|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
TK was exactly right. OT weaseling Mea Culpa
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|