Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
wiki doesn't count.
Come on, stupid ass, Wiki links to the Scientific sites. You care to dispute those sites?
fuck off, you arrogant prick. we have posted several sites disputing your theories and all you do is ridicule the scientist whose IQ is double yours. So go play with your wood, okay jackass?
Come on, stupid ass, Wiki links to the Scientific sites. You care to dispute those sites?
fuck off, you arrogant prick. we have posted several sites disputing your theories and all you do is ridicule the scientist whose IQ is double yours. So go play with your wood, okay jackass?
Easy to be arrogant with such stupes as you. Substitute sophmoric explectives for debate. And you are incompetant even with those. I have trained 20 year old apprentices that have twice the imagination and color of your feeble attempts at insult.
You have posted sites with zero credibility in scientific circles. Bought and paid for whores like Singer and Lindzen.
Come on, stupid ass, Wiki links to the Scientific sites. You care to dispute those sites?
fuck off, you arrogant prick. we have posted several sites disputing your theories and all you do is ridicule the scientist whose IQ is double yours. So go play with your wood, okay jackass?
Easy to be arrogant with such stupes as you. Substitute sophmoric explectives for debate. And you are incompetant even with those. I have trained 20 year old apprentices that have twice the imagination and color of your feeble attempts at insult.
You have posted sites with zero credibility in scientific circles. Bought and paid for whores like Singer and Lindzen.
Actually, I devoured this garbage back in the '80s and early '90s....Bought into it too.Dude, being a naturally stupid person, I forgive you for not realizing that it is not what
WIKI says that counts, but the web sites of such organizatons as the American Meteorlogical Society, American Geophycisists Union, and the American Geological Society, among others, that Wiki links you to that counts.
Of course, you could actually read what the real scientists that study this subject state, but that would be work, wouldn't it?
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.CO2 is natural but in high percentages is toxic to humans.When you look at the truly toxic pollutants created by alternative energy that has to be subsidized because it's not very efficient, you definitely have an argument. Two examples right off hand would be solar panels and ethanol.
Solar panels: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.
Ethanol: Produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap! And, you have to burn MORE of it per mile, because it's not a very efficient fuel.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not thinking CO2 is a "toxic pollutant."No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.I think ethonol is stupid, it totally ruins the carb in my 2 stroke dirt bike if i let it sit in there for more than a few weeks. Plus, like you said, to make it uses more resources than it saves.
Your post seems to make me think you read stuff into my post i didn't put there, i feel as if you may think I'm one of these "The earth is going to explode into a ball of fire if we dont listen to al gore" types. PLEASE tell me i'm wrong.
Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.CO2 is natural but in high percentages is toxic to humans.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
Actually, I devoured this garbage back in the '80s and early '90s....Bought into it too.Dude, being a naturally stupid person, I forgive you for not realizing that it is not what
WIKI says that counts, but the web sites of such organizatons as the American Meteorlogical Society, American Geophycisists Union, and the American Geological Society, among others, that Wiki links you to that counts.
Of course, you could actually read what the real scientists that study this subject state, but that would be work, wouldn't it?
It was through reading it and applying rational analysis that turned me around and brought me to the conclusion that the "science" is GIGO.
Unlike droning zombie dopes like you, I'm willing to suspend what I "know" long enough to consider other information and come to conclusions based upon logic rather than emotion.
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
What's the matter, Old Roxy? Did Chris refuse to use lube again?
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.CO2 is natural but in high percentages is toxic to humans.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
Global warming will kill us all....Republicans are to blame.
That's completely bogus. CO does in fact occur due to incomplete combustion of some fuels. But CO2 results from incomplete combustion of ALL fuels.Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.CO2 is natural but in high percentages is toxic to humans.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
"analyzation" and "absorbtion" aren't real words, illiterate old perv. Go back to playing with preteen boys, where you have gullible and trusting souls to bloviate to.OK, give us an example of this rational analyzation. Like why a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 would not affect the absorbtion heat in the atmosphere? And why did Arnnhenius get it wrong in 1896?
That's completely bogus. CO does in fact occur due to incomplete combustion of some fuels. But CO2 results from incomplete combustion of ALL fuels.Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
Quick experiment for you stupid, pour gasoline on hot coals. It won't ignite, it will merely produce a white cloud of steam-looking gas that clings to the ground. That's CO2.
COMPLETE combustion of gasoline in particular, results in very little CO2. This is why fuel injection is so much more efficient, it results in a more complete, "clean" burn.
But no doubt you prefer ethanol, which produces 100 times more CO no matter how completely you combust it.
"analyzation" and "absorbtion" aren't real words, illiterate old perv. Go back to playing with preteen boys, where you have gullible and trusting souls to bloviate to.OK, give us an example of this rational analyzation. Like why a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 would not affect the absorbtion heat in the atmosphere? And why did Arnnhenius get it wrong in 1896?
Arrhenius didn't put his conclusions in the context of a dynamic system, with millions of variables and possible compensatory factors.Actually, I devoured this garbage back in the '80s and early '90s....Bought into it too.Dude, being a naturally stupid person, I forgive you for not realizing that it is not what
WIKI says that counts, but the web sites of such organizatons as the American Meteorlogical Society, American Geophycisists Union, and the American Geological Society, among others, that Wiki links you to that counts.
Of course, you could actually read what the real scientists that study this subject state, but that would be work, wouldn't it?
It was through reading it and applying rational analysis that turned me around and brought me to the conclusion that the "science" is GIGO.
Unlike droning zombie dopes like you, I'm willing to suspend what I "know" long enough to consider other information and come to conclusions based upon logic rather than emotion.
OK, give us an example of this rational analyzation. Like why a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 would not affect the absorbtion heat in the atmosphere? And why did Arrhenius get it wrong in 1896?
What is true here? That we are introducing carbon that was dormant and now is participating in the biosphere is a fact! The long term affect of this is not known but is believed. Should one worry? An interesting question.
Are we going to get(or are getting)a new religion?
