A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TK was exactly right. OT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 23rd 08, 03:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default TK was exactly right. OT

On Jun 22, 9:33*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
Dumbass


*Ya know you're ****ing up. You do it pretty often too. It's hard to
play the asshole blowhard type when you post good, well thought out,
researched, accurate ****, and solidly based opinions anytime you
aren't purposely yanking someones chain.
*Monkeyboy does a lot of that too.


You think Henry's getting soft?


Nah, he, along with Chung are just very careful to be able to make
really solid arguments, based on solid evidence and opinions, but
Henry hasn't been playing with his toys here much lately, and Chung
just doesn't seem to be into that.
I think Monkeyboy makes the most effort to really stir the **** these
days when he pops back in, but he also knows what he's talking about,
when he bothers to have a discussion.
Bill C
Ads
  #42  
Old June 23rd 08, 03:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default TK was exactly right. OT weaseling Mea Culpa

On Jun 22, 10:18*pm, Bill C wrote:

*So TK really isn't that odd, unfortunately.
*Maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all.
*Bill C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Just want to make sure that you know I'm NOT excusing, or minimizing
any of TKs behavior Howard. I may not have said it clearly enough, and
I agree with you almost completely. He does not allow for differing
points of view, and attacks the people, rather than the arguments they
are making.
Global warming is typical. I saw a poll today where the majority in
Britain are still unsure that humans are the primary cause, despite an
admitted campaign by the government to force this view on them. It's
impossible to argue against the warming trend credibly. it is possible
to reasonably be skeptical as to what the exact causes, and their
percentage of contribution to the trend, if any. That doesn't make
anyone a villain, despite the rhetoric from both sides, and TK is
virulent on this one.
Hysteria, propaganda, and personal attacks don't accomplish a damned
thing except to make damned sure the problem doesn't get solved, and
that works for people who exist, as public figures, and make their
money based on there being problems and hysteria they can exploit.
The only thing I know for sure is that anyone who's absolutely
convinced they are exactly right is going to be wrong in the end. I
can't count the times I've heard, and read from people who do know
things that "The more you know about anything the less sure you are,
and the more questions you have." There's always new research and
information out there and if you aren't willing to adjust to it, and
pretty damned quickly then you are ignorant, but hey it's easier to be
right when you are ignorant, no? Can't let facts, and reality
interfere with faith and ideology.
Bill C
  #43  
Old June 23rd 08, 04:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ST[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default TK was exactly right. OT weaseling Mea Culpa

On 6/22/08 6:25 PM, in article
, "Robert
Chung" wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001...74602#25274602


What an assbag!!

If you can't make a f*ckin Chung Chart for this you ain't got ****!!

  #44  
Old June 23rd 08, 05:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,092
Default TK was exactly right. OT

On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C wrote:
You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??


Not at all. Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
used vegetable oil. It's just that right now, biofuel
mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
idea. It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
that already grow too much corn.

Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
Oil had tradeoffs too. It's just that oil was so
valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
be to let you steal it. That goes on with ANWR drilling
too. The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
some people will make bank.

Ben
  #45  
Old June 23rd 08, 06:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default TK was exactly right. OT weaseling Mea Culpa

On Jun 22, 8:38*pm, ST wrote:
On 6/22/08 6:25 PM, in article
, "Robert

Chung" wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C wrote:


*Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001...74602#25274602


What an assbag!!





Dumbass -


Are you talking about McCain?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
  #46  
Old June 23rd 08, 06:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Fredburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default TK was exactly right. OT weaseling Mea Culpa

Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C wrote:

Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001...74602#25274602


http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/damaging-mccain.html
  #47  
Old June 23rd 08, 07:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Michael Press
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,202
Default TK was exactly right. OT

In article
,
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C wrote:


On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour wrote:


That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
you're awarding the medal...


R- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
discussion.


snip


Dumbass -


You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?


Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
problem.


Then you can use the google archives to find out where
somebody said that.

TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
mass genocide. *It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.


snip



Dumbass -


Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
ethanol).

If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
bottom of an anaerobic ocean.


That is not established. So far no laboratory has produced
petroleum from biomass. Petroleum may be biologically produced
but not from dead biomass, but from bacteria reducing methane
incorporated into the Earth when first formed. The dead
biomass theory also must explain the high pressure
of entrapped methane.

--
Michael Press
  #48  
Old June 23rd 08, 08:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default TK was exactly right. OT

On Jun 22, 11:47*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Kurgan Gringioni wrote:





On Jun 21, 4:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C wrote:


On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour wrote:


That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
you're awarding the medal...


R- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
discussion.


snip


Dumbass -


You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?


Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
problem.


Then you can use the google archives to find out where
somebody said that.


TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
mass genocide. *It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.


snip


Dumbass -


Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
ethanol).


If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
bottom of an anaerobic ocean.


That is not established.




Dumbass -


Maybe not all of it. But . . .

From:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti.../origin-of-oil

snip

The Origin & Rate of Oil Formation
Crude oils themselves do not take long to be generated from
appropriate organic matter. Most petroleum geologists believe crude
oils form mostly from plant material, such as diatoms (single-celled
marine and freshwater photosynthetic organisms)12 and beds of coal
(huge fossilized masses of plant debris).13 The latter is believed to
be the source of most Australian crude oils and natural gas because
coal beds are in the same sequences of sedimentary rock layers as the
petroleum reservoir rocks.14 Thus, for example, it has been
demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown
coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their
rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar
to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days.15

snipend


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
  #49  
Old June 23rd 08, 01:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default TK was exactly right. OT

On Jun 23, 12:00*am, "
wrote:
On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C wrote:

*You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??


Not at all. *Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
used vegetable oil. *It's just that right now, biofuel
mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
idea. *It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
that already grow too much corn.

Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
Oil had tradeoffs too. *It's just that oil was so
valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
be to let you steal it. *That goes on with ANWR drilling
too. *The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
some people will make bank.

Ben


I was being a pinhead on purpose there. I agree with you completely.
The reality is that ethanol and other biofuels are still in the
experimental stage. The reality is that this solves a batch of
political problems. It's sorta green, it's not petroleum based, it
keeps farmers working, allows them money that the pols can claim isn't
a giveaway, and keeps jobs and production American. Lots of good short
term political points to it, and maybe they'll figure out a better way
to go about it, but it takes money away from research into real,
sustainable, alternatives. I'm not baffled why we haven't put together
a worldwide Manhattan Project on fusion energy, and hydrogen fuel
cells, but it's stupid and short sighted to not be doing it. Way too
much money tied to the current system though, and lobbyists to protect
it.
McCain wants to build a whole ****load of new nuke plants, oh ****ing
joy. Massive up front costs, short lifespan, no good way to handle and
store the waste, ****ed up waterways used for cooling, etc...Good
plan. They just , with an idustry paid for study, decided to allow our
local plant to avoid using it's cooling tower, to save them money, and
max their profits, and just dump hotter water into the river. Don't
seem to give a **** about the river, the folks who use it, and it's
economic, and social impact as a recreation and tourism source. Goes
great with massively more oil and gas wells, especially on public
lands they can lease for $1 an acre to their friends.
It's a beautiful day to be an energy company ceo. Sucks to be us.
Guess us stupid ****ers should've tossed our beliefs, invested in
them, and cheered on Exxon-Mobil in beating the Exxon Valdez stuff in
court. Why the **** should they have to pay for ruining the bay,
lives, etc... because they were running a single hull tanker with a
drunk Captain, and understaffed crew, not their fault.
Today just sucks.
Bill C
  #50  
Old June 23rd 08, 07:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default TK was exactly right. OT

On Jun 22, 11:47*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Kurgan Gringioni wrote:



On Jun 21, 4:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C wrote:


On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour wrote:


That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
you're awarding the medal...


R- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
discussion.


snip


Dumbass -


You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?


Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
problem.


Then you can use the google archives to find out where
somebody said that.


TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
mass genocide. *It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.


snip


Dumbass -


Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
ethanol).


If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
bottom of an anaerobic ocean.


That is not established. So far no laboratory has produced
petroleum from biomass. Petroleum may be biologically produced
but not from dead biomass, but from bacteria reducing methane
incorporated into the Earth when first formed. The dead
biomass theory also must explain the high pressure
of entrapped methane.

--
Michael Press


That abiogenic theory is accepted by only a small minority of
geologists and petroleum engineers. Most geologists view crude oil and
natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient
organic materials over geological time. "Oil started out as dead
phytoplankton on the bottom of an anaerobic ocean" is the best answer
science has come up with.
-Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.