Global warming biggest science scandal ever

[westwall]

I stated "lubricants made from plants". Why do you and Walleyes constantly try to put words in other peoples mouths? Are you not able to simply address what is said?

Bio-based material - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Bio-based materials are often biodegradable, but this is not always the case.

Examples include:

• cellulose fibers — fibers made from reconstituted cellulose.
• casein — a phosphoprotein extracted from milk during the process of creating low fat milk, it is processed in various ways to make: plastic, dietary supplements for body builders, glue, cotton candy, protective coatings, paints, and occurs naturally in cheese, giving it a creamy texture.
• polylactic acid — a polymer produced by industrial fermentation
• bioplastics — include a soy oil based plastic now being used to make body panels for John Deere tractors
• engineered wood — products such as oriented strand board and particle board
• zein — a natural biopolymer which is the most abundant corn protein
• cornstarch — the starch of the maize grain, used to make packing pellets
• grease — lubricants made from vegetable oils, including soybean oil, that can replace petroleum based lubricants

wikipedia, boy, why did I not think of that. Great, now tell us one motor oil that is being made strictly with plant oil?

Is there any lubricant used in a car that comes strictly from a plant with zero hydrocarbons?

We know of wikipedia Old Crock, what we do not know of is this synthetic oil that strictly comes from plants.

I know. I have been trying to figure out where olfraud/oreo boy came up with the figure of 13 species of crinoids but I can't figure where he pulled that number from....maybe his ass?

 

[westwall]

Moving the goal post is not a good strategy, dude. We were talking about synthetic oil, not jet fuel. Next.

.

"Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil"

Walleyes, that is the original post above. Note that is says three things, one, that we can make very good lubricants from plants, two, that process costs more than making them from oil, and, three, that is a good reason for not wasting the oil burning it as a fuel.

Walleyes, I suggest that you quit trying to put words into other people mouths. I said lubricants, not fuels. And I stated they were more expensive than those produced from oil. I made absolutely no mention of biofuels. If anyone should be embarrassed by this exchange, it should be you.

SYNTHETIC OIL is made from CRUDE OIL

Nor is all synthetic oil made from crude oil.

Synthetic oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Synthetic oil is a lubricant consisting of chemical compounds that are artificially made (synthesized). Synthetic lubricants can be manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil, but can also be synthesized from other raw materials. Synthetic oil is used as a substitute for lubricant refined from petroleum when operating in extremes of temperature, because, in general, it provides superior mechanical and chemical properties to those found in traditional mineral oils[citation needed]. Aircraft jet engines, for example, require the use of synthetic oils[citation needed], whereas aircraft piston engines do not. Synthetic lubricants are also used in metal stamping to provide environmental and other benefits[citation needed] when compared to conventional petroleum and animal fat based products. These products are also referred to as "non-oil" or "oil free"[citation needed].

Synthetic Oil is made from Crude Oil, give us one brand name product that does not contain hydrocarbons.

Gevo Inc. manufactures a biofuel that uses no hydrocarbons...other than the tens or thousands of gallons they use to power their vehicles and machines that do the work of course. Funnily enough the green mafia ignores those little facts.

 

[elektra]

.

"Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil"

Walleyes, that is the original post above. Note that is says three things, one, that we can make very good lubricants from plants, two, that process costs more than making them from oil, and, three, that is a good reason for not wasting the oil burning it as a fuel.

Walleyes, I suggest that you quit trying to put words into other people mouths. I said lubricants, not fuels. And I stated they were more expensive than those produced from oil. I made absolutely no mention of biofuels. If anyone should be embarrassed by this exchange, it should be you.

SYNTHETIC OIL is made from CRUDE OIL

Nor is all synthetic oil made from crude oil.

Synthetic oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Synthetic oil is a lubricant consisting of chemical compounds that are artificially made (synthesized). Synthetic lubricants can be manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil, but can also be synthesized from other raw materials. Synthetic oil is used as a substitute for lubricant refined from petroleum when operating in extremes of temperature, because, in general, it provides superior mechanical and chemical properties to those found in traditional mineral oils[citation needed]. Aircraft jet engines, for example, require the use of synthetic oils[citation needed], whereas aircraft piston engines do not. Synthetic lubricants are also used in metal stamping to provide environmental and other benefits[citation needed] when compared to conventional petroleum and animal fat based products. These products are also referred to as "non-oil" or "oil free"[citation needed].

Synthetic Oil is made from Crude Oil, give us one brand name product that does not contain hydrocarbons.

Gevo Inc. manufactures a biofuel that uses no hydrocarbons...other than the tens or thousands of gallons they use to power their vehicles and machines that do the work of course. Funnily enough the green mafia ignores those little facts.

I am not impressed with Gevo

Gevo Probability Of Bankruptcy GEVO Nasdaq

Gevo
Probability Of Bankruptcy = Normalized Z-Score = 85.38 %

 

[Old Rocks]

No, you lying fuck, I use only one screen name. And, being unfamiliar with that formation, I would not have known whether it had no crinoids, or a hundred. As for the rest, I stated only lubricants, not fuels.

 

[westwall]

"Elektra, you do realize that we can create very good lubricants from plants, do you not? More expensive than oil, but that is all the more reason not to waste the oil"

Walleyes, that is the original post above. Note that is says three things, one, that we can make very good lubricants from plants, two, that process costs more than making them from oil, and, three, that is a good reason for not wasting the oil burning it as a fuel.

Walleyes, I suggest that you quit trying to put words into other people mouths. I said lubricants, not fuels. And I stated they were more expensive than those produced from oil. I made absolutely no mention of biofuels. If anyone should be embarrassed by this exchange, it should be you.

SYNTHETIC OIL is made from CRUDE OIL

Nor is all synthetic oil made from crude oil.

Synthetic oil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Synthetic oil is a lubricant consisting of chemical compounds that are artificially made (synthesized). Synthetic lubricants can be manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil, but can also be synthesized from other raw materials. Synthetic oil is used as a substitute for lubricant refined from petroleum when operating in extremes of temperature, because, in general, it provides superior mechanical and chemical properties to those found in traditional mineral oils[citation needed]. Aircraft jet engines, for example, require the use of synthetic oils[citation needed], whereas aircraft piston engines do not. Synthetic lubricants are also used in metal stamping to provide environmental and other benefits[citation needed] when compared to conventional petroleum and animal fat based products. These products are also referred to as "non-oil" or "oil free"[citation needed].

Synthetic Oil is made from Crude Oil, give us one brand name product that does not contain hydrocarbons.

Gevo Inc. manufactures a biofuel that uses no hydrocarbons...other than the tens or thousands of gallons they use to power their vehicles and machines that do the work of course. Funnily enough the green mafia ignores those little facts.

I am not impressed with Gevo

Gevo Probability Of Bankruptcy GEVO Nasdaq

Gevo
Probability Of Bankruptcy = Normalized Z-Score = 85.38 %

Neither am I but they do exist.

 

[westwall]

No, you lying fuck, I use only one screen name. And, being unfamiliar with that formation, I would not have known whether it had no crinoids, or a hundred. As for the rest, I stated only lubricants, not fuels.

I find it amusing that you claim this and yet in your oreo boy persona you insulted me with a phrase that only olfraud uses, and here you attack me when I was speaking to your oreo boy persona. Face it olfraud/oreo boy. You lost track. Swearing at me doesn't alter the fact that you screwed up.

 

[skookerasbil]

For interested board members coming in here to browse about things related to global warming and particularly, this systemic and perpetual rigging of the data, it becomes necessary to understand the motivation behind this fraud, thus >>

The Green Agenda

Site is highly instructive in terms of identifying how pivotal the ENVIRONMENTAL movement, and particularly global warming.....is actually a defined strategy to destroy the capitalistic system and fast track the country to socialism. The scheme is indeed brilliant and rigging the data has always been part of a concerted strategy. Now in 2014, there is mounds and mounds of evidence!!

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, talk about some crazy shit, whoever wrote that is working overtime with a lobotomized brainpan. Too much kool-aid going on there.

 

[Kosh]

Wow, talk about some crazy shit, whoever wrote that is working overtime with a lobotomized brainpan. Too much kool-aid going on there.

Says the AGW cult member..

Also proof that they are irony impaired, but that is because they are also far left drones that deny real science..

 

[westwall]

Wow, talk about some crazy shit, whoever wrote that is working overtime with a lobotomized brainpan. Too much kool-aid going on there.

So, where did you get the idea there were only 13 crinoid species in the St. Louis Formation? I am really curious about that.

 

[greyviper]

Rigging of data to what end? I wonder why deniers do have this kind of mindset.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, talk about some crazy shit, whoever wrote that is working overtime with a lobotomized brainpan. Too much kool-aid going on there.

So, where did you get the idea there were only 13 crinoid species in the St. Louis Formation? I am really curious about that.

ProQuest Document View - Systematics and evolutionary paleoecology of crinoids from the St. Louis Limestone Mississippian Meramecian of the Illinois Basin

Systematic evaluation confirmations 17 species of crinoids previously assigned to the St. Louis. Three crinoid species that were identified within other formations, but not in the St. Louis, were added. One new species, Armenocrinus howelli was identified. Three species were synonymized within the St. Louis. Eight species previously listed as belonging to the St. Louis were found to be incorrectly assigned.

17 +3+1-2-8 = 11. So oops I was wrong. It wasn't 13. It was 11. 17 were previously assigned to the St. Louis. 3 were added. One news species was identified. Three species were turned into one. And eight were found not to be in the St. Louis at all. The author above, Lewis Anderson, studied under and works with Thomas Kammer (who is a friend of mine), who was an author of the paper you cited. The reason there has been so much confusion is because the Ste. Genevieve/St. Louis boundary has been in flux for decades, but has now been precisely define. That has resulted in reassignments of species to one or the other, and reevaluation of the entire fossil assemblage in both formations.

 

[mamooth]

I've directly pointed out to Billy several times now that the graph below which he keeps using is an outright fabrication. And I keep asking where he copied it from. Each time, he refuses to name the source of the graph, and instead goes off on a screaming rampage to deflect from how he just got caught posting faked data again.

That is, Billy is deliberately lying for his cult now, and he doesn't care who knows it. With deniers, the point isn't to tell the truth. The point is to score brownie points with rest of their cult. That's why Billy and Kosh and jc and Westwall and the rest here constantly make everything up. They literally don't care if it's true or not. All they care about is demonstrating to the rest of their cult what loyal cultists they are, and they do that by fudging all the data as hard as they can.

Again, here's the actual NOAA temperature chart, from the NOAA website. Compare it Billy's fudgey graph. They're not even remotely alike. Given how Billy keeps posting that faked data even though he knows it's fake, it's safe to assume every single thing he posts is similarly fudged.

 

[westwall]

Wow, talk about some crazy shit, whoever wrote that is working overtime with a lobotomized brainpan. Too much kool-aid going on there.

So, where did you get the idea there were only 13 crinoid species in the St. Louis Formation? I am really curious about that.

ProQuest Document View - Systematics and evolutionary paleoecology of crinoids from the St. Louis Limestone Mississippian Meramecian of the Illinois Basin

Systematic evaluation confirmations 17 species of crinoids previously assigned to the St. Louis. Three crinoid species that were identified within other formations, but not in the St. Louis, were added. One new species, Armenocrinus howelli was identified. Three species were synonymized within the St. Louis. Eight species previously listed as belonging to the St. Louis were found to be incorrectly assigned.

17 +3+1-2-8 = 11. So oops I was wrong. It wasn't 13. It was 11. 17 were previously assigned to the St. Louis. 3 were added. One news species was identified. Three species were turned into one. And eight were found not to be in the St. Louis at all. The author above, Lewis Anderson, studied under and works with Thomas Kammer (who is a friend of mine), who was an author of the paper you cited. The reason there has been so much confusion is because the Ste. Genevieve/St. Louis boundary has been in flux for decades, but has now been precisely define. That has resulted in reassignments of species to one or the other, and reevaluation of the entire fossil assemblage in both formations.

Yes, I remember working on that issue back in the 1970's. But forgive me if I am being obtuse here but I get 17+1+3-8=13 again. However, there are still unidentified crinoids within the formation, this list only applies to those that have been classified. When we were working on the formation boundaries there were around 8 species that had not been classified yet. One has been classified as of your linked paper, but what has happened with those others? Are they in St. Genevieve or have they not been classified yet?

 

[elektra]

I've directly pointed out to Billy several times now that the graph below which he keeps using is an outright fabrication. And I keep asking where he copied it from. Each time, he refuses to name the source of the graph, and instead goes off on a screaming rampage to deflect from how he just got caught posting faked data again.

That is, Billy is deliberately lying for his cult now, and he doesn't care who knows it. With deniers, the point isn't to tell the truth. The point is to score brownie points with rest of their cult. That's why Billy and Kosh and jc and Westwall and the rest here constantly make everything up. They literally don't care if it's true or not. All they care about is demonstrating to the rest of their cult what loyal cultists they are, and they do that by fudging all the data as hard as they can.

Again, here's the actual NOAA temperature chart, from the NOAA website. Compare it Billy's fudgey graph. They're not even remotely alike. Given how Billy keeps posting that faked data even though he knows it's fake, it's safe to assume every single thing he posts is similarly fudged.

NOAA, they are the frauds who falsified the temperature by 3%, last I check 3% of 100 f. is 3 f.

Frauds are not scientists, these people are criminals.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've directly pointed out to Billy several times now that the graph below which he keeps using is an outright fabrication. And I keep asking where he copied it from. Each time, he refuses to name the source of the graph, and instead goes off on a screaming rampage to deflect from how he just got caught posting faked data again.

That is, Billy is deliberately lying for his cult now, and he doesn't care who knows it. With deniers, the point isn't to tell the truth. The point is to score brownie points with rest of their cult. That's why Billy and Kosh and jc and Westwall and the rest here constantly make everything up. They literally don't care if it's true or not. All they care about is demonstrating to the rest of their cult what loyal cultists they are, and they do that by fudging all the data as hard as they can.

Again, here's the actual NOAA temperature chart, from the NOAA website. Compare it Billy's fudgey graph. They're not even remotely alike. Given how Billy keeps posting that faked data even though he knows it's fake, it's safe to assume every single thing he posts is similarly fudged.

Mamooths lie is hilarious.... DId you adjust the empirical data to get your continued rise which diverged from reality? How did you get a LOG function to follow a liner rise?

 

[mamooth]

Billy, quit dodging. You used fake data and claimed it came from the NOAA. I busted you for that big lie, and you're trying to change the subject.

Who did you get your fake data from? Who fed it to you?

Why do you keep posting it, even though you know it's faked?

This is why everyone now assumes, correctly, that everything you post is faked. Past experience has taught us that's the case.

Again, if you're claiming your data isn't fraudulent, show us exactly where you got it. I showed that mine came from the NOAA website. You said yours came from NOAA, so prove it. If you didn't just make it all up, that shouldn't be a problem. But if you did just get busted for making it all up, you'll find a new creative excuse to run now. Please proceed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, quit dodging. You used fake data and claimed it came from the NOAA. I busted you for that big lie, and you're trying to change the subject.

Who did you get your fake data from? Who fed it to you?

Why do you keep posting it, even though you know it's faked?

This is why everyone now assumes, correctly, that everything you post is faked. Past experience has taught us that's the case.

Again, if you're claiming your data isn't fraudulent, show us exactly where you got it. I showed that mine came from the NOAA website. You said yours came from NOAA, so prove it. If you didn't just make it all up, that shouldn't be a problem. But if you did just get busted for making it all up, you'll find a new creative excuse to run now. Please proceed.

says the fraud ridden wacko rants of the hairball..

 

[jc456]

I've directly pointed out to Billy several times now that the graph below which he keeps using is an outright fabrication. And I keep asking where he copied it from. Each time, he refuses to name the source of the graph, and instead goes off on a screaming rampage to deflect from how he just got caught posting faked data again.

That is, Billy is deliberately lying for his cult now, and he doesn't care who knows it. With deniers, the point isn't to tell the truth. The point is to score brownie points with rest of their cult. That's why Billy and Kosh and jc and Westwall and the rest here constantly make everything up. They literally don't care if it's true or not. All they care about is demonstrating to the rest of their cult what loyal cultists they are, and they do that by fudging all the data as hard as they can.

Again, here's the actual NOAA temperature chart, from the NOAA website. Compare it Billy's fudgey graph. They're not even remotely alike. Given how Billy keeps posting that faked data even though he knows it's fake, it's safe to assume every single thing he posts is similarly fudged.

I see, so it's ok for you to avoid my experiment question yet demanding of soemeone else. Nice, typica leftist point. You have no experiment. Just say that, and I will stop asking.

 

[jc456]

Billy, quit dodging. You used fake data and claimed it came from the NOAA. I busted you for that big lie, and you're trying to change the subject.

Who did you get your fake data from? Who fed it to you?

Why do you keep posting it, even though you know it's faked?

This is why everyone now assumes, correctly, that everything you post is faked. Past experience has taught us that's the case.

Again, if you're claiming your data isn't fraudulent, show us exactly where you got it. I showed that mine came from the NOAA website. You said yours came from NOAA, so prove it. If you didn't just make it all up, that shouldn't be a problem. But if you did just get busted for making it all up, you'll find a new creative excuse to run now. Please proceed.

writes the k00k with no experiment.