There is still no Global Warming science.

Im a BM wrote:
"IBdaMann" has some other name he uses out there in the real world.

Im a BM wrote:
But Google knows about the Internet troll who uses the pseudonym "IBdaMann" at climate-debate.com and other discussion websites.


"Reputation: Viewed by opponents and forum members as a classic internet troll or provocateur due to a repetitive, confrontational posting style rather than recognized scientific expertise or institutional affiliation."

What Google doesn't mention is how desperately IBdaMann tries to belittle and dismiss the significance of recognized scientific expertise or institutional affiliation. None of them are really "scientists". Indeed, those PhDs with widely-cited peer-reviewed publications related to the website topic.. they are just "scientifically-illiterate morons", according to IBdaMann.

Im a BM wrote:
An important discovery published in a highly-prestigious journal such as Nature confers no credibility because Nature is just a "shit rag".

However, multiple inquiries reveal that IBdaMann is unwilling to name even ONE scientific journal or textbook that qualifies as "scientific" for credible citation.

Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, it all comes down to IBdaMann's self-evident, infallible omniscience.

Take his word for it!

He is almost the only "scientist" in the world who knows what science is!

Im a BM wrote:
He is almost the only one in the world who understands why climate cannot change in any way, because it would violate Commandments of Thermodenial.

Blind faith in a WACKY religion of fervent ANTI science, in service of a most unenlightened political agenda.

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).

Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote:Damn, IBdaMann - I think you've sussed me out! My cover is blown!

I'm sure I have. You might be able to fool the scientifically illiterates on this site but I see through your gibberish. In fact, let's show everyone else as well.

Explain to me, in your own words, the "greenhouse effect" in such a way that:

1) you don't violate the laws of physics, and
2) you make it clear how some atmospheric gases are "greenhouse gases" while others specifically are not.

That should be a piece of cake, right? I couldn't ask for anything easier, right?

climate scientist wrote: You're right, although my job description includes the words 'research scientist' and I work in the Environmental Science department at a well respected University, it is in fact all a complete farce.

The word "farce" seems apropos. I'm enjoying your attempts at sarcasm. I'm going to truly enjoy watching you EVADE the above EASY question.

climate scientist wrote:And it's not just me you know - all ~70 researchers who work in my department are doing the same thing. The funny thing is that we are pretty much all funded by the government. They must be such fools to fund us to support our made up religion!

I smell government grant money involved.

climate scientist wrote: But then again, we've been doing pretty well at pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

You don't have to convince me.

climate scientist wrote:I mean, our religion actually started in the 1960s, and its still going stronger than ever today.

Yes, I'm aware.

climate scientist wrote: In fact, I would say that it is the most successful scam in all history - wouldn't you?

On this we also agree.

climate scientist wrote: Almost too successful to be true, some people would say.

Nope. As incredible the success story might be, here it is before us in real life. This is no illusion. Some religions are just more successful than others.

climate scientist wrote: We've managed to dupe almost every government and scientific institute in the world into believing and funding our religion

No, no, no....your religion is being USED by every government to generate new, increased levels of (tax) revenues, and institutions are USING your religion to acquire government funding. Governments are USING the pre-determined "conclusions" they are buying from institutions to generate new, increased levels of (tax) revenues. Etc. Etc. It's an international economy unto itself. The dollars that are spent/paid are very real.

climate scientist wrote:I wonder how much money over the last forty years has been wasted on funding our climate science religion globally?

Absolutely, and your lame attempts at sarcasm make it clear you feel threatened by the idea of your particular funding drying up.

So, answer the above question or EVADE and confirm everything I've written.

Im a BM wrote:September 28, 2015
IBdaMann was just three days in for his ELEVEN YEAR trolling rampage.
He had started the thread a year before, but put up just three posts at the time, and then waited a year before returning.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:September 28, 2015
IBdaMann was just three days in for his ELEVEN YEAR trolling rampage.
He had started the thread a year before, but put up just three posts at the time, and then waited a year before returning.

I presume you have come to fully realize that there is still no Global Warming science anywhere on this site, or even on the internet for that matter.

... but you think there is. This is why you are a scientifically illiterate moron. You are desperate to cosplay a thmart perthon who wieldth thettled thienth.

Comedy gold.

Im a BM wrote:
But your WACKY religion is HILARIOUS!

You actually believe in MAGIC PETROLEUM.

And the rigid dogma of your religious cult requires you to DISBELIEVE in the existence of actual petroleum that formed from ancient photosynthetic organisms.

Im a BM wrote:

"Fischer-Tropsch is your God." - HarveyH55

For The Data Mine, maybe YOU could provide the example to teach with.

Somewhere, someone has published actual DATA to prove that Fisher-Tropsh creates gigatons of petroleum way down deep, using only geologically derived hydrogen, H2, and carbon monoxide, CO as raw ingredients. Right?

Im a BM wrote:
We don't just have to rely on your not-at-all-self-evident infallible omniscience, do we?

Surely, you can show us the DATA that convinced you to believe.

Your FAITH in magic petroleum is supported by data from the real world, right?

Im a BM wrote:
What data?

Data that would be good enough for The Data Mine, right?

Maybe there is even a NAME for a scientist who you believe is credible, whose work provides that DATA that is so foundational to your religious faith.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
But your WACKY religion is HILARIOUS!

You actually believe in MAGIC PETROLEUM.

And the rigid dogma of your religious cult requires you to DISBELIEVE in the existence of actual petroleum that formed from ancient photosynthetic organisms.

Petroleum is not magic.
Petroleum is not an organism.

Im a BM wrote:

"Fischer-Tropsch is your God." - HarveyH55

For The Data Mine, maybe YOU could provide the example to teach with.

Somewhere, someone has published actual DATA to prove that Fisher-Tropsh creates gigatons of petroleum way down deep, using only geologically derived hydrogen, H2, and carbon monoxide, CO as raw ingredients. Right?

Not data. A chemical process developed by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsche around 1925.

Im a BM wrote:
We don't just have to rely on your not-at-all-self-evident infallible omniscience, do we?

Surely, you can show us the DATA that convinced you to believe.

Your FAITH in magic petroleum is supported by data from the real world, right?

No omniscience. That's YOUR problem.
Not data. A chemical process.
Petroleum is not magic.

Im a BM wrote:
What data?

Data that would be good enough for The Data Mine, right?

Maybe there is even a NAME for a scientist who you believe is credible, whose work provides that DATA that is so foundational to your religious faith.

Not data. A chemical process.
Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsche, actual chemists.

Your attempt to deny this process does not make it go away.
Conditions for this process to occur exist naturally underground.
Petroleum is not a fossil.
Fossils don't burn.
Fossils aren't liquid.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, do you really know so little about your own religion?

Im a BM wrote:
Didn't your hero get funding to drill some VERY deep holes?

Didn't those deep holes produce a tiny bit of hydrocarbons?

Im a BM wrote:
Wasn't there a huge controversy because those tiny bit of hydrocarbons chemically matched drilling fluid and not petroleum?

Im a BM wrote:
Wasn't there no other data whatsoever to support the STUPID hypothesis?

If there was any such data, PLEASE tell us what it is.

Im a BM wrote:
The general theory about a general chemical process does not prove that it actually occurs outside of a laboratory.

Im a BM wrote:
And then you REFUSE TO BELIEVE that the real world petroleum we extract actually originated from dead organisms.

Im a BM wrote:
A severely distorted interpretation of "thermodynamics" says that such petroleum would somehow represents= energy created out of nothing, or a reduction in total entropy over time of the organic carbon material mined from beneath the Earth's surface. A so-called "higher form of energy" than the original starting material.. WTF???

Im a BM wrote:
People who actually take that FIRST introductory course in college-level physics, and PASS it without cheating, know that fossil fuel contains less total chemical energy than the dead organisms it formed from. They understand that entropy actually INCREASED as carbon-bound hydrogen and carbon-bound oxygen were baked out and squeezed out to unite and form H2O, water. What they left behind contained less chemical energy, and a WHOLE LOT LESS oxygen than the starting material.

Im a BM wrote:
If the starting material was rich in fatty acids, such as the photosynthetic marine organisms whose piled up dead bodies on the shallow sea floor of the ancient continental shelf eventually became petroleum, it didn't contain much oxygen to start with. It has a very high carbon-to-oxygen ratio. Consuming all the carbon-bound oxygen to form water still left a lot of hydrogen behind. The product of geologic metamorphism in this case is HYDROCARBONS.

Im a BM wrote:
If the starting material was rich in cellulose, lignin, and other polyphenols, it has a LOW carbon to oxygen ratio. Geologic metamorphism did consume all the carbon-bound oxygen to form water, H2O (for high total entropy!), but it didn't leave much carbon-bound hydrogen behind in the process. The product is nearly pure carbon, also known as "coal" fossil fuel. Again, formation of all that water, H2O, during geologic metamorphism significantly increased total entropy.

Im a BM wrote:
No laws of thermodynamics are violated by natural formation of coal, petroleum, and natural gas from the cadavers of ancient organisms.

Im a BM wrote:
Significant laws are violated during the presentation of the FAIRY TALE that what we call "fossil fuel" actually formed abiotically via "Fischer-Tropsche", the new GOD of the WACKY religion of the science denier cult that refuses to believe climate can change by ANY mechanism.

Im a BM wrote:
Learn some basic chemistry and physics before you, once again, reveal your SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY with a totally new interpretation of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night, do you STILL insist that the basic methanogenesis reaction is ENDOTHERMIC? (4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O)

Im a BM wrote:

Please explain how that can possibly be the case, since you are one of only two or three "scientists" in the whole world who seems to understand "thermodynamics".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, do you really know so little about your own religion?

You cannot blame your religion on anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Didn't your hero get funding to drill some VERY deep holes?

Didn't those deep holes produce a tiny bit of hydrocarbons?

What 'hero' is that, Robert?
Some oil wells go quite deep. The deepest producing oil well is 40,602 feet. That's about 7.6 miles, dude.

Im a BM wrote:
Wasn't there a huge controversy because those tiny bit of hydrocarbons chemically matched drilling fluid and not petroleum?

Not a tiny bit of petroleum. Water based fluids are used for drilling, moron.

Im a BM wrote:
Wasn't there no other data whatsoever to support the STUPID hypothesis?

If there was any such data, PLEASE tell us what it is.

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
The general theory about a general chemical process does not prove that it actually occurs outside of a laboratory.

Everything for the process exists naturally underground, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
And then you REFUSE TO BELIEVE that the real world petroleum we extract actually originated from dead organisms.

Petroleum is not an organism.

Im a BM wrote:
A severely distorted interpretation of "thermodynamics" says that such petroleum would somehow represents= energy created out of nothing, or a reduction in total entropy over time of the organic carbon material mined from beneath the Earth's surface. A so-called "higher form of energy" than the original starting material.. WTF???

Carbon is not organic.
Entropy has not been decreased in the Fischer-Tropsche process.

Im a BM wrote:
People who actually take that FIRST introductory course in college-level physics, and PASS it without cheating, know that fossil fuel contains less total chemical energy than the dead organisms it formed from. They understand that entropy actually INCREASED as carbon-bound hydrogen and carbon-bound oxygen were baked out and squeezed out to unite and form H2O, water. What they left behind contained less chemical energy, and a WHOLE LOT LESS oxygen than the starting material.

Science is not a college or a course.
Fossils aren't used as fuel.
You can't 'squeeze out' a lighter element.
A fossil is not a hydrocarbon.

Im a BM wrote:
If the starting material was rich in fatty acids, such as the photosynthetic marine organisms whose piled up dead bodies on the shallow sea floor of the ancient continental shelf eventually became petroleum, it didn't contain much oxygen to start with. It has a very high carbon-to-oxygen ratio. Consuming all the carbon-bound oxygen to form water still left a lot of hydrogen behind. The product of geologic metamorphism in this case is HYDROCARBONS.

A fossil is not a hydrocarbon.
Petroleum is not a fossil.
Petroleum is not an organism.
Oil is found everywhere, not just continental shelves.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamophism'.

Im a BM wrote:
If the starting material was rich in cellulose, lignin, and other polyphenols, it has a LOW carbon to oxygen ratio. Geologic metamorphism did consume all the carbon-bound oxygen to form water, H2O (for high total entropy!), but it didn't leave much carbon-bound hydrogen behind in the process. The product is nearly pure carbon, also known as "coal" fossil fuel. Again, formation of all that water, H2O, during geologic metamorphism significantly increased total entropy.

Cellulose is not a chemical.
Lignin is not a chemical.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.
Fossils are not a hydrocarbon.
Coal is not a fossil.
Fossils are not used as fuel.
Coal is not water.
Petroleum is not water.

Im a BM wrote:
No laws of thermodynamics are violated by natural formation of coal, petroleum, and natural gas from the cadavers of ancient organisms.

Coal is not an organism.
Petroleum is not an organism.
Methane is not an organism.

Im a BM wrote:
Significant laws are violated during the presentation of the FAIRY TALE that what we call "fossil fuel" actually formed abiotically via "Fischer-Tropsche", the new GOD of the WACKY religion of the science denier cult that refuses to believe climate can change by ANY mechanism.

Fossils are not used as fuel.
Fairies are not used as fuel.
A chemical process is not a god.
A chemical process is not a religion.
You cannot blame your religions on anybody else, Robert.
Climate cannot change.
Science is not climate.

Im a BM wrote:
Learn some basic chemistry and physics before you, once again, reveal your SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY with a totally new interpretation of thermodynamics.

You cannot blame your illiteracy on anyone else, Robert.
Thermodynamics is not an interpretation.
You continue to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night, do you STILL insist that the basic methanogenesis reaction is ENDOTHERMIC? (4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O)

Methanogenesis is not a word.

Im a BM wrote:

Please explain how that can possibly be the case, since you are one of only two or three "scientists" in the whole world who seems to understand "thermodynamics".

Thermodynamics is not a secret, Robert. You just continue to deny and discard it.
This is YOUR problem. You cannot blame it on anyone else.

Im a BM wrote: The single most famous actual GEOLOGIST who promoted the Fischer-Tropsch process as an abiotic source of petroleum was Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev, who proposed the abiotic petroleum theory in 1951.

Im a BM wrote:However, the magic petroleum theory's most famous champion was the astrophysicist Thomas Gold.

Im a BM wrote: By now, you would think someone would have found some kind of actual evidence, to support such fervent FAITH in the fairy tale.

Im a BM wrote:They were scientists who favored an eccentric theory about how SOME of the petroleum in the world may have formed.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
The single most famous actual GEOLOGIST who promoted the Fischer-Tropsch process as an abiotic source of petroleum was Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev, who proposed the abiotic petroleum theory in 1951.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
However, the magic petroleum theory's most famous champion was the astrophysicist Thomas Gold.

Thomas Gold managed to get funding to drill some of the deepest holes ever, anywhere, directly where they were supposed to find the stuff.

[quote]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
A very small amount of liquid was extracted.

It was hydrocarbons!

They turned out to be a chemical match for the lubricant oil that leaked out of the deep drilling equipment.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
1951 was a long time ago. By now, you would think someone would have found some kind of actual evidence, to support such fervent FAITH in the fairy tale.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
However, even Thomas Gold and Nikolai K. acknowledged that REAL petroleum existed. They did not DENY the existence of petroleum deposits close to the surface that formed from ancient organisms.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
They were scientists who favored an eccentric theory about how SOME of the petroleum in the world may have formed.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
They were not crackpot, scientifically-illiterate MORONS who insisted that natural petroleum formation from dead organisms violated some crackpot interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Perhaps by 2051, for the 100th anniversary of Nicolai A's hypothesis, somebody will find evidence to suggest that Fischer-Tropsch petroleum exists somewhere.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
But it will still take a special, radical extreme religious FANATIC to continue to reject the existence of petroleum that formed the mainstream geology way.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We know who you are, and we know what you're doing.

I previously responded to your post, I watched it register/save, I verified that it posted and then later it was gone.

Did someone delete it?

Surface Detail wrote:It's pathetic. You're not even trying to make a scientific argument.

You're absolutely brilliant. Of course I can't make any scientific arguments; Global Warming is a religion. Let's look at the facts:

Christianity is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Word of God" and Christians refer to nonbelievers as "Heathens that don't accept the Word of God." Christians claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that God is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom.

Global Warming is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Science" (a name which really confuses its congregation) and the Warmazombies and the Climate Lemmings refer to nonbelievers as "Deniers that don't accept the The Science." Warmazombies and Climate Lemmings claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that Climate is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom.

No conjecture asserted, only observations.


I think you'll find the folks on this board are a bit brighter than your average media consumers and can see right through your rather obvious industry shilling.

Im a BM wrote:
September 29, 2015 - Just three days into IBdaMann's 11-year troll fest.

Surface Detail, Climate Scientist, arthur18, KeiranK, trafn, Ceist, and drm - SEVEN different members - all commented here on IBdaMann's thread within two weeks of his September, 2015 initialization of hostilities.

Among the eight of them, only IBdaMann was still posting much at climate-debate.com by early 2016. He's still here!

"You are a scientifically illiterate moron." "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We know who you are, and we know what you're doing.

I previously responded to your post, I watched it register/save, I verified that it posted and then later it was gone.

Did someone delete it?

Surface Detail wrote:It's pathetic. You're not even trying to make a scientific argument.

You're absolutely brilliant. Of course I can't make any scientific arguments; Global Warming is a religion. Let's look at the facts:

Christianity is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Word of God" and Christians refer to nonbelievers as "Heathens that don't accept the Word of God." Christians claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that God is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom.

Global Warming is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Science" (a name which really confuses its congregation) and the Warmazombies and the Climate Lemmings refer to nonbelievers as "Deniers that don't accept the The Science." Warmazombies and Climate Lemmings claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that Climate is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom.

No conjecture asserted, only observations.


I think you'll find the folks on this board are a bit brighter than your average media consumers and can see right through your rather obvious industry shilling.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
September 29, 2015 - Just three days into IBdaMann's 11-year troll fest.

Surface Detail, Climate Scientist, arthur18, KeiranK, trafn, Ceist, and drm - SEVEN different members - all commented here on IBdaMann's thread within two weeks of his September, 2015 initialization of hostilities.

Among the eight of them, only IBdaMann was still posting much at climate-debate.com by early 2016. He's still here!

"You are a scientifically illiterate moron." "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We know who you are, and we know what you're doing.

I previously responded to your post, I watched it register/save, I verified that it posted and then later it was gone.

Did someone delete it?

Surface Detail wrote:It's pathetic. You're not even trying to make a scientific argument.

You're absolutely brilliant. Of course I can't make any scientific arguments; Global Warming is a religion. Let's look at the facts:

Christianity is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Word of God" and Christians refer to nonbelievers as "Heathens that don't accept the Word of God." Christians claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that God is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom.

Global Warming is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Science" (a name which really confuses its congregation) and the Warmazombies and the Climate Lemmings refer to nonbelievers as "Deniers that don't accept the The Science." Warmazombies and Climate Lemmings claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that Climate is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom.

No conjecture asserted, only observations.


I think you'll find the folks on this board are a bit brighter than your average media consumers and can see right through your rather obvious industry shilling.

Thank you for this delightful blast from the past.

Yes, you are still a scientifically illiterate moron and your religion is still stupid.