Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Fossil fuels began accumulating with the advent of photosynthesis dickbreath.
Is that true, prove your claim.
Fossil fuels began accumulating with the advent of photosynthesis dickbreath.
Fossil fuels began accumulating with the advent of photosynthesis dickbreath.
No, they did NOT, fartsniffer.
You are wrong again![]()
Is that true, prove your claim.
All that CO2 in the ground in the form of oil and coal, used to be in the atmosphere.The planet Earth is currently in its 3rd ICEHOUSE and in a state of CO2 starvation.
Prove it
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.
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.Is that true, prove your claim.
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?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
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.No, they did NOT, fartsniffer.
You are wrong again![]()
...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?Cyanobacteria can sequester carbon, but they are not plants.
No surprise Rune doesn't prove his claim.
...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?
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
Yes I should jump because you've ask me so nicely!!Respond to my comments about Crescent Dunes, dick licker.
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.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?
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.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
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.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?