fossil fuels, global warming

Originally posted by blue_sky_9
hum... so your saying that if humans relese a hydrogen bomb (that is effectivly a atom bomb, but keeps going) that will wipe out the world, it won't matter because everything will balecne itself out?

Whether it's "hydrogen" (actually Deuterium-Tritium Fusion), plutonium, or unranium, they are all thermo-nuclear and all HAVE been either extensively tested in the environment or used against enemies--and we are still here!! While their use causes widescale casualities your assumption that they would "wipe out" the world is based on enviro-leftist propaganda and ignorance (this is not meant as a personal attack).

In any case, the context of this thread is whether WE are responsible for GW. I assert that there is no direct evidence that suggests that we are. In fact, there is more evidence that points toward GW being a natural cycle of the Earth. But enviro-extremists don't want people to know that as they have their own agendas; and their agendas don't include modern living or the conveniences that come with it.

I'd like to say one more thing about enviro-leftists; and this IS a slam on them.

The group, as a whole are made up of individual people who are genuinely concerned for the environment but who also fail to research, on their own, the messages and information being presented to them. They accept, without question, the skewed and biased disinformation that they are fed by these radical alarmists because they believe they are doing something good for the environment.

Case in point:

I watched a documentary on HBO a number of years ago (I can't rememebr the show's title) whereby the host of the show enlisted the help of his staff to attend an environmental rally organized by the various environmentalist alphabet groups. There were thousands who attended this rally. His staff presented a petition to have the government immediately ban the production and use of dihydrogen oxide.

The argument was that dihydrogen oxide has been found to be a major threat to the environment and to humans and animal health. Here were the true facts of dihydrogen oxide presented on the petition:

"In 1991, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 4,100 Americans, many of them under the age of 10, died from excessive dosages of dihydrogen oxide commonly found in many homes and recreation areas. Breathing dihydrogen oxide can cause death within minutes".

"Our polluted lakes, rivers, and oceans are known to contain vast quantities of dihydrogen oxide. On this, there is no controversy! Contaminated ground water? Same tragic situation."

"In California, Missouri and Georgia, families have lost their homes due to dihydrogen oxide contamination."

"In some applications, dihydrogen oxide is a major contributor to injuries from falls. In other applications, dihydrogen oxide is a major cause of burns."

They were able to get over a thousand signatures on the petition to elliminate this dangerous substance.

And what exactly were these people supporting to ban?

Water!! That's right--dihydrogen oxide is H2O---WATER!!

These people blindly signed a petition without having any idea what the substance was or HOW it contributed to injuries and deaths. They were signing something simply because "if it sounds bad--it must be bad". And by signing this petition they were doing the "feel good" right thing to do without knowing anything about it.

These people are the fine example of the kind of intelligence (lack thereof) and ignorance that pervades environmentalsit circles.

OK--I'm off my soapbox now.

Dihydrogen monoxide is a threat and must be neutralized. The best way is with addition of barley and hops and allowed to ferment and carbonate.

Alternative methods include distillation with corn or other grain crops and stored in wooden barrels.

Then it is safe for human consumption.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
These people are the fine example of the kind of intelligence (lack thereof) and ignorance that pervades environmentalsit circles.

Back to your soapbox. Not everyone that signed was environmentalist, it just shows how easily it is to mislead people with pseudo scientific arguments, just as the renewable oil theory or ridiculous assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than man posted here by you.

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times
volcano.und.edu...

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by Simon666
Back to your soapbox. Not everyone that signed was environmentalist, it just shows how easily it is to mislead people with pseudo scientific arguments,...

I agree---which is precisely what enviro-leftists do--mislead. BTW; if these people that signed weren't environmentalists; who were they? What were they doing at an environmentalist rally? Go back and read my post. I stated (to paraphrase) [that while these people are genuinely concerned for the environment they fail to research the claims made by "environmentalist experts".]

Originally posted by Simon666
...just as the renewable oil theory...

YAH!! And all the oil consumed in the world comes from the dacayed carcasses of dinosaurs and dead plant life. RIGHT!

Originally posted by Simon666
...or ridiculous assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than man posted here by you.

I used improper wording when I stated: "Volcanic activity the world over releases more CO2, acid, and a plethera of other things..." I didn't mean to say "more". I meant to say "alot of".

I only used volcanos as one example of nature's perpetration of pollution and damage to the environment. There are others as well; such as forest fires caused by lightning.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I agree---which is precisely what enviro-leftists do--mislead. BTW; if these people that signed weren't environmentalists; who were they? What were they doing at an environmentalist rally? Go back and read my post.

The "at an environmentalist rally" is probably either an invention by you or some other person that hates environmentalists. For the origins of such things, there is always Snopes.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
YAH!! And all the oil consumed in the world comes from the dacayed carcasses of dinosaurs and dead plant life. RIGHT!

Most of it does, or so says mainstream science. Do you really think that the oil lobby, which we know is currently ruling the US, would keep such a thing secret? I also think it is pretty arrogant if you or a small group of other people somehow outsmart most of the scientists on this planet, thinking they are either dumb or part of this pinko eco communist conspiracy.

Originally posted by Simon666
The "at an environmentalist rally" is probably either an invention by you or some other person that hates environmentalists. For the origins of such things, there is always Snopes.

I never claimed that the HBO show I saw was the origin of the dihydrogen oxide experiment; as a simple Google search will reveal that several people have fooled ignorant environmentalists into this scheme.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
YAH!! And all the oil consumed in the world comes from the dacayed carcasses of dinosaurs and dead plant life. RIGHT!

Originally posted by Simon666
Most of it does, or so says mainstream science.

Please present a link here from a legitimate and current scientific source backing this dark aged theory.

Originally posted by Simon666
Do you really think that the oil lobby, which we know is currently ruling the US, would keep such a thing secret? I also think it is pretty arrogant if you or a small group of other people somehow outsmart most of the scientists on this planet, thinking they are either dumb or part of this pinko eco communist conspiracy.

This doesn't make sense. Oil lobby--ruling the US?? As far as "most of the scientists": Again; post links!

So tell me Simon: Are you one of those environmentalists who believe we should bo back to the horse and buggy times and live in caves for the sake of the environment?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So tell me Simon: Are you one of those environmentalists who believe we should bo back to the horse and buggy times and live in caves for the sake of the environment?

I am concerned about the environment but I am not a fundamentalist. I believe nuclear power should be reconsidered and new, better and safer plants built.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This doesn't make sense. Oil lobby--ruling the US??

Don't play stupid. Condi even has an oil tanker named after her.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Please present a link here from a legitimate and current scientific source backing this dark aged theory.

Abiogenic oil origin
Although this theory is supported by a large minority of geologists in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, it has only recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic theory is still believed by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Planetary scientist Thomas Gold was one of the abiogenic theory's greatest proponents in recent years.[1] (larry.atomant.net...) Although it was originally denied that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist at all on earth, this is now accepted by Western geologists. The orthodox position now is that while abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, they are not produced in commercially significant quantities, so that essentially all hydrocarbons that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials are biogenic.

So although it is not denied it exists, the generally accepted position is still that it only accounts for a minority of the oil - that is commercially extracted - formed.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So tell me Simon: Are you one of those environmentalists who believe we should bo back to the horse and buggy times and live in caves for the sake of the environment?

I am concerned about the environment but I am not a fundamentalist. I believe nuclear power should be reconsidered and new, better and safer plants built.

so what about nuclear waste? don`t get me wrong, iam for nuclear power, but what are we going to do?

In 2003 the UK government appointed a committee on radioactive waste management, the UK does, after all, have 500,000 tonnes of such waste. Deciding to look at this form of disposal in a new light, they looked at 14 methods of disposal - all possible, though each has its drawback. They are as follows:

Send it into space aiming for it to exit the solar system or hit the sun.
This method has the potential for rocket failure, and hence the release of radioactive waste into the atmosphere. It is also prohibitively expensive.

Forcefully insert it on the edge of tectonic plates so as to allow it to enter the Earth's mantle.
Three options involve Antarctica:
Allow it to sink two miles through the ice to the bedrock, melting its way via its own decay heat. Theft would require major work in basic engineering to even consider.
Allow it to sink through ice, but keep it on chains so as to not lose it.
Place it on the surface of ice, and superficially cover it with ice.
The problem with this method is the Antarctic Treaty, maintaining it as the last pristine continent. Furthermore, future climate change could potentially cause the Antarctic icecap to melt and expose the waste.

Drop the waste to the bottom of seas and oceans packaged in concrete, as previously done by the UK.
Attach it to torpedoes so that it to becomes deeply embedded in the seabed.
The above two options are technically supreme. See ocean floor disposal for detailed discussion.

Liquefy the waste and pump it into underground reservoirs, as previously done by Russia and Sweden.
Store on the surface of Earth.
Store it underground, safer than the above option.
The above three options are limited by the geologic conditions of the country. Also, there is the potential danger of nuclear theft.

Construct nuclear plants to recondition waste.
Dilute the waste and pump it into the sea, as done previously by the early nuclear industry.
There have been proposals for reactors that consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful nuclear waste. In particular, the Integral Fast Reactor was a proposed nuclear reactor with a nuclear fuel cycle that produced no transuranic waste; in fact, it could consume transuranic waste. It proceeded as far as large-scale tests but was then cancelled by the US Government.

en.wikipedia.org...

done the damn quotes wrong didn't i?

Storage in underground clay layers, or other alternatives. With subcritical reactors and transmutation of the waste, nuclear waste is only dangerous for 1000 years instead of around 100,000 years, which would make storage more simple and cheaper, it would also not put a burden on future generations for what is almost eternity.

Crazy Carl, I just had to sigh when I read your post and I'm sorry that I have to share a name with you.


There is no proof that global warming exists, and there is proof against it.

I would like to refer you to this site.
www-das.uwyo.edu...

Just like tree rings give a record of the age of a tree and the annual climate every time it it creates a new ring, antartic ice, is used to show concentrations of atmospheric gas that can be dated going back with time.
Several graphs on this site will illustrate the exponential increase in CO2 in atmospheric gases since the dawn of the industrial revolution and the impact that it has had on monitored atmospheric air temperatures since the dawn of record keeping.

Originally posted by CrazyCarl
Well now. Here's the thing. There is no proof that global warming exists, and there is proof against it.

Dude, don't buy into the dis-info. Oil companies are funneling millions of dollars so America will believe there is no Global Warming or that GW is not caused by people.

Here is some reading material if you ever get back on ATS to read this thread (You were last active 14/6/2005 and have only made one post)
Scientists claim final proof of global warming