Global warming biggest science scandal ever

[orogenicman]

View attachment 36717

So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.

Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!

I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.

Incorrect:

Many were original documents given to the CRU.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

London Times

So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.

Why is it left wits are totally ignorant? How many time must I show you that the original paper data was destroyed? ITS GONE! IT CAN NOT BE RECOVERED!

Yes, the original data that CRU compiled from the original sources has been destroyed. The original source data from the original sources (i.e., the monitoring stations, which CRU does not control) is still available. All you have to do is file a FOIA request with those sources. You might have to pay a fee to obtain them. Again, if you don't want to be seen as a whiner or simply lazy, contact the stations and ask for copies of the raw data yourself. You people are such babies.

Here, I can point you to some of that data right here:

Kentucky Climate Center - Data Sources

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah, of course. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as they can fill their pockets. They don't care if they suck the earth dry of fossil fuels. In fairness, this is quite a complex problem we are facing right now. A lot of lobbying here and there. I just wish I have trillions and trillions of dollars to drop in the table in order to affect the flow of things.

So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.

We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.

When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?

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 burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.

Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.

Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.

You're right it's not. Let's see the USAF spends 59 bucks a gallon on its bio jet fuel alternative, and Jet A costs 1.65 as of today....so that works out to 35.7 times more expensive for your "cheap" alternative.

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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

 

[Kosh]

View attachment 36717

Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!

I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.

Incorrect:

Many were original documents given to the CRU.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

London Times

So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.

Why is it left wits are totally ignorant? How many time must I show you that the original paper data was destroyed? ITS GONE! IT CAN NOT BE RECOVERED!

Yes, the original data that CRU compiled from the original sources has been destroyed. The original source data from the original sources (i.e., the monitoring stations, which CRU does not control) is still available. All you have to do is file a FOIA request with those sources. You might have to pay a fee to obtain them. Again, if you don't want to be seen as a whiner or simply lazy, contact the stations and ask for copies of the raw data yourself. You people are such babies.

Here, I can point you to some of that data right here:

Kentucky Climate Center - Data Sources

So still no datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate the entire basis of the AGW religion..

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 36717

Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!

I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.

Incorrect:

Many were original documents given to the CRU.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

London Times

So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.

Why is it left wits are totally ignorant? How many time must I show you that the original paper data was destroyed? ITS GONE! IT CAN NOT BE RECOVERED!

Yes, the original data that CRU compiled from the original sources has been destroyed. The original source data from the original sources (i.e., the monitoring stations, which CRU does not control) is still available. All you have to do is file a FOIA request with those sources. You might have to pay a fee to obtain them. Again, if you don't want to be seen as a whiner or simply lazy, contact the stations and ask for copies of the raw data yourself. You people are such babies.

Here, I can point you to some of that data right here:

Kentucky Climate Center - Data Sources

You still dont get it..Many world wide sites gave up thier records thinking that they would be kept. That is GLOBAL RECORDS. They are now lost. Yes we can recover part of the record as you say but the majority of European, Middle East and Australian records are GONE!

 

[orogenicman]

View attachment 36717

I have on several occasions. All the records for the monitoring stations are available to anyone who wants it. You don't have to go through the CRU to get it. People go there because it is there compiled as a set. But you can go to the organizations that operate the stations (such as the NWS) and acquire the exact same data. It will just take you longer, and will likely be expensive to get it all.

Incorrect:

Many were original documents given to the CRU.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

London Times

So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.

Why is it left wits are totally ignorant? How many time must I show you that the original paper data was destroyed? ITS GONE! IT CAN NOT BE RECOVERED!

Yes, the original data that CRU compiled from the original sources has been destroyed. The original source data from the original sources (i.e., the monitoring stations, which CRU does not control) is still available. All you have to do is file a FOIA request with those sources. You might have to pay a fee to obtain them. Again, if you don't want to be seen as a whiner or simply lazy, contact the stations and ask for copies of the raw data yourself. You people are such babies.

Here, I can point you to some of that data right here:

Kentucky Climate Center - Data Sources

You still dont get it..Many world wide sites gave up thier records thinking that they would be kept. That is GLOBAL RECORDS. They are now lost. Yes we can recover part of the record as you say but the majority of European, Middle East and Australian records are GONE!

Name one site where this occurred. You say "yes we can recover part of the record". Well? Have you actually done this? Or are you just saying it? Because any source that would give up its entire database without a backup needs to find another business to be in. So I rather doubt your claim.

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 36717

Incorrect:

Many were original documents given to the CRU.
London Times

So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.

Why is it left wits are totally ignorant? How many time must I show you that the original paper data was destroyed? ITS GONE! IT CAN NOT BE RECOVERED!

Yes, the original data that CRU compiled from the original sources has been destroyed. The original source data from the original sources (i.e., the monitoring stations, which CRU does not control) is still available. All you have to do is file a FOIA request with those sources. You might have to pay a fee to obtain them. Again, if you don't want to be seen as a whiner or simply lazy, contact the stations and ask for copies of the raw data yourself. You people are such babies.

Here, I can point you to some of that data right here:

Kentucky Climate Center - Data Sources

You still dont get it..Many world wide sites gave up thier records thinking that they would be kept. That is GLOBAL RECORDS. They are now lost. Yes we can recover part of the record as you say but the majority of European, Middle East and Australian records are GONE!

Name one site where this occurred. You say "yes we can recover part of the record". Well? Have you actually done this? Or are you just saying it? Because any source that would give up its entire database without a backup needs to find another business to be in. So I rather doubt your claim.

We have requested over 700 sites globally and there are some 354 sites globally that the data was destroyed by the CRU. I dont trust one thing the CRU puts up... EVER!

DR Phil Jones admitted the destruction of the data. But you wont even take an alarmists admission of the destruction..

 

[elektra]

Not true. First of all, the source of the energy (solar or wind), is free. It costs tens of millions of dollars just to drill a well, not to mention the environmental costs of production, transportation, and storage. There are no transportation or storage costs wrt to solar or wind. And your claim of ten trillion dollars "on Oil for Solar and Wind" is just a load of crap. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

You really do have very little understanding of what you speak of. I am glad you specifically state, "a load of crap". That aptly describes what you believe in.

I was wrong, its 36 Trillion$. What is 3x's larger than a load of crap?

Investing in the Clean Trillion Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap mdash Ceres

Investing in the Clean Trillion: Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap
, the IEA estimates an additional $36 trillion in clean energy investment is needed through 2050—or an average of $1 trillion more per year compared to a “business as usual” scenario over the next 36 years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So still no datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate the entire basis of the AGW religion..

I have put this up several times over the last year and to date not one person can counter or has countered the empirical evidence.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Without a divergence from the natural variation rate CO2 can not be said to have any effect on the trend in earths open atmosphere. The Null Hypothesis states that even if the theroy states it can happen the empirical evidence trumps the theoretical.

Given the empirical evidence, CO2 has a 0.0 sensitivity rating as acknowledged by the IPCC for use in their models. Which would place us dead on where we are today given the ADO, PDO, ENSO, and solar variations.

 

[Crick]

Not true. First of all, the source of the energy (solar or wind), is free. It costs tens of millions of dollars just to drill a well, not to mention the environmental costs of production, transportation, and storage. There are no transportation or storage costs wrt to solar or wind. And your claim of ten trillion dollars "on Oil for Solar and Wind" is just a load of crap. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

You really do have very little understanding of what you speak of. I am glad you specifically state, "a load of crap". That aptly describes what you believe in.

I was wrong, its 36 Trillion$. What is 3x's larger than a load of crap?

Investing in the Clean Trillion Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap mdash Ceres

Investing in the Clean Trillion: Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap
, the IEA estimates an additional $36 trillion in clean energy investment is needed through 2050—or an average of $1 trillion more per year compared to a “business as usual” scenario over the next 36 years.

The brief article to which you link does not say what you claim it says. Elektra, I cannot think of single topic where we've seen any evidence you could lecture ANYONE for a shortage of knowledge.

 

[orogenicman]

View attachment 36717

So what? Compile the data from the original sources and prove that their "value added data" is invalid. If you won't do that, then you don't have a dog in this fight.

Why is it left wits are totally ignorant? How many time must I show you that the original paper data was destroyed? ITS GONE! IT CAN NOT BE RECOVERED!

Yes, the original data that CRU compiled from the original sources has been destroyed. The original source data from the original sources (i.e., the monitoring stations, which CRU does not control) is still available. All you have to do is file a FOIA request with those sources. You might have to pay a fee to obtain them. Again, if you don't want to be seen as a whiner or simply lazy, contact the stations and ask for copies of the raw data yourself. You people are such babies.

Here, I can point you to some of that data right here:

Kentucky Climate Center - Data Sources

You still dont get it..Many world wide sites gave up thier records thinking that they would be kept. That is GLOBAL RECORDS. They are now lost. Yes we can recover part of the record as you say but the majority of European, Middle East and Australian records are GONE!

Name one site where this occurred. You say "yes we can recover part of the record". Well? Have you actually done this? Or are you just saying it? Because any source that would give up its entire database without a backup needs to find another business to be in. So I rather doubt your claim.

We have requested over 700 sites globally and there are some 354 sites globally that the data was destroyed by the CRU. I dont trust one thing the CRU puts up... EVER!

DR Phil Jones admitted the destruction of the data. But you wont even take an alarmists admission of the destruction..

Who is "we"? Name one site.

 

[elektra]

Not true. First of all, the source of the energy (solar or wind), is free. It costs tens of millions of dollars just to drill a well, not to mention the environmental costs of production, transportation, and storage. There are no transportation or storage costs wrt to solar or wind. And your claim of ten trillion dollars "on Oil for Solar and Wind" is just a load of crap. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

You really do have very little understanding of what you speak of. I am glad you specifically state, "a load of crap". That aptly describes what you believe in.

I was wrong, its 36 Trillion$. What is 3x's larger than a load of crap?

Investing in the Clean Trillion Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap mdash Ceres

Investing in the Clean Trillion: Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap
, the IEA estimates an additional $36 trillion in clean energy investment is needed through 2050—or an average of $1 trillion more per year compared to a “business as usual” scenario over the next 36 years.

The brief article to which you link does not say what you claim it says. Elektra, I cannot think of single topic where we've seen any evidence you could lecture ANYONE for a shortage of knowledge.

The brief article is a 79 page report?

If you know the cost is less, tell us the cost, CRICK.

 

[westwall]

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.

And yet you have never been able to come up with a geologic thing that I wasn't conversant with. You've never been able to point to a lie (for the record oreo boy, and your sock) claimed he was a oceanographic engineer when he first appeared. He also claimed he worked for the State of Florida IIRC.

You're moderator. It is a relatively easy thing for you to put your money where your mouth is and point to the post where I claimed to work for the State of Florida or that I was an oceanographic engineer. You have me confused with someone else, as usual. either that or you are simply lying. As for me being a 'sock', if that were the case, you can have me banned because it is against the rules to have more than one account. Since I don't, and don't have a 'sock', your posts amount to harassment, and has been reported to an administrator. As for being conversant in geologic matter, name five Meramecian species of crinoids, and the formations in which they occur.

Actually I wish I could. The archives only hold about a month of posts though...

As far as your little test go's, I'm not a paleontologist, however i do remember that there are around 25 species of crinoids in the St. Louis Limestone that I did some work on back in the 1970's. Any more than that and you would have to ask a paleontologist.

So are you going to apologize? So when you said "you have never been able to come up with a geologic thing that I wasn't conversant with", that wasn't true, either. I'm not surprised. There are only 13 species of crinioids identified in the St. Louis.

Wow, look at that. I was wrong. It's been 35 years or so... However, I am more correct than you! In actual fact (upon looking it up) there are 28 species of crinoids in the St. Louis Formation. You suck as a scientist if you're that far off.



SYSTEMATIC REVISION OF CRINOIDS FROM THE ST. LOUIS LIMESTONE (MERAMECIAN, ILLINOIS BASIN)
COOK, Lewis A., Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, 330 Brooks Hall, Morgantown, WV 26506-6300, lewisacook@suddenlink.net and KAMMER, Thomas W., Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6300
Very little attention has been paid to crinoids of the St. Louis Limestone since the 19th century. Now that the stratigraphic boundaries of the formation have been delineated (Maples and Waters, 1987) and a collection of crinoids (Harris Stone Quarry, Bainbridge, Indiana) specific to the St. Louis has become available, updated systematics are possible for the crinoids of that formation. The literature (Bassler and Moodey, 1943; Webster, 2003) lists 28 species from the St. Louis Limestone, including 14 camerates, 3 primitive cladids, 9 advanced cladids and 2 flexibles. After evaluation of the available specimens, and analysis of the literature, 22 species are recognized, including 11 camerates, 1 primitive cladid, 8 advanced cladids and 2 flexibles. Six species were rejected including Amphoracrocrinus amphora, Cyathocrinites globosus, Dichocrinus parvulus, Platycrinites faberi, Platycrinites huntsvillae and Plaxocrinus sanctiludovici. Three species were synonymized including Aphelecrinus peculiaris to A. scoparius, Cyathocrinites macadamsi to Cymbiocrinus dactylus and Poteriocrinites arrectarius to Phacelocrinus vanhornei. One new species of Armenocrinus was identified. Two species, Stinocrinus? sp. and Cribanocrinus coxanus, were added that were not previously identified within the St. Louis. Nineteen species were retained as previously listed. These include Aphelecrinus scoparius, Azygocrinus euconus, Barycrinus spectabilis, Camptocrinus cirrifer, Camptocrinus myelodactylus, Culmicrinus missouriensis, Cymbiocrinus dactylus, Hyrtanecrinus ornatus, Onychocrinus magnus, Pachylocrinus norwoodi, Phacelocrinus dactyliformis, Phacelocrinus vanhornei, Platycrinites niotensis, Platycrinites pumilus, Platycrinites sarae, Talarocrinus cornigerus, Talarocrinus sexlobatus, Talarocrinus simplex and Taxocrinus shumardianus. These 22 crinoid species help document the transition from predominantly many plated, larger calyx camerates of the underlying Meramecian rocks to the more sparsely plated, smaller calyx camerates and advanced cladids of the overlying Chesterian.

2009 Portland GSA Annual Meeting (18-21 October 2009)

SYSTEMATIC REVISION OF CRINOIDS FROM THE ST. LOUIS LIMESTONE MERAMECIAN ILLINOIS BASIN

 

[westwall]

So why use more Oil quicker to produce less energy? That is Solar and Wind, the largest structures in the world that give the less return.

We are going to spend over 10 trillion dollars on Green Energy, that will suck up a lot of oil, Building and maintaining and replacing Wind turbines and Solar Panels forever.

When the Oil runs out, you can not operate a Wind Turbine, nor pump water to Solar Power plants. You can not replace the parts when we run out of Oil. So why spend 10 trillion dollars, literally on Oil for Solar and Wind?

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 burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.

Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.

Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.

You're right it's not. Let's see the USAF spends 59 bucks a gallon on its bio jet fuel alternative, and Jet A costs 1.65 as of today....so that works out to 35.7 times more expensive for your "cheap" alternative.

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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

I moved nothing idiot. Synthetic fuels are what they are making from your biomass products. This is what that shit costs. I suggest you become more conversant in the crap you're spewing. For someone to make the claims you do, and be so wrong is mighty embarrassing.

 

[Old Rocks]

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 burning it in vehicles. As for the rest of your rant, that is about as stupid as you can get. Yes, we can do all of that, and without any great technological advances from where we are right now.

Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.

Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.

You're right it's not. Let's see the USAF spends 59 bucks a gallon on its bio jet fuel alternative, and Jet A costs 1.65 as of today....so that works out to 35.7 times more expensive for your "cheap" alternative.

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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

I moved nothing idiot. Synthetic fuels are what they are making from your biomass products. This is what that shit costs. I suggest you become more conversant in the crap you're spewing. For someone to make the claims you do, and be so wrong is mighty embarrassing.

"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.

 

[elektra]

Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.

Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[Old Rocks]

Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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].

 

[elektra]

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.

 

[elektra]

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, like 20 times more expensive. That's the problem with all of your schemes. They all depress the world into poverty and lead to the deaths of millions do to starvation as you waste good food to produce grotesquely expensive alternatives to the cheap, plentiful ones that are already there.

Synthetic oil is not 20 times more expensive than regular oil. Try again.

You're right it's not. Let's see the USAF spends 59 bucks a gallon on its bio jet fuel alternative, and Jet A costs 1.65 as of today....so that works out to 35.7 times more expensive for your "cheap" alternative.

Air Force spends 59 per gallon on biofuel RT USA
Jet Fuel - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts Data and News - IndexMundi

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

I moved nothing idiot. Synthetic fuels are what they are making from your biomass products. This is what that shit costs. I suggest you become more conversant in the crap you're spewing. For someone to make the claims you do, and be so wrong is mighty embarrassing.

"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.

I was talking to your sock oreo boy....see you keep getting your personas mixed up and can't remember who you are anymore! That's why you shouldn't have so many socks! You get lost! I believe the term you use in a situation like this is............ BUSTED!

Be that as it may, my comment that the biofuels are ridiculously expensive is born out by the links I provided. I suggest you lose oreo boy. Everyone knows he's a sock now!