There is still no Global Warming science.
| 11-11-2024 21:34 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Stop whining. 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 |
| 28-11-2024 01:00 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
Nine years ago, when IBdaMann was just getting into it here, he had to put up with a lot of crap. The courage to persevere, despite the "abusive troll frauds who insist on driving every discussion into the muck" is most admirable. Good thing the bullies aren't here anymore. IBdaMann wrote:[/quote]branner wrote:IBdaMann wrote: |
| 28-11-2024 02:09 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
Nine years ago, when IBdaMann was just getting into it here, he had to put up with a lot of crap. His courage to persevere, despite the "abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck" is most admirable. He had to tolerate "uncivilized sarcasm". And the worst part was the "religious WACK-jobs", hiding behind PhDs and non science gibber babble to preach their WACKY religion. He was not allowed to engage in rational discussion because the troll frauds were just too abusive. Such vicious personal attacks required a vicious personal response as a moral imperative. It is a good thing that those bullies aren't here anymore. IBdaMann wrote:[/quote][/quote]branner wrote:IBdaMann wrote: |
| 28-11-2024 06:09 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14886) |
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. Tell me about it. 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. It's how I roll. I'm here for you. 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. Their totally undereducated nature immediately gives them away. Fraudulent claims of "credentials" don't survive even a single post. Happy Thanksgiving. Congratulations on Trump winning. |
| 29-11-2024 21:16 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
Nine years ago, when IBdaMann was just getting into it at climate-debate.com, he had to put up with a lot of disrespectful crap from the members who were already here. His courage to persevere, despite the "abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck" is most admirable. He had to tolerate "uncivilized sarcasm". It tests the limits of one's patience when others show such flagrant disrespect. Intellectual honesty in a truly scientific discussion is violated when another member is "a complete fraud". The kind of fraud who pretends to have some exceptional and superior knowledge of science, even though they never passed a single college-level course in ANY field of natural science. The kind of "abusive troll frauds" who use undefined meaningless buzzwords because they don't even know what science is. It was horrible, nine years ago, when a new participant in the discussion would get treated so disrespectfully And the worst part was the "religious WACK-jobs", hiding behind their PhDs and using non science gibber babble to preach their WACKY religion. IBdaMann was not allowed to advance a rational discussion forward - couldn't even get out of the starting gate, because the troll frauds were just too abusive. Such vicious personal attacks of uncivilized sarcasm required a vicious personal response, as a moral imperative. 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. It is a good thing that those bullies aren't here anymore! IBdaMann wrote:branner wrote: 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. |
| 30-11-2024 02:37 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Okay. You're a complete fraud. Im a BM wrote: Yup. That's you all right. Your pretending doesn't work here. Im a BM wrote: So you admit it. Im a BM wrote: Yup. That's you all right. Your buzzwords don't work here either. Im a BM wrote: You weren't here nine years ago, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Yup. That's you all right. Im a BM wrote: Still happens today. You're an example. Climate is not a branch of science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-11-2024 03:19 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
IBdaMann wrote:branner wrote:IBdaMann wrote: From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann. If one only reads IBdaMann's response, it looks like he is howling to the moderators for intervention because he is being so badly disrespected. Not just disrespected, but being genuinely ABUSED by "abusive troll frauds". If one only reads Branner's original message to IBdaMann, it was one of the very rare times he admonished a member for behaving inappropriately. Branner's pipe dream was of a system so perfect that nobody would have to be told how to be good. The natural forces of science and truth would drive the discussion to have more posts based on rational questions of science and fewer posts based on personal attacks and "rude language". It would be driven by the forces of evolution and natural selection as the website grew and matured until finally reaching the pinnacle of high quality... Is Climate a lesbian? (one of IBdaMann's highly enlightened threads) Branner would be so proud to see it now. |
| 02-12-2024 10:35 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
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. |
| 03-12-2024 04:12 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote:From nine years ago, between the website administrator (Branner) and the newly active member, IBdaMann. Thank you for sharing that. |
| 03-12-2024 08:41 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
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. Anytime! Go Trump! |
| 03-12-2024 19:17 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
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. 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? |
| 04-12-2024 02:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
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. pH cannot go negative. 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 |
| 05-12-2024 04:50 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
THIS is the post where my taunt now boomerangs back to humiliate me. "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." I feel retarded for not checking IBdaMann's pH calculation code for math errors. I feel lame for not immediately noticing that pH = -0.41 was just a little TOO FAR below zero. 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. pH = -log[H+] NOT -ln[H+] So, using the CORRECT formula to calculate pH of 1.5 N nitric acid: pH = -log[H+] = -log[1.5] = -0.167 = pH of 1.5 N nitric acid 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. 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? |
| 05-12-2024 04:56 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
Im a BM wrote:When I finally examined the IBdaMann code, I saw that it used: Good catch. The code was erroneous and needs to be fixed. |
| 05-12-2024 15:17 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1310) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote:When I finally examined the IBdaMann code, I saw that it used: Have you noticed that Into the Night CONTINUES to insist that pH CANNOT be equal to or less than zero. I assumed your code was correct because it revealed pH below zero. But then, if 5 N HNO3 has pH -0.7, the pH of -0.41 your code calculated for a solution of 1.5 N HNO3 had to be WAY OFF... Anyway, do you agree with the assertion that Into the Night keeps making over and over in post after post after post? "pH CANNOT be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night It displays much more than the simple fact that Into the Night is NOT a chemist. Cognitive impairment or learning disability seem to prevent him from getting it. Even if YOU tell him the truth about negative pH values for strong acids with greater than 1 N [H+] He just isn't going to believe it. Has he ever explained to you WHY pH CANNOT disobey his rule? He just keeps repeating the rule. It just CAN'T be less than zero. Not allowed. |
| 06-12-2024 00:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. pH cannot be less than zero. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" | 312 | 17-11-2024 06:52 |
| Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum | 15 | 18-07-2024 21:11 |
| The History of Science | 10 | 22-04-2024 16:30 |
| A Science Test | 18 | 09-12-2023 00:53 |
| Magic or Science | 7 | 06-12-2023 00:29 |