Every green initiative has been a disaster

All that CO2 in the ground in the form of oil and coal, used to be in the atmosphere. :palm: The planet Earth is currently in its 3rd ICEHOUSE and in a state of CO2 starvation.

We are in the highest CO2 levels in about the last million years or so.

But that's right. You're an eastern Kentucky inbred cole miner, aren't you?

Suck down that black shit, motherfucker. Then go beg your government to save your sorry ass from black lung disease
 
Last edited:
We are in the highest CO2 levels in about the last million years or so.

But that's right. You're an eastern Kentucky inbred cole miner, aren't you?

Suck down that back shit, motherfucker. Then go beg your government to save your sorry ass from black lung disease

Go back to heating your home by burning wood, and lighting your house with whale oil, Neanderthal. The planet Earth is its 3rd Ice House and in a state of CO2 starvation, small-minded one.
 
Go back to heating your home by burning wood, and lighting your house with whale oil, Neanderthal. The planet Earth is its 3rd Ice House and in a state of CO2 starvation, small-minded one.

Highest CO2 levels in almost the last million years, Appalachian dicksucker. You a liar on CO2 starvation.
 
Is that true, prove your claim.
Easy enough. If photosynthesis is the starting point for fossil fuels then the carbon in fossil fuels should be sp4 hybridized carbon and by golly it is.

Or to put it another way....WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY CALL THEM FOSSIL FUELS IN THE FIRST PLACE???!!!!!
 
People need food, they don't need wind turbines. There is more than enough gas and oil from fracking, coupled with nuclear to sustain energy requirements in the transitional period.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Ah but it is the cost, waste and risks of those that are driving alternative forms which can be potentially more efficient. Why the bias for organic fossil fuels? Why the opposition to even developing alternatives when it is free market forces that are driving the developments of those technologies? Why the insistence on technologies that are wasteful, pollute and/or dangerous?
 
No, they did NOT, fartsniffer.

You are wrong again :palm:
Well actually yes he's absolutely correct. The vast majority of biomass on this planet is plant life in general. All fossil fuels are derived, ultimately and predominantly, from plants. You can't put the cart before the horse and without the advent of photosynthesis there are no plants.
 
Cyanobacteria can sequester carbon, but they are not plants.
...and they account for an absolutely minute fraction of the earths biomass. So inert it isn't even statistically significant and the carbon produced by cyanobacteria is inorganic carbon and not organic carbon. You do understand the significance of that I presume?
 
...and they account for an absolutely minute fraction of the earths biomass. So inert it isn't even statistically significant and the carbon produced by cyanobacteria is inorganic carbon and not organic carbon. You do understand the significance of that I presume?

No, enlighten me as to the significance.
 
I must testify that there have been leaps of improvement in the HVAC industry. the change from r4 duct insulation to r8 is good. the r410a refrigerant is indeed better. I must say that mini split heat pumps are many times better than ducted environmental control. furthermore ;the computer managed internal combustion engines are fantastic. the ditches are clean. when I was a kid I would collect glass bottles from the ditches along the roads. I bought not a few gallons of gas for the cycle, worms for the fishin' and anything else attainable at the hoyle's # 5 in lucia. air is cleaner. water is cleaner. energy usage efficiency is many times better. however; the global initiatives are stupid. we do well.
 
Your assurances are worthless, yes they are solving the problems by building shedloads of power stations burning lignite, the dirtiest coal available!! Do the same in the US and watch industries that depend on cheap electricity disappear or relocate somewhere cheaper. Anyway Germany still depends on nuclear electricity, excepting it now comes from Poland and France!!

Why do you always to resort to homophobic insults when you lose the argument? It's something that's always fascinated me about PC zealots.

https://carboncounter.wordpress.com...ear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/

Sent from my iPhone 10S

It has to do with his "Viking heritage" and their homosexual habit of sexually abusing the men they conquered.
 
Respond to my comments about Crescent Dunes, dick licker.
Yes I should jump because you've ask me so nicely!!

Well if it's anything like Ivanpah I would keep the cork in the champagne bottle. The Ivanpah project has a nominal capacity of 370 MW but in reality it is more like 114MW, this at a cost of $2.2 billion which works out at $19/Watt or over three times that of a nuclear power station. The heliostats alone weigh in at a hefty 30,000 tonnes and the bulldozed area amounted to over 20 times that for an nuclear power station with 10 times the capacity.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Last edited:
Ah but it is the cost, waste and risks of those that are driving alternative forms which can be potentially more efficient. Why the bias for organic fossil fuels? Why the opposition to even developing alternatives when it is free market forces that are driving the developments of those technologies? Why the insistence on technologies that are wasteful, pollute and/or dangerous?
Well I've already told you that Germany has found out the hard way that wind and solar power actually result in more CO2 not less, so how is that exactly helping? I have absolutely nothing against renewables, if they work and don't cost the Earth.

Of course I don't subscribe to the alarmist view of catastrophic AGW, so I don't feel the need to run around shouting the sky is falling as so many idiots on here seem to do. How can anyone believe what the likes of NOAA were doing with temperatures? Last year was declared the hottest by a huge 0.01C which is well inside the margin for error. The two satellite datasets UAH and RSS both show that 1998 and 2016, both extreme El Nino years, tied for that title. Hence it is true to say that there has been no warming in the past 18 years.

Let me ask you a question, when do you think a viable cheap storage system will become available, I would guess at least another 15 years or more, what say you?

http://www.thegwpf.com/fritz-vahrenholt-germany-faces-an-energy-political-fiasco/
 
Last edited:
People need food, they don't need wind turbines. There is more than enough gas and oil from fracking, coupled with nuclear to sustain energy requirements in the transitional period.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Climate/Pollution issues are only one aspect of wind/solar energy. Since the first 'gas crisis' in the 70's, we see massive price fluctuations due to market manipulation by the producers, or the sellers of fossil fuels. Attention to alternatives typically peaks when it's too late, and we're paying $1000/month to heat our homes.
 
Ah but it is the cost, waste and risks of those that are driving alternative forms which can be potentially more efficient. Why the bias for organic fossil fuels? Why the opposition to even developing alternatives when it is free market forces that are driving the developments of those technologies? Why the insistence on technologies that are wasteful, pollute and/or dangerous?
Those who criticize subsidies for 20th/21st century energy investment typically ignore the fact that all forms of energy are, or have been heavily subsidized throughout history.
 
Back
Top