THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.
| THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.23-03-2022 00:46 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate. What if there were two threads strictly limited to climate debate. On on thread are those who believe that climate change is real and is alarming. The competing thread can be everyone else. THIS THREAD can be the position that climate change is real and is alarming. Anyone who joins the debate to assert that climate change is real and is alarming is welcome to post on this thread. You can see MY REPLY to your post without seeing any thing the trolls say. It will be on my list of posts in my "sealover" library. And I'll know who you are to check out your library for new messages. If the trolls can create a counter position to debate, they should start their own thread where anyone can even see it. MEANWHILE LET'S MAKE THIS THREAD OUR ECHO CHAMBER FOR OUR UNIFIED POSITION IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALARMING, AND THAT IT IS REALLY ALARMING! I say "echo chamber" because I guarantee you won't see any troll posts in MY library. I don't I would expect I would find any in your library. Let's just check exclusively each other's posts in each other's libraries. Unless anyone REALLY WANTS TO SEE THEM SAY ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF A THREAD DEDICATED TO THE COUNTERPOSITION. I promise never to post my rebuttal on your thread. I expect your rebuttal position on YOUR THREAD if you want in the debate at all. |
| RE: Your best posts will be imbedded in my response, all in "sealover" library.23-03-2022 01:12 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
I will include many of your best posts in their entirety, embedded in my response to them. That way anyone in "sealover" library can find them under same subject title used in yours. Chances are my part will be one sentence, tops. Your entire post will be available for all to see in a single library, without any risk of troll exposure. So, here's how it works. Each member has their own library where all their posts are listed in chronological order, with the option of subject titles. Clicking the member name by their avatar takes you directly to their library. You might see the message they left for you, with a subject title telling you that, on the list of their post. You might see the title of that post you wanted to read without having to scroll through page after page of trolling. Welcome to the revolution! We've even got Ignoramus here to offer the rebuttal for a lively debate. If they are willing to set up a thread to "debate" their position. Personally, the only post about the counter position that I will respond to in any way will have to be posted on their own thread. I hope they have the intellectual honesty and courage in the conviction of their beliefs to set up a counter point thread. Why not use their biggest library of all as a home for their posts to be located. There is no missing it. More than 100000 posts! That must be someone brave enough to submit an original argument of their own if they have stuck their neck out that many times. If not, what were the 100000 posts about? Hmm... Maybe there is a word for that. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: |
| RE: Trolls who play word games are excluded from the debate.23-03-2022 01:39 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Trolls who play word games are excluded from the debate. Only an affirmative argument in support of a clear position will receive any response from this side. Only an affirmative argument in support of a clear position will be accepted as evidence when it is publish in a separate threat dedicated to the counterposition in the climate debate. The position of this side is unambiguous. Climate change is real. Climate change is alarming. Trolls who play word games are incapable of presenting an affirmative argument in support of a clear position. They just dissect the sentences in the affirmative arguments of others. They just do everything they can to pretend affirmative arguments cannot even be made without prior approval of vocabulary terms agreeable to respondents. They make an assertion with the claim that it represents objective reality. They go on to explain why it is impossible for anyone to know objective reality. They are REALLY SHITTY DEBATERS IF REQUIRED TO PRESENT AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT OF AN ORIGINAL POSITION. They just can't do it. Don't know how. Prove me wrong Mr. Troll. Let's give Ignoramus the floor to present his affirmative original argument. Ignoramus just needs to start a thread to present it on. I'll be reading it on your thread and responding to it here. If I don't see it on your thread, you get no response at all from me. Good bye! My apologies for trolling you so viciously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: |
| 23-03-2022 02:09 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
If everyone in the debate must agree, what are they arguing? What would they debate? Who should be the next cult leader? I'm not entirely sure you actually understand debates. I never got into myself, but understand the basics. It's actually a game, a sport, a completion. People chose a side of an issue, prepare arguments, and have at it. There are rules, there are tactics, strategies. You don't necessarily need a passion for or against the issue being debated. Like anything else, it takes skill and experience to become proficient, or a master 'bater... This site got stale, because the masters, refined their arguments into one line responses, easy to index and copy/paste in response to anything that comes up. The challenge was no longer winning the debate, but in how few moves it takes. I prefer just disusing the issues, and don't play the debate game. Climate Change isn't environmental, it's political manipulation. You can't control the planet, but you can control people. |
| RE: You don't get it. I CAN DO THIS ALL DECADE!23-03-2022 03:15 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
You don't get it. I CAN DO THIS ALL DECADE! That's the plan, anyway. This could be your chance to finally learn some science, if you are not afraid. I'll be happy to answer your questions about biogeochemistry on one of my dedicated biogeochemistry science lesson threads. On this thread my post will be exclusively a DEBATE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. My posts will be exclusively original affirmative arguments in support of a clearly defined position. The position: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL and CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALARMING. Some of my posts will be rebuttals. They will not be original affirmative arguments of the original position presented. They will be rebuttals to any original affirmative argument presented by the opposition. Rebuttals to their original affirmative argument, whether their original position, or their rebuttal to one of our arguments. Basically any troll who plays word games will have to know his every sentence would be dissected for the world to see. But only if he posts on the thread dedicated to his side in the debate. Otherwise, none of his arguments will be shredded and none of his sentences will be dissected. They will simply be buried in the basement out of view. Anyone who wants to will be able to find each and every one of your many many many many many posts. But who in their right mind would go out of their way needlessly to see that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HarveyH55 wrote: |
| 23-03-2022 03:42 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14414) |
 sealover wrote:On this thread my post will be exclusively a DEBATE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. It sounds exciting. What is it? sealover wrote:The position: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL and CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALARMING. What is this CLIMATE CHANGE of which you speak? I thought you said you were going to stick to science. Science doesn't have to convince anyone that it is real because it has falsifiability. If you have falsifiability, then the statement that something is therefore real is rather silly. So, are you going to provide a falsifiable model, or are you admitting up front that you are discussing an unfalsifiable religion? sealover wrote:They will be rebuttals to any original affirmative argument presented by the opposition. How can anyone present an affirmative argument against something that is completely undefined? sealover wrote:Basically any troll who plays word games will have to know his every sentence would be dissected for the world to see. Are you planning on playing word games? Maybe not. Perhaps you are planning on defining your terms. It sounds a bit ridiculous; I can't help but chuckle at the idea that you seek to establish a debate about one of the terms you refuse to define. Pretty silly, eh? Anyway, I would love to debate CLIMATE CHANGE with you from a mathematical standpoint ... if only you would define what CLIMATE CHANGE is supposed to mean. Of course, I suspect that you cower in your boots at the thought of having your religion scrutinized by math and logic ... but maybe you don't! Let's give it a run. I'm here for you. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. Attached image:  |
| RE: Subject titles, sometimes better without23-03-2022 03:47 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Subject titles, sometimes better without. Every time you publish a post, you have the option to add an original subject title. This allows for a clearly identifiable title as to purpose of the post. It may be addressed to a specific question. Specific request for viewing. Specific request for relaying. Names of members included in the subject title identify the library or libraries where posts of interest can be found. A subject title to a post can make it clear that it is a continuation of a specific ongoing theme (part 1,2,3,4.. kind of thing). This has the advantage of being able to spot the consecutive sequence among a long list of posts that are mostly about other topics. Consistent use of same titles for specific topics, part 2,3,4,5, 347, 348, 349. You get the idea. Good use of subject titles can make a post a multi tasker. But you may not want to write a subject title. If you are responding on a thread, that thread title would follow an otherwise untitled post. If you want to be sure your post is identifiable as a response to that thread, don't write in a subject title. Then, in your "library" the title of that post will be exact same title as the thread your post responded to. If you want to locate troll posts on your own thread, they are listed in the trolls library under the title of your thread. With 100000 troll posts to go through, it's nice to zero it down by recognizing the name of your own thread. Then you can pick and choose from among them now and again for QUOTES. The troll will surely deny them, although its easy to prove them to be his words. Use the trolls own library as the Mother Lode of ammunition to use against him. Just be sure to plug your nose while you do recon and weapons capture. Pick and choose when to remind the world what kind of repulsive individual... --------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: |
| 23-03-2022 04:35 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21599) |
sealover wrote: Spamming. Request for spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| 23-03-2022 04:36 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Spamming. Trolling. Self trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| 23-03-2022 04:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Semantics fallacy. Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented. The position of this side is unambiguous. Climate change is real. Climate change is alarming. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacies. Define 'climate change'. Define 'real'. Trolls who play word games are incapable of presenting an affirmative argument in support of a clear position. ...deleted excess noise... [/quote] Semantics fallacy. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| 23-03-2022 04:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Define 'climate change'. Define 'alarming'. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| 23-03-2022 04:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| RE: Language of Debate. Gibber-babble buzzwords optional to reveal ignorance.23-03-2022 06:08 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Language of Debate. Gibber-babble buzzwords optional to reveal ignorance. When a defendant appears in court, his attorney probably won't get far if the main thrust of the defense is that "aggravated assault" is merely a "buzzword". No trial could proceed until the defense was satisfied that aggravated assault had been "unambiguously defined." On the other hand, the defense is allowed to make up any buzzwords they want if they think it would help their cause. It would be incoherent and not a very persuasive defense, but there are no rules against it. So, each side gets to choose the wording of their own argument. Let the word games begin! Got falsifiable hypothesis? We do! There are no restrictions on the terms you use. It just make you look stupid or vulgar, depending on how you use them. Besides, don't you WANT us to use gibber-babble buzzwords? Isn't your case stronger by default, if the opposition is using words that don't actually mean anything in an attempt to persuade the debate jury audience? Don't they just look that much more stupid if they are allowed use words that have no meaning to anyone? Doesn't it only reveal the ignorance? Doesn't it only reveal ignorance to have to call them "buzzwords" because you have NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT THEY MEAN TO SCIENTISTS. Really, this is just a courtesy. There is no need for me to encourage you to create a thread of your own, so that my assertions can be challenged. I'm perfectly good at doing this all by myself. Or haven't you noticed? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 23-03-2022 06:22 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
sealover wrote:When a defendant appears in court, his attorney probably won't get far if the main thrust of the defense is that "aggravated assault" is merely a "buzzword". Bogus comparison. "Aggravated Assault" has many pages of legal definition that is supported by reams of legal definitions for supporting terms, all with countless pages of legal precedent. You err when implying that "Climate Change" is similarly exhaustively defined with inquisitors merely pretending that it somehow isn't. A better analogy would be one where you accuse someone of "criminal insignifistilence" and demand that he be arrested immediately. You would promptly be asked "What is that?" When you refuse to define it or to explain what you mean while claiming that "other people know what it is", you will be summarily dispatched and your buzzwords ignored. Certainly no trial could proceed until "criminal insignifistilence" had been unambiguously defined and made illegal by some legislation. ... so what is Climate Change? Is that what mothers do, i.e. they change a baby's climate? There can be no debate concerning "Climate Change" until it is unambiguously defined. |
| 23-03-2022 06:23 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2935) |
sealover wrote: Yes! You are catching on! Have you ever followed a trial? It's very common for the jury to come back for additional clarification of the law before voting on a conviction. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 23-03-2022 06:53 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
I think somebody got one too many vaccine doses, and the fourth dose is still weeks away from FDA approval... I don't play debate game. I'm certainly not going to play Simon Says, and sneak around like a rodent in the basement. Using the forum as designed, is fine. I have nothing to hide (or hide from), and nothing to fear. Really not the submissive type. Jumping through hoops, to gratify you control issues doesn't work well for me. I'll just post like a normal adult. Climate Change has always been political, and faith-based. You don't have to work so hard to sell the truth. I've read through a couple IPCC reports, and even they lack conviction. Many of the papers sited are preliminary studies. Which are usually just pleas for grant money. Peer review, is just to check methodology. No opinion on whether the study has any merit, it just meets the minimal criteria. Man has always wanted to see into the past, predict the future. They look to the stars, read tea leaves, even a fist full of bloody goat entrails... Climatology, computer models, are just the modern version to divine the unknown. I lack the faith, to join the cult of true believers. |
| RE: I've debated against better parachemists and paraphysicists.23-03-2022 22:00 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
I've debated against better parachemists and paraphysicists. Some of them made it sort of sound like they might have understood what they were saying. They didn't need to DENOUCE buzzwords. They OWNED them! They used the buzzwords BETTER than the scientist in the debate. But they could only pull it off because they actually understood a little of it. Here, the effort is to ensure that debate never even BEGINS until you define your terms. And since buzzwords have no meaning there can be no definition. And with no unambiguous definition, there can be no debate. The parachemists here are a JOKE! The parachemists at the other sites at least passed one introductory chemistry course somewhere at some time. Not the parachemists here. It's like the competition didn't even show up. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 23-03-2022 22:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Define 'parachemist'. Define 'paraphysicist'. Buzzword fallacies. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| 23-03-2022 23:02 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
seal over wrote:I've debated against better parachemists and paraphysicists. Is the reason you will only debate parachemists and faux physicists because you are tired of getting bitch-slapped by real ones who have to first catch their breath from debilitating laughter when you confuse your religion for science? seal over wrote:They didn't need to DENOUCE buzzwords. Which clarifies that they weren't actual scientists because all actual scientists denounce all undefined buzzwords in every scientific context. They weren't actual scientists, which is why you were debating them instead. If I were to ask you if your mother refused to love you as a child, people who don't realize just how F'ed you are might mistakenly think that I am simply hurling insults. 1. What is the unambiguous definition of "Climate", "Climate Change" and "greenhouse effect"? 2. When you say "ocean acidification"... what do you mean? 3. What are the equations you wanted me to turn into Java code? 4. What makes you believe that the ocean level is somehow rising? 5. I have been watching for my entire lifetime and I have not seen the global Climate change any whatsoever. What change(s) are you claiming I missed? 6. How can a superset of chemistry, geology, and biology ... or biogeochemistry, only deal with a subset of chemistry's domain? Attached image:  |
| 23-03-2022 23:15 | |
Spongy Iris ★★★★☆(1643) |
sealover wrote: Hi sealover, I believe climate change is real and alarming. We can easily find indications to support our view that climate change is real. But I think we are going to be hard pressed to find indications to support a position, that climate change is alarming. Indeed some of the stuff you post about ocean acidification, and sewage, can be alarming, if it is happening in your back yard. But most people may not truly be alarmed by these things because, as they say, NIMBY. In order for me to justify an alarmist position, I have had to alter my perception of Sun, Earth, and Atmosphere. The wiki I always like to point to start the conversation about climate change alarmism is Libyan Glass: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_desert_glass %20(1).png)
Edited on 23-03-2022 23:16 |
| 23-03-2022 23:51 | |
Swan ★★★★★(5723) |
sealover wrote: Do this all decade? Dude you need to get out of your Mom's basement. Really |
| RE: Thank you Spongy Iris - maybe new thread24-03-2022 00:15 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Thank you Spongy Iris - maybe new thread Yes, the word "alarming" involves something you can't measure very accurately in the laboratory. Different standard for admissible evidence. This thread, right here, should probably just be brainstorming and practice for the real thing when the other kids get here. Honestly, I would prefer that the official thread of the reality based "CLIMATE DEBATE" position NOT be in my name. Do as I say, not as I do. The thread would be best under somebody who ALWAYS remains polite with the trolls. Someone who ALWAYS maintains the patience and respect, and keeps it on the impersonal level. I'm not that guy. I intend to get VICIOUS with the trolls on a personal level. But I CAN be that guy who is a member of the team contributing science to the debate. I nominate Spongy Iris to be SECRETARY OF THE DEBATE THREAD. She's much much nicer to the trolls than I am. And I thank her for bringing in useful, relevant material to the discussion. Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| RE: Why "sealover" should NOT be "Secretary of Thread for Climate Debate"24-03-2022 00:57 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Why sealover should NOT be "Secretary of Thread for Climate Debate" "sealover" cannot be an honest broker to facilitate this debate. Whoever controls the thread representing the believe that climate change is real and alarming position ultimately controls the narrative. The Secretary of Thread will have the option to pick and choose which posts to respond to. Or not. The list of posts for the thread under the Secretary of Thread's name will only show the responses if they were then replied to by the Secretary. One reason the Secretary shouldn't be me. I would simply erase from history the troll responses by ignoring all of them. They would still be the nuisance along the thread that you have to hurry and scroll past to find anything worth viewing. But they would be invisible to those who go straight to the library to look up posts of the thread under the Secretary's name. The Secretary should not be me because that would give me the power to pick and choose among the best posts which ones to highlight and preserve in the thread library. These, unlike the troll posts, would be available to all for viewing just by going into the library of post under the Secretary of Thread name. At least a month, probably two before this starts to get real. Meanwhile, any volunteers to be Secretary of Thread? Your thread would host the presentation of the debate argument that climate change is real and alarming. No hurry. Not just pie in the sky. But not at the front door yet. Plenty of time for some good brainstorming. Maybe find some of those people who ran away from this site before, but might find there is a good reason to come back again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 24-03-2022 01:03 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
sealover wrote: Thank you sealover!! I will keep your nomination and advice in consideration as I anticipate the arrival of the kiddie pool... |
| RE: A debate about what to DO, not how to define terms.24-03-2022 01:41 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
A debate about what to DO, not about how to define terms. Ten years ago I was deep into a website debate. Many of us there were credentialed scientists. We wanted to have legitimate debate. My pet peeve was geoengineering proposed to perform environmental chemotherapy. Such as spewing sulfides into the atmosphere to block some of the sunlight. I had done my master's research into the biogeochemistry of "acid rain". After all that effort to take the sulfur out of coal because we knew the harm it caused, not they wanted coal-burning-power-plants-on-steroid levels of sulfur emissions to the atmosphere. People were proposing massive scale ocean fertilization schemes. As a biogeochemist, I knew the risks of nitrous oxide emissions from eutrophication and hypoxia. But the debate wasn't about whether or not climate change was real and alarming. The debate was about what would be the best way to address it. It worked beautifully at first. The first wave of trolls were lightweight. Later, a more insidious variety moved in. Much harder to dislodge. They killed that site like they killed this one. I would still love to debate WHAT TO DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. A "debate" about whether or not to DENY CLIMATE CHANGE is SO 1990s! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 24-03-2022 03:41 | |
| Swan★★★★★ (5723) |
sealover wrote: Do you talk to yourself often? |
| 24-03-2022 03:41 | |
| Swan★★★★★ (5723) |
sealover wrote: Do you talk to yourself often? |
| 24-03-2022 04:13 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
seal over wrote:A debate about what to DO, not about how to define terms. You still have to define your terms. seal over wrote:Ten years ago I was deep into a website debate. Let me guess, nobody defined any terms and everyone lived happily ever after. seal over wrote:Many of us there were credentialed scientists. I think it's fairly obvious at this point that you have no credentials and you are no scientist. seal over wrote:We wanted to have legitimate debate. Who do you expect will believe that you ever wanted any sort of legitimate debate? You are nothing but a troll, an intellectually dishonest preacher of a WACKY religion. seal over wrote:My pet peeve was geoengineering proposed to perform environmental chemotherapy. Great, a pet peeve of multiple undefined buzzwords. seal over wrote:. I had done my master's research into the biogeochemistry of "acid rain". That sounds like you might be able to stretch it into two paragraphs. Maybe you could insert a graphic and fill a page. Post that thesis here in this thread. seal over wrote:After all that effort to take the sulfur out of coal because we knew the harm it caused, An undefined " we", which was probably just you, and no one wanted to hear your lame physics violations. I can see where this is going. seal over wrote:As a biogeochemist, I knew the risks of nitrous oxide emissions from eutrophication and hypoxia. As a WACKY non-scientist, you didn't have anything of value to contribute. All you could do was throw around buzzwords and gibber-babble. That doesn't help. seal over wrote:But the debate wasn't about whether or not climate change was real and alarming. ... for the same reason you don't find Christians debating whether God is real. seal over wrote: The debate was about what would be the best way to address it. In the same way Christians debate what God wants. seal over wrote:The first wave of trolls were lightweight.Later, a more insidious variety moved in.Much harder to dislodge.They killed that site like they killed this one. Yeah, this site is as dead as a Bayahibe coral reef.  seal over wrote:I would still love to debate WHAT TO DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. ... but only with people who won't ask you what you mean, which rules out any scientists and rules out any educated people. |
| 24-03-2022 04:19 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
sealover wrote: I must be pretty immune to sulfur emissions... I was born by The Big Nickel mine, where a giant 1250 foot smoke stack belched them out over the city constantly. |
| RE: NOBODY is immune to sulfur emissions.24-03-2022 04:35 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
NOBODY is immune to sulfur emissions. The acid rain often falls thousands of miles from the source. The sulfides that some idiot scientists propose deliberately spewing into the atmosphere don't even become sulfuric acid until after they travel far across the world. NOBODY is immune to sulfur emissions. But the British discovered a great trick back in the day. People were choking on the streets of London, sometimes to death. Solution? Extend the height of the smoke stacks. Just send the sulfur emissions somewhere else. NIMBY IS RIGHT MAN! Send that stuff somewhere where they can't do anything about it. Gotta just love that NIMBY! Taller smoke stacks solved the problem. But nobody is REALLY immune to sulfur emissions. Or should I just say, without further comment. "No argument". Welcome to the revolution, Sister! ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 24-03-2022 04:55 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
sealover wrote: Omg. Must have been their logic by The Big Nickel. Send them up 1250 ft. Maybe they will make it to the Atlantic... Nice chatting with you. |
| RE: "BIG NICKEL" - their real problem was LEAD, not nickel.24-03-2022 05:15 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
"BIG NICKEL" - their real problem was LEAD. Ah, the infamous "Big Nickel". I know it well. The lead in the soil downgradient created a classic data set of fallout of lead from a point source plume. Hundreds of miles from the smokestack. But that was as far as the lead ever got. It's a pretty heavy element. And poisonous. IT IS MY OPINION THAT LEAD IS POISONOUS. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD IN SOIL DOWNGRADIENT, HUNDREDS OF MILES DOWNWIND, WAS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANTLY CORRELATED TO THE PLUME FROM A POINT SOURCE AIRIAL PLUME OF LEAD. But that is just my opinion. I bet someone living near the thing, old enough to remember when the nickel works was still operating (we're talking GEEZERS now), will tell me it never did nuthin bad to nobody who actually lived there and could see with their own eyes. BIG NICKEL is a classic data set to confirm the reality that what goes up must come down. Lead is a HEAVY METAL. You can't just spew it high in the atmosphere and expect it to float forever. If you would like to know what became of all that lead in the soil, over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, from the point source plume of HEAVY METALS into the atmosphere at the nickel works, I'd be happy to tell you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| RE: Lead From Nickel-Copper Smelter Smokestacks24-03-2022 05:44 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
sealover wrote: Yes I want to get an idea where the lead wound up from the smokestacks of nickel-copper smelting productions. In a quick search I found this statistic. "In 1998, Inco emitted 146.7 tonnes of lead at Copper Cliff with a smelter production of 238,500 tonnes of nickel-copper matte." Couldn't find any studies of where it winds up being deposited... |
| RE: See? We're Making Progress! LEAD not copper!24-03-2022 06:01 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
See? We're Making Progress! LEAD, not copper! 146.7 tonnes lead.... Spongy Iris provided the following data for emissions of heavy metal into the environment from a specific copper works. "146.7 tonnes lead...238,500 tonnes nickel copper matter." Three orders of magnitude more lead than nickel copper matter. Might be one reason they didn't call it "lead mine works" They didn't call it "mercury mine works" either. So why were the tree huggers having a hissy fit over LEAD of all things? Why was LEAD one of only TWO elements that the tree huggers cared about? Before moving on, where is that lead today? It is bound up through complexation with soil organic matter, harmlessly immobilized. Unless somebody messes with it. Perhaps the point was to say that the lead was negligible because there was more than a thousand times more nickel copper matter? That did not the lead from being toxic. By the way, a hundred tons of lead is a LOT if it is in the air breathe. I am not aware of ANY level of lead exposure that is "safe". But the missing number? MERCURY! There weren't any mercury mines near BIG NICKEL, were there? Besides, look what a tiny number mercury is compared to all the other stuff. Besides, mercury is harmless. Just like lead is harmless. That's when they call Dr. Dirt! ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 24-03-2022 06:28 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
sealover wrote: Doctors recommend pregnant and nursing mothers should not consume much seafood, such as big tuna fish, due to its high mercury content. Some quick research... "In mines, mercury is used to recover minute pieces of gold that is mixed in soil and sediments. Mercury and gold settle and combine together to form an amalgam. Gold is then extracted by vaporizing the mercury." Born by the Big Nickel, and worked my way west to the Golden State.
Edited on 24-03-2022 06:29 |
| RE: Perhaps you've noticed I speak to an audience.24-03-2022 10:19 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Perhaps you've noticed I speak to an audience. A "target audience" that I admitted to from day one. There was no need for me to provide unambiguous definitions for my terms because my target audience understands them. ALL OF THEM! It would have been an absurd waste of time for me to define terms for people who simply don't have the proper training to understand them. It would not be effective use of my time and training to provide special ed remedial education to people who don't care about climate change anyway. The choir hasn't tuned in yet, but they are who I've been speaking to from the start. Out there in the real world, some people even think I have good writing skills. Out there in the real world, MANY people are blown away by my science skills. I'm not feeling lonely here at all. I know who I am speaking to and what I'm hoping to teach them. Sorry if you feel left out, but I can't let hecklers and bullies turn the classroom into a nuthouse. Sorry if you never learned what the words mean, but it's not my job to teach you basic introductory science. I don't have time to offer special ed special tutoring. I'm writing for the people who already get it and want to learn more. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 24-03-2022 19:26 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Don't eat it. sealover wrote: Lead in the soil is not poisonous. Lead is naturally in the soil everywhere...like pyrite. If lead is so heavy, how does it travel for hundreds of miles floating in the air??? 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 24-03-2022 19:27 |
| 24-03-2022 19:32 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
Spongy Iris wrote: Mercury naturally exists in lakes and oceans. 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 |
| 24-03-2022 19:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: Try English. It works better. sealover wrote: See the material safety data sheet for lead, which lists safe exposures. You would actually know that if you were a chemist. In general: Don't eat it. Wash your hands off when you use it. Use a fume hood for lead vapors. Handling chunks of lead is completely safe. Just wash your hands off before eating. If you handle lead all day, use gloves. The stuff is not plutonium. 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 24-03-2022 19:41 |
| RE: Cinnabar - Mercury sulfide ore mineral24-03-2022 21:35 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Cinnabar - Mercury sulfide ore mineral. As noted in the post below regarding use of liquid mercury in gold mining. Mercury can become a vapor. Mercury is a HEAVY METAL. About as heavy as LEAD. But even MORE TOXIC THAN LEAD. "Gold is then extracted by vaporizing the mercury." Correct. Mercury vapor. A toxic heavy metal in the vapor phase, ready to travel far and wide in the atmosphere. Liquid mercury is in the zero-valent oxidation state, i.e. "elemental" mercury. Atoms of zero valent mercury have no electric field interactions with molecules of nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere. Despite their great mass, they can stay suspended by Brownian motion on an atomic scale. That mercury vapor can circle the earth five times over before it falls back down. The LEAD in the smokestack plume was NOT zero valent. It DID have electric field interactions with molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. It did not stay suspended in the atmosphere more than a few hundred kilometers before it fell back down to the ground. And we have a beautiful detailed map showing exactly where it fell and how the concentration in soil diminished with increasing distance from the point source. Cinnabar is the ore most frequently sought by mercury miners. It is mercury sulfide. Like so many other sulfides, cinnabar generates sulfuric acid when oxidized with oxygen. Half sulfuric acid, half dissolved mercury. There is no such thing as NON-TOXIC MERCURY. There is a reason they don't use that stuff in every thermometer anymore. But zero valent liquid elemental mercury has a FAR more toxic cousin. Methyl mercury. Microorganisms can transform inorganic mercury into methyl mercury, creating a deadly and enduring toxin that accumulates up the food chain. Methyl mercury can be generated by iron reducers, sulfate reducers, and methanogens. The biggest problem is when iron reducers try to use the ferric iron in the iron floc from the old mercury mine. They have to go through mercury to get to iron, and some of it gets methylated. This stuff is REAL people! Don't you want a biogeochemist to help you fix it? Or is it more rewarding somehow to insist that there is nothing to fix. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Spongy Iris wrote:sealover wrote: |
Join the debate THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Real Perspective on Warming - NASA Data | 16 | 26-04-2024 06:48 |
| Gravity Has Energy Debate | 33 | 03-02-2024 17:02 |
| What a "REAL" American Brings to the Table | 3 | 05-12-2023 01:14 |
| We mourn the passing of climate debate.com | 15 | 04-12-2023 17:11 |
| Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry | 307 | 04-12-2023 15:34 |