looking at a pH scale, assuming it must be limited to be between zero and fourteen, and never bothering to understand the math behind -log(H+).

Or perhaps actually understanding the math, but being so ignorant of basic chemistry that it is assumed an acid CANNOT have concentration greater than or equal to 1 N.

Basically, are you honest enough to admit that Into the Night keeps getting this one WRONG?

And do YOU still believe that only a "magical" acid could have pH = 0.0?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann.

During my tenure at Climate-Debate, nobody has posted any Global Warming or Climate science, or even defined unambiguously any of the key terms.

None of the site's many warmizombies ever caught on that what they believed in their heart of hearts was "settled science" was actually nothing more than a WACKY religion based on regurgitating someone else's Marxism.

Thank you for sharing that.

Anytime! Go Trump!

Im a BM wrote:When I finally examined the IBdaMann code, I saw that it used:

pH = -ln[H+]

IBdaMann's code incorrectly used the NATURAL LOG (ln) and not the LOGARITHM (log)

pH is the negative LOGARITHM of hydrogen ion concentration.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:When I finally examined the IBdaMann code, I saw that it used:

pH = -ln[H+]

IBdaMann's code incorrectly used the NATURAL LOG (ln) and not the LOGARITHM (log)

pH is the negative LOGARITHM of hydrogen ion concentration.

Good catch. The code was erroneous and needs to be fixed.

Im a BM wrote:
When I finally examined

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann's "library" has finally been discovered!

Im a BM wrote:Into the Night probably won't accuse me of personally opening up this thread thousands of times just to pump up IBdaMann's ego.

sealover wrote:
I cannot fault Climate Scientist for giving up after so many attempts to have a rational discussion about climate science.

If Climate Scientist comes back now, there would be more than one trained scientist in the discussion.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover posted already existing posts:[existing posts deleted]

Did you have a point? I know you often don't, preferring instead to post useless trivia. In this case, however, you simply reposted other posts that already existed, in their entirety, out of their original context, without any new commentary from you.

Is there a reason for this? What did you accomplish?

IBdaMann claims that before starting it here, he had created this same thread in five different forums.

climate-debate.com is the only website where he can't get banned, no matter how inexcusable his behavior.

No sense of decency, and no understanding of science.

I am reposting the best from the past where scientifically literate members made valid points related to climate change or some other aspect of environmental science.

Im a BM wrote:
Just getting started.

Im a BM wrote:
I was not the first competent and credible scientist with genuine credentials who attempted to share information on this website.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe if all the best posts are compiled at the end of the better threads, it can be a source of new discussion, and a resource for new viewers.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
Rather than stay off topic in the "Unprecedented wildfires TODAY..." thread,
there are a bunch of excellent posts on THIS thread about thermodynamics.

Climate Scientist is a real scientist in the real world who actually knows the meaning of the term "thermodynamics".

Many excellent points were made on this thread before Climate Scientist decided it was a waste of time to try to have a rational discussion with scientifically illiterate trolls on this website.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

IBdaMann's very first thread!

A little more than 11 years ago.

The first item to go into the IBdaMann "library".

It has gotten 45,116 "views" in just over 11 years.

That is about one and a half views EVERY DAY!

Clearly, people log on just to look up IBdaMann's old threads.

edit: I finally noticed a careless math error in my post before this one. I moved the decimal place to calculate 15 views a day instead of 1.5. My bad!

I also finally noticed that it went from 40038 to 45116 views in the past four or five months. Now views per day figure.

Okay, so something really did change in the last five months to dramatically increase traffic in "views" by people who don't post anything.

IBdaMann's "library" has finally been discovered!

Into the Night probably won't accuse me of personally opening up this thread thousands of times just to pump up IBdaMann's ego.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...By July 10,
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...By July 10,
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...By July 10,
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Science is not a chemical.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...By July 10,
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Science is not a chemical.

Never said it was, idjit.

Im a BM wrote: He was not allowed to engage in rational discussion because the troll frauds were just too abusive.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: He was not allowed to engage in rational discussion because the troll frauds were just too abusive.

Nope. I was not allowed to engage in rational discussion because scientifically illiterate morons won't engage in rational discussion. They are all cowardly trolls who are simply desperate for attention and who crave unearned recognition for being thuper thmart.

I would take the opportunity to mention two small items.

1. This thread is about how there is no Global Warming science, and still contains absolutely no Global Warming science.

2. You have not been able to contribute any Global Warming science, resulting in this thread remaining devoid of Global Warming science.

.

Im a BM wrote:
You cannot hide from your own posts.

There are too damn many of them to dodge.

You don't get to quote everyone, dumbass.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: He was not allowed to engage in rational discussion because the troll frauds were just too abusive.

Nope. I was not allowed to engage in rational discussion because scientifically illiterate morons won't engage in rational discussion. They are all cowardly trolls who are simply desperate for attention and who crave unearned recognition for being thuper thmart.

I would take the opportunity to mention two small items.

1. This thread is about how there is no Global Warming science, and still contains absolutely no Global Warming science.

2. You have not been able to contribute any Global Warming science, resulting in this thread remaining devoid of Global Warming science.

.

Im a BM wrote:
Is the carbonate ion a "class" of chemicals?

Im a BM wrote:
No. There is only one chemical compound, one chemical formula for the carbonate ion. CO3(2-)

Im a BM wrote:
To save time, scientists frequently abbreviate to simply "carbonate". In the context of aqueous solution chemistry, there is only one thing that it means. The chemical known as the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)

Im a BM wrote:
And even if someone's religious beliefs don't accept the carbonate ion as something you can call a "chemical", they can still appreciate its chemical behavior as a pH buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
As a pH buffer, carbonate ions neutralize carbonic acid, H2CO3

Im a BM wrote:
First, carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere enters the sea. For every molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there are about 50 molecules of CO2 in the ocean. A tiny fraction (<1%), at any given time, bonds to a water molecule to become carbonic acid. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
Some of that carbonic acid gets neutralized by a carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
H2CO3 + CO3(2-) = 2HCO3- This takes out one molecule of carbon dioxide, at the expense of one carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
That CO2 cannot return to the atmosphere by evaporation.

Im a BM wrote:
It is now in the form of bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and that shit don't evaporate.

Im a BM wrote:
It stays behind as bicarbonate salts when it's all dry.

Im a BM wrote:
It's a one-way ticket for atmospheric CO2 getting into seawater,

Im a BM wrote:
once it gets converted to bicarbonate,

Im a BM wrote:
it will not go off as CO2 when the water evaporates.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Is the carbonate ion a "class" of chemicals?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
No. There is only one chemical compound, one chemical formula for the carbonate ion. CO3(2-)

Carbonate is not a chemical. Random letters and numbers is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
To save time, scientists frequently abbreviate to simply "carbonate". In the context of aqueous solution chemistry, there is only one thing that it means. The chemical known as the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)

Carbonate is not a chemical. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And even if someone's religious beliefs don't accept the carbonate ion as something you can call a "chemical", they can still appreciate its chemical behavior as a pH buffer.

Carbonate is not a chemical. It has no 'chemical behavior'. Go learn what 'pH' is and what a 'buffer' is.

Im a BM wrote:
As a pH buffer, carbonate ions neutralize carbonic acid, H2CO3

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
First, carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere enters the sea. For every molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there are about 50 molecules of CO2 in the ocean. A tiny fraction (<1%), at any given time, bonds to a water molecule to become carbonic acid. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
Some of that carbonic acid gets neutralized by a carbonate ion.

The density of CO2 in seawater is the same as the air. This is a state of equilibrium. It is also why soda goes flat.

Im a BM wrote:
H2CO3 + CO3(2-) = 2HCO3- This takes out one molecule of carbon dioxide, at the expense of one carbonate ion.

Random letters and numbers are not an equation. Carbonate is not a chemical.
Carbon dioxide <-> carbonic acid is an equilibrium reaction. In water, typically about 1% of carbon dioxide become carbonic acid. Carbonic acid also reverts to carbon dioxide.

Apparently you don't know what equilibrium is either.

Im a BM wrote:
That CO2 cannot return to the atmosphere by evaporation.

It doesn't have to. It simply vents to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
It is now in the form of bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and that shit don't evaporate.

Bicarbonate is not a chemcal.

Im a BM wrote:
It stays behind as bicarbonate salts when it's all dry.

Bicarbonate is not a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
It's a one-way ticket for atmospheric CO2 getting into seawater,

Go learn what 'equilibrium' means.

Im a BM wrote:
once it gets converted to bicarbonate,

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
it will not go off as CO2 when the water evaporates.

CO2 dissolves in water, and also vents back into the atmosphere.

Open a soda and let it sit there and go flat to observe the soda reaching a state of equilibrium sometime.

Im a BM wrote:
Once again, Into the Night PROVES he is just an ignorant heckler, and NOT a CHEMIST.

"Random letters and numbers is not a chemical." another fine quote from our good buddy "NOTHING", the Chemistry Clown.

Im a BM wrote: No. There is only one chemical compound, one chemical formula for the carbonate ion. CO3(2-)

Im a BM wrote:To save time, scientists frequently abbreviate to simply "carbonate". In the context of aqueous solution chemistry, there is only one thing that it means. The chemical known as the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)

Im a BM wrote: And even if someone's religious beliefs don't accept the carbonate ion as something you can call a "chemical", they can still appreciate its chemical behavior as a pH buffer.

Im a BM wrote: That CO2 cannot return to the atmosphere by evaporation.

Im a BM wrote: It is now in the form of bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and that shit don't evaporate.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: No. There is only one chemical compound, one chemical formula for the carbonate ion. CO3(2-)

I stand corrected. I erroneously equated the specific CO₃²⁻ with its ion category. Inexcusable. I apologize to the board for any inconvenience I may have caused.

Im a BM wrote:To save time, scientists frequently abbreviate to simply "carbonate". In the context of aqueous solution chemistry, there is only one thing that it means. The chemical known as the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)

Correct.

Im a BM wrote: And even if someone's religious beliefs don't accept the carbonate ion as something you can call a "chemical", they can still appreciate its chemical behavior as a pH buffer.

Yes. CO₃²⁻ is a much more effective buffer than H₂O and mere dilution.

Im a BM wrote: That CO2 cannot return to the atmosphere by evaporation.

Correct, that particular CO2 will return to the atmosphere via one of four other methods, just not through evaporation.

1. That particular sea water increases in pH
2. biogenic precipitation
3. simple temperature increase
4. water eventually moving to the surface and degassing

The vast majority of the CO2 that entered the ocean, however, will eventually return via evaporation.

Im a BM wrote: It is now in the form of bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and that shit don't evaporate.

Right, that very small percentage returns via other means.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously you still don't get it.

Im a BM wrote:
Once the CO2 gets transformed into bicarbonate,

Im a BM wrote:
by reaction with carbonate ion,

Im a BM wrote:
it has little chance of returning. And the new CO2 that keeps coming IN from the atmosphere is a NET INFLUX EVERY YEAR. A lot more comes in than goes back out.

Im a BM wrote:
So, if carbon from the atmosphere keeps getting into the sea by a (net) one way flow,

Im a BM wrote:
where does it all go?

Im a BM wrote:
Well, corals turn a lot of it into limestone.

Im a BM wrote:
Solid carbonates of calcium and magnesium, of biologic origin.

Im a BM wrote:
That is where you find more than half of all the carbon atoms in the world today.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously you still don't get it.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Once the CO2 gets transformed into bicarbonate,

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
by reaction with carbonate ion,

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
it has little chance of returning. And the new CO2 that keeps coming IN from the atmosphere is a NET INFLUX EVERY YEAR. A lot more comes in than goes back out.

There is no 'in' or 'out'. You are still ignoring the principle of equilibrium.

Im a BM wrote:
So, if carbon from the atmosphere keeps getting into the sea by a (net) one way flow,

There is no carbon in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
where does it all go?

Nowhere. There is no carbon in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, corals turn a lot of it into limestone.

Coral lives underwater and can't fly. Coral isn't limestone.

Im a BM wrote:
Solid carbonates of calcium and magnesium, of biologic origin.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Elements are not of biologic origin.

Im a BM wrote:
That is where you find more than half of all the carbon atoms in the world today.

I bet you counted every one of them too! One by one by one...

Im a BM wrote:
I am starting to get the impression that you are of the OPINION that "Carbonate is not a chemical."

Apology accepted!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am starting to get the impression that you are of the OPINION that "Carbonate is not a chemical."

Apology accepted!

YARP