RE: Not really fuel for our woodstoves . . . but fuel nonetheless

[Dune]

My dream is to own a wood-powered car. Gives "warming up the car" a whole new meaning...

If that is truly your dream, make it a reality.

http://victorygasifier.com/

If you are wondering if it really works, the answer is yes.

My father ran his commercial fishing vessal on wood gas during WWII. They had to cut 30 bushels of wood into 3" cubes for every trip.

 

[jharkin]

Statements like "the gas is more than we can imagine" and "more than 100 years" feel to me like opinions, quoted from pundits, usually with no scientific training, getting their information second hand, from sources that have a financial interest in making the public think the stuff is endless so it kills investment in alternatives. Maybe its true, but I'd rather see independent verified data than somebody "cause I said so 'son"

Alright then, assuming its for real - Even if there were a 1000 years of gas available, burning it all would turn this planet into Venus. I wouldn't care to live there, nor do I wish to kick the can down the road so my kids have to live there.

Oh and groundwater? - as has been mentioned in many urbanized areas we are drilling deeper and deeper for groundwater because we are depleting the existing surface aquifers faster than they can replenish (look at the draining of lake Meade and the near universal water restrictions you see in many states). Maybe contamination is not an issue now but it could become so, especially if we just through all the rules out the window.


I would love some cheap abundant source of Hydrogen. But unfortunately, contrary to "market will provide" theory, money cant change the laws of physics. Since fusion isn't practical yet and hydrogen has to be manufactured the first law of thermodynamics rules: you cant get any more energy out then you put into it. For example:
- If you use electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis and then feed that hydrogen into a fuel cell, the electric output will be LESS than the electricity you put in.
- If you chemically process natural gas into hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen you would get less BTU's than if you just burned the natural gas directly.



My opinion - yes we should use that gas to get us off oil. But we should regulate and inspect CAREFULLY to make sure we don't ruin the environment, AND we should either tax the gas or the profits of the gas companies to subsidize alternative energy so that next step doesn't take as long as the first one has.

 

[Dune]

Statements like "the gas is more than we can imagine" and "more than 100 years" feel to me like opinions, quoted from pundits, usually with no scientific training, getting their information second hand, from sources that have a financial interest in making the public think the stuff is endless so it kills investment in alternatives. Maybe its true, but I'd rather see independent verified data than somebody "cause I said so 'son"

Alright then, assuming its for real - Even if there were a 1000 years of gas available, burning it all would turn this planet into Venus. I wouldn't care to live there, nor do I wish to kick the can down the road so my kids have to live there.

Oh and groundwater? - as has been mentioned in many urbanized areas we are drilling deeper and deeper for groundwater because we are depleting the existing surface aquifers faster than they can replenish (look at the draining of lake Meade and the near universal water restrictions you see in many states). Maybe contamination is not an issue now but it could become so, especially if we just through all the rules out the window.


I would love some cheap abundant source of Hydrogen. But unfortunately, contrary to "market will provide" theory, money cant change the laws of physics. Since fusion isn't practical yet and hydrogen has to be manufactured the first law of thermodynamics rules: you cant get any more energy out then you put into it. For example:
- If you use electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis and then feed that hydrogen into a fuel cell, the electric output will be LESS than the electricity you put in.
- If you chemically process natural gas into hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen you would get less BTU's than if you just burned the natural gas directly.



My opinion - yes we should use that gas to get us off oil. But we should regulate and inspect CAREFULLY to make sure we don't ruin the environment, AND we should either tax the gas or the profits of the gas companies to subsidize alternative energy so that next step doesn't take as long as the first one has.

plus one.

 

[Jack768]

Statements like "the gas is more than we can imagine" and "more than 100 years" feel to me like opinions, quoted from pundits, usually with no scientific training, getting their information second hand, from sources that have a financial interest in making the public think the stuff is endless so it kills investment in alternatives. Maybe its true, but I'd rather see independent verified data than somebody "cause I said so 'son"

Alright then, assuming its for real - Even if there were a 1000 years of gas available, burning it all would turn this planet into Venus. I wouldn't care to live there, nor do I wish to kick the can down the road so my kids have to live there.

Oh and groundwater? - as has been mentioned in many urbanized areas we are drilling deeper and deeper for groundwater because we are depleting the existing surface aquifers faster than they can replenish (look at the draining of lake Meade and the near universal water restrictions you see in many states). Maybe contamination is not an issue now but it could become so, especially if we just through all the rules out the window.


I would love some cheap abundant source of Hydrogen. But unfortunately, contrary to "market will provide" theory, money cant change the laws of physics. Since fusion isn't practical yet and hydrogen has to be manufactured the first law of thermodynamics rules: you cant get any more energy out then you put into it. For example:
- If you use electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis and then feed that hydrogen into a fuel cell, the electric output will be LESS than the electricity you put in.
- If you chemically process natural gas into hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen you would get less BTU's than if you just burned the natural gas directly.



My opinion - yes we should use that gas to get us off oil. But we should regulate and inspect CAREFULLY to make sure we don't ruin the environment, AND we should either tax the gas or the profits of the gas companies to subsidize alternative energy so that next step doesn't take as long as the first one has.

Of course, there have to be regulatory controls. There have been isolated instances of well contamination, but many activities lead to isolated instances of well contamination. In general, fracking is a clean way to recover a clean fuel. Also, it's important to look at what natural gas is displacing -- it displaces coal in electrical generation, it displaces oil in home heating and to some extent in transportation (CNG vehicles). Almost invariably, natural gas replaces fuels that pollute more than natural gas. Often, those fuels are also imported and cost more than natural gas, so the environmental and economic benefits are huge, suggesting that while appropriate regulation is needed, we should not take a hostile approach (such as the complete New York moratorium that Gov. Cuomo wisely lifted) designed to prevent responsible development.

 

[barwick11]

The anti-"fracking" nonsense is pretty much unsupported by the facts and is the work of people who are allergic to oil & gas. These wells are way below -- like a mile below -- the water table. Anti-fracking is a "save the underground rocks" movement. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and we should develop that resource.

Yup... pretty much sums it up.

 

[barwick11]

Statements like "the gas is more than we can imagine" and "more than 100 years" feel to me like opinions, quoted from pundits, usually with no scientific training, getting their information second hand, from sources that have a financial interest in making the public think the stuff is endless so it kills investment in alternatives. Maybe its true, but I'd rather see independent verified data than somebody "cause I said so 'son"

Alright then, assuming its for real - Even if there were a 1000 years of gas available, burning it all would turn this planet into Venus. I wouldn't care to live there, nor do I wish to kick the can down the road so my kids have to live there.

Hey... who's the one stating opinions as if they were fact now?

There is zero scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Correlation != causation.

If it did, you understand that by burning wood, you're contributing to a massive influx of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Trust me, you're not hurting the earth by (cleanly) burning wood.

Oh, and none of you looked at my link back on page 1? tsk tsk...

The dude is for real:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

I believe NASA has talked with him and confirmed that they also have been investigating a similar phenomenon.

And on another note, I'm actually putting together a venture capital proposal with a guy on a superconducting magnetic energy storage system utilizing a (very very very) high temperature superconductor. In short, rapid recharging of an electric vehicle with zero heavy batteries, and vastly increased energy capacity over current batteries (like hundreds of miles). Could render "foreign oil" a moot point.

 

[jharkin]

There is tons of evidence that our climate is warming much faster in the last 100 years than in any earlier period not associated with some disaster like a supervolcano. There is no denying that arctic ice is receding at record levels and the great glaciers are receding everywhere. the photographic evidence is there... you can go to the Himalayas and see it first hand. I don't think anyone denies the climate is changing faster than natural cycles would predict.

At the same time we know that the only things that's really different in the last 100 years is FF. And its well understood that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is it the theory 100% conclusive?... no of course not. theories never are 100% positive - the nature of a theory. But this is a case where there is an overwhelming amount of plausible eveidence and the consequences of doing nothing if its for real are so dire its not worth the risk.

If AGW isnt real and we reduce CO2 emissions anyway there is absolutely NO downside to humanity other than making rich fat cats less rich and making the first world live with a little less luxury. If GW is for real and we don't do something about it the downsides could be disasterous for much of the worlds population.

Its easy for us to ignore the changes going on because our vast wealth as a nation insulates us from the reality. Go to north Africa where all those revolutions started over food prices, or Pakistan where 2 years of record floods have killed crop after crop, or Russia where the wildfires killed off the grain, or China where record droughts that have destroyed much of the rice harvest... I can go on but you get the idea.



Anyway .. at this point I know we are never going to agree so I'll drop it there. Surprised this hasn't been kicked to the can already.




Oh and BTW on the burning wood thing. Not all CO2 is created equal. CO2 from woodburning is coming out of the current carbon cycle. Plant a tree and it absorbs carbon, burn it and its releases, then its absorbed by the next tree. No net change in the carbon averaged over time. CO2 from fossil fuels on the other hand is carbon thats been sequestered underground for 100 million years. When that was captured out of hte air it was a period in tie when the earth was so warm that there were tropical islands at the poles. If we put that CO2 back in the air the earth will return to that cliemate. Humans did not evolve to survive in such a world and we have no way to know if we could adapt to it (since our food chain is also dependent on the current climate).

 

[Dune]

There is tons of evidence that our climate is warming much faster in the last 100 years than in any earlier period not associated with some disaster like a supervolcano. There is no denying that arctic ice is receding at record levels and the great glaciers are receding everywhere. the photographic evidence is there... you can go to the Himalayas and see it first hand. I don't think anyone denies the climate is changing faster than natural cycles would predict.

At the same time we know that the only things that's really different in the last 100 years is FF. And its well understood that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is it the theory 100% conclusive?... no of course not. theories never are 100% positive - the nature of a theory. But this is a case where there is an overwhelming amount of plausible eveidence and the consequences of doing nothing if its for real are so dire its not worth the risk.

If AGW isnt real and we reduce CO2 emissions anyway there is absolutely NO downside to humanity other than making rich fat cats less rich and making the first world live with a little less luxury. If GW is for real and we don't do something about it the downsides could be disasterous for much of the worlds population.

Its easy for us to ignore the changes going on because our vast wealth as a nation insulates us from the reality. Go to north Africa where all those revolutions started over food prices, or Pakistan where 2 years of record floods have killed crop after crop, or Russia where the wildfires killed off the grain, or China where record droughts that have destroyed much of the rice harvest... I can go on but you get the idea.



Anyway .. at this point I know we are never going to agree so I'll drop it there. Surprised this hasn't been kicked to the can already.




Oh and BTW on the burning wood thing. Not all CO2 is created equal. CO2 from woodburning is coming out of the current carbon cycle. Plant a tree and it absorbs carbon, burn it and its releases, then its absorbed by the next tree. No net change in the carbon averaged over time. CO2 from fossil fuels on the other hand is carbon thats been sequestered underground for 100 million years. When that was captured out of hte air it was a period in tie when the earth was so warm that there were tropical islands at the poles. If we put that CO2 back in the air the earth will return to that cliemate. Humans did not evolve to survive in such a world and we have no way to know if we could adapt to it (since our food chain is also dependent on the current climate).

Why bother?

 

[macmaine]

Jeremy

1+

You don't have to travel to himalaya
To see Global weirding

Go to Vermont after Hurricane Irene
Go to New Jersey for a Halloween snowstorm
Go to Maine to see 60 count em 60 degree days in January

I like to think I am young but I have never seen the number and severity
Of storms in my short 49 years

I wonder what evidence the anti evolution
Crowd at Fox needs to be convinced that
Global Warming is not some academic ponZi scheme?
Melting of north and south pole?

Palm trees in New York?



Bottom line is by 2050 we have to be off
FF or it is over

 

[barwick11]

There is tons of evidence that our climate is warming much faster in the last 100 years than in any earlier period not associated with some disaster like a supervolcano. There is no denying that arctic ice is receding at record levels and the great glaciers are receding everywhere. the photographic evidence is there... you can go to the Himalayas and see it first hand. I don't think anyone denies the climate is changing faster than natural cycles would predict.

At the same time we know that the only things that's really different in the last 100 years is FF. And its well understood that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is it the theory 100% conclusive?... no of course not. theories never are 100% positive - the nature of a theory. But this is a case where there is an overwhelming amount of plausible eveidence and the consequences of doing nothing if its for real are so dire its not worth the risk.

The warming effect of CO2 is vastly overshadowed by the warming effect of water vapor. Not to mention cloud cover, solar activity, etc. And there's actual evidence to show that CO2 levels trail temperature changes, they don't precede it.

If AGW isnt real and we reduce CO2 emissions anyway there is absolutely NO downside to humanity other than making rich fat cats less rich and making the first world live with a little less luxury. If GW is for real and we don't do something about it the downsides could be disasterous for much of the worlds population.

Why's it matter? What's the harm?

Go visit the rest of the world where they don't have inexpensive power. Ask them how they're doing. Look at how people live in Africa, parts of Asia, etc, because they barely have enough money to buy a single lumber truck to haul lumber, and to build a sawmill to process that lumber into something useful. Let alone the cost of the fuel and coal to power them. Now you want to take away their only source of inexpensive power & replace it with an absurdly expensive source, all in the name of some theory put forth about how we're all going to burn up because of something that only accounts for 0.117% of the greenhouse effect?

Its easy for us to ignore the changes going on because our vast wealth as a nation insulates us from the reality. Go to north Africa where all those revolutions started over food prices, or Pakistan where 2 years of record floods have killed crop after crop, or Russia where the wildfires killed off the grain, or China where record droughts that have destroyed much of the rice harvest... I can go on but you get the idea.

Wow, I didn't know scientists were so successful in predicting the weather that they could demonstrate that a slight increase in 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is causing record floods, wildfires, & droughts.

If it rains, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it doesn't rain, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it snows, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cold, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's hot, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's sunny, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cloudy, it's caused by Global Warming.
If its...

 

[Adios Pantalones]

I wonder about the total energy balance in the process described in the OP.

 

[barwick11]

I wonder about the total energy balance in the process described in the OP.

I thought the same thing at one point:

Man-made CO2 accounts for roughly 3% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere

Relate that to greenhouse effect now, where all CO2 accounts for roughly 3% of the greenhouse effect.

So we have 3% of 3% of the greenhouse effect being caused by man. that's (roughly) 0.1% Or 1/10th of 1%. And believe you me, natural fluctuations in the amount of water vapor (not droplets), cloud cover, and all the other millions of effects on global temperatures, swing a whole lot more than 0.1% over the course of a year, let alone over the course of decades & centuries.

In short... No, we're not going to all die by 2050 if we don't get off fossil fuels. Spend money on alternative sources of energy fine, but do it with your own funds, not mine.

And none of this takes into account the change in growth rates of plants based on the amount of available CO2, or other factors.

 

[Adios Pantalones]

No, energy balance- not CO2 mass balance. I mean the original post. They use heat to transform a biomass into liquid fuel. How much heat?

It often comes down to- it would make more sense to burn biomass directly, convert to heat or electricity, and use it that way.

 

[barwick11]

No, energy balance- not CO2 mass balance. I mean the original post. They use heat to transform a biomass into liquid fuel. How much heat?

It often comes down to- it would make more sense to burn biomass directly, convert to heat or electricity, and use it that way.

Might be. Heat --> Liquid fuel --> processing --> heat --> electricity

Seems a lot more inefficient than Heat --> electricity

Except when you're dealing with mobility issues.

 

[jimbom]

...
Wow, I didn't know scientists were so successful in predicting the weather that they could demonstrate that a slight increase in 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is causing record floods, wildfires, & droughts.

If it rains, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it doesn't rain, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it snows, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cold, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's hot, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's sunny, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cloudy, it's caused by Global Warming.
If its...

+1 The rest of the list can be found here:

(broken link removed to http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

A few years ago, I tested in direct tension a segment of a deep limestone core taken in Missouri. The failure plane had a fossilized trilobite. A few hundred million years ago, the planet was so warm and the oceans were so deep that the land near me in Missouri was under the sea. My hands were the first human touch of the mineral impression of that creature. The thrill was electric and I still remember every detail of the lab, the apparatus and the others present. I always find it amusing when the warmist-alarmists wring their hands. The earth preserves in many ways unimpeachable evidence that warming and cooling on a massive scale is part and parcel of our planet. Geologic time. How does that work?

But like Miss Manners admonished, we should never discuss politics, religion, or specific ladies in polite conversation. Warmism is a religion like all the others, based on faith rather than fact. My apologies for poor manners.

 

[Dune]

...
Wow, I didn't know scientists were so successful in predicting the weather that they could demonstrate that a slight increase in 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is causing record floods, wildfires, & droughts.

If it rains, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it doesn't rain, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it snows, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cold, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's hot, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's sunny, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cloudy, it's caused by Global Warming.
If its...

+1 The rest of the list can be found here:

(broken link removed to http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

A few years ago, I tested in direct tension a segment of a deep limestone core taken in Missouri. The failure plane had a fossilized trilobite. A few hundred million years ago, the planet was so warm and the oceans were so deep that the land near me in Missouri was under the sea. My hands were the first human touch of the mineral impression of that creature. The thrill was electric and I still remember every detail of the lab, the apparatus and the others present. I always find it amusing when the warmist-alarmists wring their hands. The earth preserves in many ways unimpeachable evidence that warming and cooling on a massive scale is part and parcel of our planet. Geologic time. How does that work?

But like Miss Manners admonished, we should never discuss politics, religion, or specific ladies in polite conversation. Warmism is a religion like all the others, based on faith rather than fact. My apologies for poor manners.

Your explanation disregards tectonic plate theory entirely.

-1

 

[firefighterjake]

Soooo . . . how about that research about wood products being used as a fuel?

 

[Dune]

Soooo . . . how about that research about wood products being used as a fuel?

That looks like a pretty massive breakthrough.

If the process could be run from waste heat, the efficieny question may be moot.

Clearly it needs to be capable of being scaled up, which remains to be seen.

 

[jharkin]

I promised myself I was going to let this one go. I know we are just never going to see eye to eye. But yet I feel compelled to respond to misinformation.

Lets see....

The warming effect of CO2 is vastly overshadowed by the warming effect of water vapor. Not to mention cloud cover, solar activity, etc. And there's actual evidence to show that CO2 levels trail temperature changes, they don't precede it.

Ahh the water vapor argument. Made famous by Mr "junk science" himself Steve Milloy. Except the part that never gets mentioned is that Milloy is on the payroll of Fox news, a number of large tobacco companies, Monsanto, and some of the oil majors. He is a paid lobbyist whose job it is to spread doubt on any science that threatens the profits of his corporate sponsors. He has denied everything from climate change to the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. I wont even link it, go google it so you don't claim I made it up.

The reality is that its water vapor lags climate change, its NOT a forcing element. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is regulated by the total heat - more retained heat causes more evaporation.

Go visit the rest of the world where they don't have inexpensive power. Ask them how they're doing. Look at how people live in Africa, parts of Asia, etc, because they barely have enough money to buy a single lumber truck to haul lumber, and to build a sawmill to process that lumber into something useful. Let alone the cost of the fuel and coal to power them. Now you want to take away their only source of inexpensive power & replace it with an absurdly expensive source, all in the name of some theory put forth about how we're all going to burn up because of something that only accounts for 0.117% of the greenhouse effect?

Based on this statement I'm going to guess you have never been to these places. I haven't hit Africa yet but I have been to China and India multiple times. I challenge you to go to Mumbai, or Dehli or Shanghai and take a big deep breath while gazing at the orange haze on a "sunny" day. When you are done coughing try and explain to me why we should want to live in such an environment.

Wow, I didn't know scientists were so successful in predicting the weather that they could demonstrate that a slight increase in 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is causing record floods, wildfires, & droughts.

If it rains, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it doesn't rain, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it snows, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cold, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's hot, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's sunny, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cloudy, it's caused by Global Warming.

Um no, we never said GW causes all these. Individual events are WEATHER. When the frequency of record setting events increases dramatically in a short time that is a trend that does reflect on a shift in climate.

In short... No, we're not going to all die by 2050 if we don't get off fossil fuels. Spend money on alternative sources of energy fine, but do it with your own funds, not mine.

Here is the thing, I know even palm trees at the north pole wont convince you, but what about resource depletion. Even with fracking technology we know there just wont be enough FF to support our current growth rates for decades to come. If you look at oil production curves, and REMOVE biofules oil output is basically flat or declining for over 5 years now - all while prices ran to the stratosphere. FF production just wont be able to support our lifestyle at anything resembling cheap much longer .That kills growth and puts people out of jobs.

A few hundred million years ago, the planet was so warm and the oceans were so deep that the land near me in Missouri was under the sea.
...
The earth preserves in many ways unimpeachable evidence that warming and cooling on a massive scale is part and parcel of our planet. Geologic time

Correct. There have been periods when the entire planet was tropical or covered in ice. Natural cycles cause these shifts over millions of years and animal life has time to adapt. The problem is that using our technology we are forcing a 100 million year change magnitude within a few centuries. Life cant adapt that fast. That is the danger to our survival - whats so hard to understand?



We play god at our own peril.....

 

[Adios Pantalones]

Soooo . . . how about that research about wood products being used as a fuel?

That looks like a pretty massive breakthrough.

If the process could be run from waste heat, the efficieny question may be moot.

Clearly it needs to be capable of being scaled up, which remains to be seen.

There are often caveats about "use solar to charge x" or "use waste heat..."- these involve large considerations of infrastructure that are probably difficult to put in place after a plant has been built (like retrofiting a heat pump). It's interesting chemistry, to be sure.

 

[jimbom]

...The problem is that using our technology we are forcing a 100 million year change magnitude within a few centuries. Life cant adapt that fast. That is the danger to our survival - whats so hard to understand?.....

You can not have it both ways. ie technology is causing rapid change but technology will not be used to adapt to that change. Ye of little faith. The same technology causing change, will be used to adapt to that change.

Life adapts much more quickly in response to stress than generally believed. Research is in the literature documenting isolated populations of plants and animals rapidly changing to fill available niches. As I recall Darwin reported this. He is still vilified for his observations.

Status quo is a state rarely found in nature. It's adherents are found among men. It is really very easy to understand.

Climate is going to change. We have to adapt. Milankovitch hypothesis predicts the coming change is cooling. There are questions about Milankovitch, but the theory was proposed before climate became political. That and the good fit with historical data make me receptive. So, get your stove ready. We are going to need it in 10,000 years. About the time Dennis will be burning this year's wood.

 

[barwick11]

...
Wow, I didn't know scientists were so successful in predicting the weather that they could demonstrate that a slight increase in 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is causing record floods, wildfires, & droughts.

If it rains, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it doesn't rain, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it snows, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cold, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's hot, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's sunny, it's caused by Global Warming.
If it's cloudy, it's caused by Global Warming.
If its...

+1 The rest of the list can be found here:

(broken link removed to http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

A few years ago, I tested in direct tension a segment of a deep limestone core taken in Missouri. The failure plane had a fossilized trilobite. A few hundred million years ago, the planet was so warm and the oceans were so deep that the land near me in Missouri was under the sea. My hands were the first human touch of the mineral impression of that creature. The thrill was electric and I still remember every detail of the lab, the apparatus and the others present. I always find it amusing when the warmist-alarmists wring their hands. The earth preserves in many ways unimpeachable evidence that warming and cooling on a massive scale is part and parcel of our planet. Geologic time. How does that work?

But like Miss Manners admonished, we should never discuss politics, religion, or specific ladies in polite conversation. Warmism is a religion like all the others, based on faith rather than fact. My apologies for poor manners.

Your explanation disregards tectonic plate theory entirely.

-1

Which also is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, being based on a false presupposition about the age of the universe. +1 again.

 

[barwick11]

Milloy is on the payroll of Fox news, a number of large tobacco companies, Monsanto, and some of the oil majors.

There's a good scientific argument...

Look, point is, I'm not all *that* worried about resource depletion. Human beings have a remarkable ability to find new ways & methods of producing energy when they need to.

About 30 years ago, Jimmy Carter went on TV in his sweater and explained how in just a few years we're going to run out of Natural Gas, so we need to regulate its usage, etc, etc, etc...

So state legislatures across the country banned the sale of natural gas to businesses, because we needed to keep more of it to heat Grandma's house. Tens of thousands of companies were put out of business virtually overnight, because we were supposedly all going to freeze due to a lack of natural gas.

We now know we have well over a 100 year supply of natural gas.

The list of "we're all going to die" scenarios is endless, and the damages (and lives) it's costed us is incalculable.

 

[Adios Pantalones]

Which also is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, being based on a false presupposition about the age of the universe. +1 again.

Yeeaw- the urth is 6000 years old and the debil put dems fossils there in order to make um look oldur. Yip.

 

[Dune]

Your explanation disregards tectonic plate theory entirely.

-1

Which also is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, being based on a false presupposition about the age of the universe. +1 again.

Wait, you deny Global Warming and Tectonic Plate Movement?