# Oregon Schools to Ban Anti-AGW Curriculum Content



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

The only reason I disagree with this is because actively seeking out all sides of a discussion or debate is important for scientific discourse. Stifling information of any kind isn't right. Of course, many climate change skeptics simply read Fox News to convince themselves it's not happening, so go figure.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...bans_material_that_doubts_climate_change.html



> The Portland Public Schools Board on Tuesday decided to ban any classroom materials that cast doubt on climate change. The resolution passed unanimously and requires that textbooks and other material purchased by the district present climate change as a fact rather than theory.
> 
> Material will also need to present human activity as one of the phenomenon's causes.
> 
> ...


Not that there is anything wrong with supporting solid science, but the recent development of the debate has more of the feel of the creation debate. Creationists oppose evolution frequently for religious reasons; similarly, skeptics oppose AGW (anthropogenically caused global warming) for political or emotional reasons, not based on scientifically credible information.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> The only reason I disagree with this is because actively seeking out all sides of a discussion or debate is important for scientific discourse. Stifling information of any kind isn't right. Of course, many climate change skeptics simply read Fox News to convince themselves it's not happening, so go figure.
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...bans_material_that_doubts_climate_change.html
> 
> ...



Thats the book ban article I mentioned a while back that could not recall the topic. And your probably ticking off a whole lot of phd scientists when you call their evidence non scientific. Your rejection of their evidence does not remove it from the field of science.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Thats the book ban article I mentioned a while back that could not recall the topic. And your probably ticking off a whole lot of phd scientists when you call their evidence non scientific. Your rejection of their evidence does not remove it from the field of science.


I don't have to reject their evidence if it doesn't even come from the field of science at all, just a bunch of emotional and quasi-scientific poppycock.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

If the evidence is as irrefutable as is proposed, any and all challenges should be welcome. To remove all debate indicates a weak argument.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> If the evidence is as irrefutable as is proposed, any and all challenges should be welcome. To remove all debate indicates a weak argument.


Indoctrinate the youth. They have been watching ISIS and studying Hitler. It is an effective approach.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> If the evidence is as irrefutable as is proposed, any and all challenges should be welcome. To remove all debate indicates a weak argument.


That's why I support an open discussion on the matter. banning anything they think doesn't support AGW will inevitably end with good science getting swept under the rug along with the garbage. Whether or not the science is solid, the school should support an open exchange of ideas.

That being said, I'd like to reiterate that almost all the science supports that humans are one of the major factors contributing to climate change.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't have to reject their evidence if it doesn't even come from the field of science at all, just a bunch of emotional and quasi-scientific poppycock.


I'm sure you'll find a reason not to like Dr. S Fred Singer.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's why I support an open discussion on the matter. banning anything they think doesn't support AGW will inevitably end with good science getting swept under the rug along with the garbage. Whether or not the science is solid, the school should support an open exchange of ideas.
> 
> That being said, I'd like to reiterate that almost all the science supports that humans are one of the major factors contributing to climate change.


Aside from the 30,000 signatures that were gathered from the scientific community refuting what the IPCC said, the lies pushed as truth, bogus computer models, east Anglia emails, yeah, there scared their religion is in jeopardy! New material from nasa about asteroids has been found to be bogus, and don't forget who James Hansen is, what he did as a director of nasa's climate center, and who he works for now!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

By the way, wasn't it students from Oregon State University trashed that island while camping near Mt. Shasta? Slaughter Island, I believe?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

As I said.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

So nice if you go drop in, Jeffrey! I know this is one of your favorite topics, but I'll have to respond later when I can read through your emotional rhetoric.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> So nice if you go drop in, Jeffrey! I know this is one of your favorite topics, but I'll have to respond later when I can read through your emotional rhetoric.


 Take away the emotional rhetoric and there isn't anything there, just a bunch of discredited talking points that we've been over a hundred times at least. 
At least he didn't scream about 'AlGore' again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If the evidence is as irrefutable as is proposed, any and all challenges should be welcome.


The problem is that false data, anecdotal evidence, and pseudoscience can be presented to the public as legitimate conclusions that compete with real science. With heavy corporate backing those ideas can be presented in a way that drowns out the truth, and the public can't tell the difference.

Then we devolve into arguments like "let's present both sides and let people make up their own minds," as if real science and pseudoscience are both legitimate points of view. In the end, this will enable corporations to buy the right to pollute by controlling the argument.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> The problem is that false data, anecdotal evidence, and pseudoscience can be presented to the public as legitimate conclusions that compete with real science. With heavy corporate backing those ideas can be presented in a way that drowns out the truth, and the public can't tell the difference.
> 
> Then we devolve into arguments like "let's present both sides and let people make up their own minds," as if real science and pseudoscience are both legitimate points of view. In the end, this will enable corporations to buy the right to pollute by controlling the argument.


Show me evidence of the size of the hole, if any, in the ozone layer in 1950. 1900. 1800. 400. 500 bc. See how that pseudoscience works? People are not supposed to ask intelligent questions. Just some OH OK.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Aside from the 30,000 signatures that were gathered from the scientific community refuting what the IPCC said, the lies pushed as truth, bogus computer models, east Anglia emails, yeah, there scared their religion is in jeopardy! New material from nasa about asteroids has been found to be bogus, and don't forget who James Hansen is, what he did as a director of nasa's climate center, and who he works for now!


I imagine you're probably a Christian. Why is my "religion" inferior to yours? Science isn't a religion. If studies came out that said AGW was caused by a glitch in all the satellites, I'd ditch the theory in a heartbeat. It's really inconvenient to think fossil fuel might be causing all this. Oh, and we've already beat dead horse of the East Anglia emails over and over again, so I'm not even going there.



JeffreyD said:


> I'm sure you'll find a reason not to like Dr. S Fred Singer.


He's involved with organizations who directly or indirectly recieve fossil fuel money. That's enough bias for me.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

Most of the "scientists" you find that support your views are linked to the fossil fuel industry. Oddly enough, I know of several reputable scientists who DO NOT have industry backing. I could find them, but it's more fun to let you search for them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Show me evidence of the size of the hole, if any, in the ozone layer in 1950. 1900. 1800. 400. 500 bc. See how that pseudoscience works? People are not supposed to ask intelligent questions. Just some OH OK.


Assuming I'm correct about the spread of misinformation just for a moment, how do we prevent the public from being mislead by false data, anecdotal evidence, and pseudoscience that has been generated by corporate greed? If false or misleading information is uncovered, how should it be dealt with?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Assuming I'm correct about the spread of misinformation just for a moment, how do we prevent the public from being mislead by false data, anecdotal evidence, and pseudoscience that has been generated by corporate greed? If false or misleading information is uncovered, how should it be dealt with?


I suppose just call it out like it should be. How do we cope eith science based upon a complete lack of evidence, like, for example, the rallying cry "hole in the ozone layer. We all gonna die". What are your thoughts on that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> I suppose just call it out like it should be. How do we cope eith science based upon a complete lack of evidence, like, for example, the rallying cry "hole in the ozone layer. We all gonna die". What are your thoughts on that?


I don't know what I'm supposed to think. I know the damage that some refrigerants can do.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Show me evidence of the size of the hole, if any, in the ozone layer in 1950. 1900. 1800. 400. 500 bc. See how that pseudoscience works? People are not supposed to ask intelligent questions. Just some OH OK.


You've claimed to having knowledge of molecular science. There is a very clear chemical pathway that describes the interaction between CFCs and ozone. One atom of Cl can destroy to 100k O3 molecules.





> Emissions of CFCs to date have accounted for roughly 80% of total stratospheric depletion. Whilst chlorine is a natural threat to ozone, CFCs which contain chlorine are a man-made problem. Although CFC molecules are several times heavier than air, winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. CFCs are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere but are quickly mixed and reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight. When UV radiation hits a CFC molecule it causes one chlorine atom to break away. The chlorine atom then hits an ozone molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms and takes one of the oxygen molecules, destroying the ozone molecule and turning it into oxygen. When an oxygen molecule hits the molecule of chlorine monoxide, the two oxygen atoms join and form an oxygen molecule. When this happens, the chlorine atom is free and can continue to destroy ozone. Naturally occurring chlorine has the same effect in the ozone layer, but has a shorter life span.


http://www.ozone-hole.org.uk/05.php


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> So nice if you go drop in, Jeffrey! I know this is one of your favorite topics, but I'll have to respond later when I can read through your emotional rhetoric.


It truly appears that your quiet the emotional one here. Maybe you should read your own posts to see perfect examples.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Take away the emotional rhetoric and there isn't anything there, just a bunch of discredited talking points that we've been over a hundred times at least.
> At least he didn't scream about 'AlGore' again.


Your talking points have been discredited many times here. Yet you really contributed nothing.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Basically, follow the lie of "global Warming".
No discussion, no dissent, no independent thought.
Get in line citizen, the democrats will tell you what to think!!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

The main thing that proves the lie of "global warming" is the people who are spreading it.
Al Gore
Obama
Most of the left
Proven liars and scammers
Anybody with a brain knows they are lying about this just like they lie about everything else


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Basically, follow the lie of "global Warming".
> No discussion, no dissent, no independent thought.
> Get in line citizen, the democrats will tell you what to think!!!


I suppose you've seen that Trump needs a seawall at his golf resort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-a-hoax-until-it-threatens-his-golf-course/

He says he needs it because of climate change.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

All places along oceans are subject to EROSION, Nothing more, nothing less. but just let the left get ahold of something and everything then just HAS TO BE global warming caused.
Boloney and horse stable floor sweepings~! 
And nothing out of the ordinary about building a Sea Wall, Been done for many many years around the WORLD.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> All places along oceans are subject to EROSION, Nothing more, nothing less. but just let the left get ahold of something and everything then just HAS TO BE global warming caused.
> Boloney and horse stable floor sweepings~!
> And nothing out of the ordinary about building a Sea Wall, Been done for many many years around the WORLD.


Bah! Having to build a sea wall for many cities around the world is a novel problem due to rising sea levels. Florida is so worried about it they've banned their government employees from talking about climate change or flooding. They know it's a problem but they've stuck their heads in the sand. This isn't some faraway problem we can ignore anymore; it's here, affecting us now.



JeffreyD said:


> Your talking points have been discredited many times here. Yet you really contributed nothing.


Real science has been discredited? Please enlighten us.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I suppose you've seen that Trump needs a seawall at his golf resort.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-a-hoax-until-it-threatens-his-golf-course/
> 
> He says he needs it because of climate change.


And like usual, you divert and whine about conservatives when it's your thieving liberals we were discussing
You are the reason the Obama's and other thieves get away with their crap.
Gullible people breed liars and scammers
Thanks a lot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> All places along oceans are subject to EROSION, Nothing more, nothing less.


What did you think global warming would look like?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Don't forget, Obama's "DOJ" wants to throw people in prison for not believing the Global Warming lie
Some leader huh?
suckers :rotfl:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> What did you think global warming would look like?


Can you point to any evidence of "Global Warming"?
Remember, your guru Al Gore said by this time there would be no more polar ice, and now there's more than there was then, but you bought it.
When in the history of the world has the climate not been changing?
Now your idiot of a president has killed the coal industry, did away with thousands of jobs.
The railroads are laying off, the factories, the mines, the stores, restaurants, entire communities thanks the that lying bigot Obama, and still you believe him.
How many times does a democrat have to lie to you before you'll pull your head out of the sand and pay attention?
Do you even care?
This is where you and your patrol mock me for not falling for your idiot leader's lies


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Can you point to any evidence of "Global Warming"?


How about the beach erosion next to Trump's golf resort?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> How about the beach erosion next to Trump's golf resort?


Again, not a sign of anything unusual, and definitely not Trump's fault, but nice how you drag his name through it just to diver from your leader's lies.
I live at almost 5000 ft above sea level, and we have seashell fossils in our canyons.
I guess dinosaurs musta drove SUVs and burned coal to cause that hjigh water huh? :rotfl:
The world is in a state of change and has been since the dawn of time.
Con artists are depending on gullible people to help them play the game.
Again, the story of "global Warming" is coming from people who are known to lie, scam the gullible and steal as much as they can.
Why would we believe them now?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Trump is KNOWN for building golf courses VERY CLOSE to the ocean and in many cause the land itself is UNSTABLE. He has been warned about this many years ago that land that close to a sea will get many things that will fight against having a green golf course so close to sea water, and it will NATURALLY have a erosion problems. he just does this all over the world but now let this one get out about a seawall and the GW fanatics come crawling out of the woodwork, because of the believe that seas are sweeping up and swamping cities all over this globe. LOL


----------



## Echoesechos (Jan 22, 2010)

Portland public schools I believe your article said. There is a lot more to Oregon than Portland.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Trump is KNOWN for building golf courses VERY CLOSE to the ocean and in many cause the land itself is UNSTABLE. He has been warned about this many years ago that land that close to a sea will get many things that will fight against having a green golf course so close to sea water, and it will NATURALLY have a erosion problems. he just does this all over the world but now let this one get out about a seawall and the GW fanatics come crawling out of the woodwork, because of the believe that seas are sweeping up and swamping cities all over this globe. LOL


Could be. Or maybe it's the global warming that his application to build the wall cited.

_â*If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct*, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland,â the application notes. âIn our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring.â_
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-a-hoax-until-it-threatens-his-golf-course/


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Is this global warming you keep speaking of causing it to snow in Atlanta? Causing huge ice glaciers to form where there were none? Line up. Tell the lie. It for a good cause. You care more. Your a better human being.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> You've claimed to having knowledge of molecular science. There is a very clear chemical pathway that describes the interaction between CFCs and ozone. One atom of Cl can destroy to 100k O3 molecules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does burning coal produce CFC? Do combustion engines emit CFC? Do factories emit CFC? Does cutting down a tree emit CFC? Please do explain.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Con artists are depending on gullible people to help them play the game.
> Again, the story of "global Warming" is coming from people who are known to lie, scam the gullible and steal as much as they can.
> Why would we believe them now?


The best con artist here is you, because youve conned yourself into thinking nothing you do can effect the environment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Does burning coal produce CFC? Do combustion engines emit CFC? Do factories emit CFC? Does cutting down a tree emit CFC? Please do explain.


Of course not. Why would you ask such a thing?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Does burning coal produce CFC? Do combustion engines emit CFC? Do factories emit CFC? Does cutting down a tree emit CFC? Please do explain.


I'm not your @&$% Google Mommy, though you sure do need one. CFCs come from aerosols, freon, and other industrial chemicals and refrigerants. Most if not all are artificial chemicals. Clearly you've not studied molecular anything as you've previously claimed.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Of course not. Why would you ask such a thing?


Well, since we removed CFC long ago, just wondering what the deal is. You brought it up. Why?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Well, since we removed CFC long ago, just wondering what the deal is. You brought it up. Why?


Actually, you brought up the ozone layer hole in post #14. I tried to change the subject because I didn't see how it fit in with the conversation. Maybe you should explain what the ozone layer hole has to do with the discussion.

We were discussing climate change, specifically global warming. How does that relate to CFC emissions?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Someone has lost control of themselves and is making a bafoon of themselves.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Actually, you brought up the ozone layer hole in post #14. I tried to change the subject because I didn't see how it fit in with the conversation. Maybe you should explain what the ozone layer hole has to do with the discussion.
> 
> We were discussing climate change, specifically global warming. How does that relate to CFC emissions?


Hmm, can we start with it being the original battle cry for global warming. The hole lets in radiation that heats the Earth. Were you an adult in the 80's? How do you not know this mr scientist.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Someone has lost control of themselves and is making a bafoon of themselves.


Maybe you should explain it to us out of control buffoons...


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Maybe you should explain it to us out of control buffoons...


You said us. I didnt.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Hmm, can we start with it being the original battle cry for global warming. The hole lets in radiation that heats the Earth. Were you an adult in the 80's? How do you not know this mr scientist.


The depletion of the ozone layer allows more dangerous UV rays to reach the earth than is good for us. For example, it's blamed for increased rates of certain cancers. Global warming is a different topic from ozone layer depletion.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I am enjoying watching all you enlightened scientists state your factual scientific case free of emotion, unlike the crazy uneducated emotional sceptics. ROFL.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I am enjoying watching all you enlightened scientists state your factual scientific case free of emotion, unlike the crazy uneducated emotional sceptics. ROFL.


You're the one who, one moment, decries everyone for not using science and logic and then, faced with an actual discussion, devolve into an emotional, ad hominem spewing elementary school child.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> I am enjoying watching all you enlightened scientists state your factual scientific case free of emotion, unlike the crazy uneducated emotional sceptics. ROFL.


I'm not an expert in this stuff. I have a 4 year degree in chemical engineering, spending my career working in petroleum refining as a process engineer.

For practical reasons I recently took the exams for an EPA HVAC license, to qualify to purchase regulated refrigerants from HVAC & refrigeration vendors. I took the exams for a universal license (4 exams in all) so I can work with all refrigerants. I gained a lot of practical knowledge about refrigerants while studying for those exams. Here's my HVAC license.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22059150/608.jpg

Since there are also useful refrigeration products carried at local auto parts stores, I took the exam for a auto AC technician EPA license so I could purchase automotive refrigerants.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22059150/609.jpg

Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but I know enough about refrigerants to talk about it.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Is this the undisputed unemotional science you guys keep referring to?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

The main public concern regarding the ozone hole has been the effects of increased surface UV radiation on human health. So far, ozone depletion in most locations has been typically a few percent and, as noted above,* no direct evidence of health damage is available in most latitudes.* If the high levels of depletion seen in the ozone hole were to be common across the globe, the effects could be substantially more dramatic. As the ozone hole over Antarctica has in some instances grown so large as to affect parts of Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa, environmentalists have been concerned that the increase in surface UV could be significant.[39]

Among others, Robert Watson had a role in the science assessment and in the regulation efforts of ozone depletion and global warming.[28] Prior to the 1980s, the EU, NASA, NAS, UNEP, WMO and the British government had dissenting scientific reports and Watson played a crucial role in the process of unified assessments. Based on the experience with the ozone case, the IPCC started to work on a unified reporting and science assessment[28] to reach a consensus to provide the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

*There are various areas of linkage between ozone depletion and global warming science:*

Large volcanic eruptions have been shown to have massive (albeit) ozone-depleting effects, as observed (for example) with the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinotubo in the Philippines

UV-driven phenolic formation in tree rings has dated the start of ozone depletion in northern latitudes to the late 1700s

Just junk science like that. What CFC was there in 1700 when this started? How many coal mines? How many combustion engines? Line up. Tell the lie. Be a good little boy.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> You're the one who, one moment, decries everyone for not using science and logic and then, faced with an actual discussion, devolve into an emotional, ad hominem spewing elementary school child.


yet you are the one cussing and carrying on like a 5 year old


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I'm not an expert in this stuff. I have a 4 year degree in chemical engineering, spending my career working in petroleum refining as a process engineer.
> 
> For practical reasons I recently took the exams for an EPA HVAC license, to qualify to purchase regulated refrigerants from HVAC & refrigeration vendors. I took the exams for a universal license (4 exams in all) so I can work with all refrigerants. I gained a lot of practical knowledge about refrigerants while studying for those exams. Here's my HVAC license.
> 
> ...


In 1991 I started my 3rd company. Houston Air Tech, Inc. I know one of two things about freon. I feel the least bit intimidated. The new regs closed my business. Bad news for the Bolivian immigrant that worked for me. Noone else would hire him because of his diabetes. I wonder if he starved to death when I closed due to this junk science as detailed above.

I have the same licence. Category 4. Its a total bogus piece of crap and we both know it. It is a private contract between licensee and EPA saying you will not vent or be subject to civil fine. Why? Venting is not illegal. They gotta do it civil form. That is ALL that license is. Period.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> So far, ozone depletion in most locations has been typically a few percent and, as noted above,* no direct evidence of health damage is available in most latitudes.*


They pretty much caught ozone depletion in time. We don't use the most dangerous of refrigerants (CFC) at all any longer. The last CFC's used in any quantity to speak of were R-11 & R-12. R-11 was replaced by R-123 and the low pressure refrigerant used in commercial chillers, and R-134a replaced R-12 as the automotive refrigerant.

CFC's were the really nasty refrigerants, the ones that could destroy 100,000 times itself in ozone. HCFC's aren't nearly so dangerous to the ozone layer, destroying ozone on a mole to mole basis. HFC's don't harm the ozone layer at all, but are still greenhouse gases so the law still requires recovery.

Residential AC systems used to use R-22 (an HCFC) but most systems are now running R-410a (an HFC).


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> They pretty much caught ozone depletion in time. We don't use the most dangerous of refrigerants (CFC) at all any longer. The last CFC's used in any quantity to speak of were R-11 & R-12. R-11 was replaced by R-123 and the low pressure refrigerant used in commercial chillers, and R-134a replaced R-12 as the automotive refrigerant.
> 
> CFC's were the really nasty refrigerants, the ones that could destroy 100,000 times itself in ozone. HCFC's aren't nearly so dangerous to the ozone layer, destroying ozone on a mole to mole basis. HFC's don't harm the ozone layer at all, but are still greenhouse gases so the law still requires recovery.
> 
> Residential AC systems used to use R-22 (an HCFC) but most systems are now running R-410a (an HFC).


They caught it in time? Something scientifically documented to have started in 1700? and we caught it in time? You are hilarious. You can talk about this or that freon all you want trying to impress me. I can take apart your a/c system and put it back together. I know how it works. Tell me mr ac guy, what is a thermostatic expansion valve watching? What is super heat? What is sub cooling? go try and impress some blonde bimbo with your words.

Here is an easy one. What purpose does a reversing valve have in a heat pump? for a bonus, when was a heat pump invented? Just the century will do.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm not an expert in this stuff. I have a 4 year degree in chemical engineering, spending my career working in petroleum refining as a process engineer.
> 
> For practical reasons I recently took the exams for an EPA HVAC license, to qualify to purchase regulated refrigerants from HVAC & refrigeration vendors. I took the exams for a universal license (4 exams in all) so I can work with all refrigerants. I gained a lot of practical knowledge about refrigerants while studying for those exams. Here's my HVAC license.
> 
> ...


Very interesting. On a side note, it appears you should have been a woodworker instead. 
I do have a question. What are current common HVAC refrigerants? I believe most if not all of them in the US are CFC-free, but still called freon. Am I correct?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Very interesting. On a side note, it appears you should have been a woodworker instead.
> I do have a question. What are current common HVAC refrigerants? I believe most if not all of them in the US are CFC-free, but still called freon. Am I correct?


Go ask Google MOMMY. I do not speak to people like you anymore.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> It is a private contract between licensee and EPA saying you will not vent or be subject to civil fine. Why? Venting is not illegal.


Yeah, okay...

*Man Gets Prison Time for Venting R-22*
http://www.achrnews.com/articles/127297-man-gets-prison-time-for-venting-r-22.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, okay...
> 
> *Man Gets Prison Time for Venting R-22*
> http://www.achrnews.com/articles/127297-man-gets-prison-time-for-venting-r-22.


He held a license. He broke the contract. He agreed to the terms when he got a license..


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Is this the undisputed unemotional science you guys keep referring to?
> 
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
> 
> ...


The main concern for CFCs is depleting the ozone layer above the Antarctic. This could lead to additional warming of the Antactic, which is something we seriously do not need:

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/freon-really-affect-ozone-78916.html



> In a groundbreaking 1974 paper entitled âStratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone,â American chemists Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland theorized that CFCs could deplete atmospheric ozone. (See Reference 6) A 1976 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences confirmed this theory, leading to a U.S. ban on the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in 1978. (See Reference 7, Page 5) In 1985, British scientists detected a dramatic seasonal decline in ozone levels above Antarctica. Two years later, research aircraft deployed by the Antarctic Airborne Ozone Expedition established a correlation between high levels of stratospheric chlorine monoxide and reduced levels of ozone. (See Reference 8) In 1995, Molina and Rowland received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their pioneering work on stratospheric ozone depletion. (See Reference 9)


In this case, this is one of those things where humanity actually managed to stop something bad before it happened. I am not, and I hope others feel the same, willing to sacrifice human and environmental health to fatten my wallet. I will live in a tent in the woods before I let that happen.

Do you have a reference for the 1700s ozone tree ring data? I'm not sure how they measure the ozone layer from tree ring data - ozone is a pollutant at surface level.



thericeguy said:


> yet you are the one cussing and carrying on like a 5 year old


I didn't have my posts deleted.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Go ask Google MOMMY. I do not speak to people like you anymore.


I was asking a legitimate, POLITE question, something you're incapable of.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> They caught it in time? Something scientifically documented to have started in 1700? and we caught it in time? You are hilarious. You can talk about this or that freon all you want trying to impress me. I can take apart your a/c system and put it back together. I know how it works. Tell me mr ac guy, what is a thermostatic expansion valve watching? What is super heat? What is sub cooling? go try and impress some blonde bimbo with your words.
> 
> Here is an easy one. What purpose does a reversing valve have in a heat pump? for a bonus, when was a heat pump invented? Just the century will do.


Online quizzes are useless when people can google everything. Also, I'd like to point out that you've insulted people for quizzing each other before engaging in a discussion. Looks like everything's invalid unless you get to do it, then it's fine.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Since you are just going to ignore the whole started in 1700 because your science is infallible and school books needs to be banned to indoctrinate, I am going to go watch utube. You have a nice night now. Keep up the line. Someone will believe it somewhere.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Online quizzes are useless when people can google everything. Also, I'd like to point out that you've insulted people for quizzing each other before engaging in a discussion. Looks like everything's invalid unless you get to do it, then it's fine.


looks like you cant control yourself, much less know what your talking about. Shrug. Just repeat what they tell you to say like a sheep.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> What are current common HVAC refrigerants? I believe most if not all of them in the US are CFC-free, but still called freon. Am I correct?


Refrigeration Appliances - R-134a (HFC)
Automotive AC - R-134a (HFC)
Residential AC - R-410a (HFC), but some R-22 (HCFC) still around.
Commercial Chillers - R-123 (HCFC)

There are no CFC's in wide use today. Actually the term 'freon' is a trademark of Chemours, similar to genetron being the trademark of Honeywell. Most HVAC technicians use the "R" designation and don't pay attention to the brand.

There's talk of replacing R-123. It's difficult and dangerous to work with because it's toxic and operates at a vacuum. I've seen new smaller chillers (50 to 75 ton units) using R-410a, but the larger ones still use R-123. I happen to have a lot of experience working with R-123 so I don't mind working with it, but I know its days are numbered.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Since you are just going to ignore the whole started in 1700 because your science is infallible and school books needs to be banned to indoctrinate, I am going to go watch utube. You have a nice night now. Keep up the line. Someone will believe it somewhere.


LOL. Just, LOL. I am actually staring at my computer screen and laughing right now.

I asked you for evidence that the tree ring data shows ozone layer fluctuations. A legitimate question. I guess it's only OK when you get to ask the question? Sorry; burden of proof is on you to show it goes back that far. All the studies I read have accurate ozone data back to MAYBE 1935. Bah!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Refrigeration Appliances - R-134a (HFC)
> Residential AC - R410a (HFC), but some R-22 (HCFC) still around.
> Commercial Chillers - R-123 (HCFC)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the answer; I appreciate it. I wonder about how effective it is to have appliances with even these refrigerants in them. I know some people, before taking their appliances in, will just vent them before recycling. To be fair, our recycling programs are dismal around here, but I suspect this isn't the best thing to do?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Thanks for the answer; I appreciate it. I wonder about how effective it is to have appliances with even these refrigerants in them. I know some people, before taking their appliances in, will just vent them before recycling. To be fair, our recycling programs are dismal around here, but I suspect this isn't the best thing to do?


Well, R-134a is an HFC so it doesn't harm the ozone layer. It's still illegal to vent deliberately because it's a greenhouse gas, but we know it's vented all the time in traffic accidents. Compared to CFC's the damage from a R-134a release is minimal.

But if they recover any quantity to speak of they should collect the R-134a in a recovery tank because it has value. Refrigerant recyclers pay pretty well for recovered refrigerants.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Well, R-134a is an HFC so it doesn't harm the ozone layer. It's still illegal to vent deliberately because it's a greenhouse gas, but we know it's vented all the time in traffic accidents. Compared to CFC's the damage is minimal.
> 
> But if they recover any quantity to speak of they should collect the R-134a in a recovery tank because it has value. Refrigerant recyclers pay pretty well for recovered refrigerants.


Good to know. I'm also wondering if venting refrigerants would actually have much of an impact on the climate. I'm glad it's not legal to vent it, but at the same time, we're also not doing anything about a host of other issues, such as methane from landfills. Well, slow and steady in the right direction, I hope.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Good to know. I'm also wondering if venting refrigerants would actually have much of an impact on the climate. I'm glad it's not legal to vent it, but at the same time, we're also not doing anything about a host of other issues, such as methane from landfills. Well, slow and steady in the right direction, I hope.


I don't know why they make such a big deal of venting HFC's. I can only guess that the greenhouse effect from refrigerants is much higher than the greenhouse effect of CO2 or methane. But to be honest I haven't spent any time looking into it. I recover refrigerant because it's a valuable commodity.

One problem with refrigerant recovery is the cost of the recovery pump. They start at about $400, and go up from there. In fact they're expensive enough that most techs don't routinely carry one on their truck. One pump can be shared among a number of HVAC techs by leaving it at the shop and only taking it when needed.

So how do they "balance" a system that needs some refrigerant removed if they don't have a pump with them? You don't need one. You can hook the high pressure (liquid) side of the AC to a recovery tank and there's sufficient pressure to push refrigerant into the recovery tank. They only need a recovery pump if they intend to evacuate the entire system for a major component repair/replacement.

Of course evacuating an entire AC system is a big deal. You don't do it unless you absolutely have to. To that end, they have invented ingenious tools for minor repairs. One common problem is replacing bad schrader valves. There's a tool for doing that without removing refrigerant. The tool generally costs $50 to $75 a local HVAC supply shops, but it's well worth it. Here's one from eBay for $34.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111717610593

Check out this youtube clip to see how it's used. This is a 6 minute clip, but if you only want to see the tool in use you can forward the clip to the 3:00 mark and watch it through about 5:30.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES0NFPH4eJg[/ame]


----------



## ShannonR (Nov 28, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> By the way, wasn't it students from Oregon State University trashed that island while camping near Mt. Shasta? Slaughter Island, I believe?


Yeah I'm local, saw a whole lot of pics and stuff about that. They come and do their drugs and party it up and make -----es of themselves there every year but took things a bit far this time.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> The depletion of the ozone layer allows more dangerous UV rays to reach the earth than is good for us. For example, it's blamed for increased rates of certain cancers. Global warming is a different topic from ozone layer depletion.





Heritagefarm said:


> The main concern for CFCs is depleting the ozone layer above the Antarctic. This could lead to additional warming of the Antactic, which is something we seriously do not need:
> 
> http://homeguides.sfgate.com/freon-really-affect-ozone-78916.html
> 
> ...



Your expert scientist who stufies these things so thoroughly, applying college degrees in his chosen field, along with a license one gets from a pack of gum, did not even know the ozone hole was the original global warming issue. Unrelated in their view. Wonder how that happens. See footnotes at wiki for ant light reading. I am sure the scientists who study these things eagerly await your fact based unemotional summary.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

And 90 years ago: John Scopes arrested for teaching evolution, May 5, 1925

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...ing-evolution-may-5-1925-106325#ixzz49fRHhi96 

Funny how so much has changed but not really...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

ShannonR said:


> Yeah I'm local, saw a whole lot of pics and stuff about that. They come and do their drugs and party it up and make -----es of themselves there every year but took things a bit far this time.


Yeah, I saw the pictures. Genuinely atrocious actions there.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Steve_S said:


> And 90 years ago: John Scopes arrested for teaching evolution, May 5, 1925
> 
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...ing-evolution-may-5-1925-106325#ixzz49fRHhi96
> 
> Funny how so much has changed but not really...


People naturally fear that which they don't understand, and that which goes against their belief systems.



thericeguy said:


> Your expert scientist who stufies these things so thoroughly, applying college degrees in his chosen field, along with a license one gets from a pack of gum, did not even know the ozone hole was the original global warming issue. Unrelated in their view. Wonder how that happens. See footnotes at wiki for ant light reading. I am sure the scientists who study these things eagerly await your fact based unemotional summary.


I don't have to tell them what they already know.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> The best con artist here is you, because youve conned yourself into thinking nothing you do can effect the environment.


It may surprise you to know I'm actually very environmentally friendly.
I don't litter, I don't throw candy wrappers and beer bottles out the car window, I don't dump oil on the ground, I recycle when possible, I compost, don't like chemicals on the lawn and garden, and I gripe at people who smoke and litter.
What I don't believe is that we as a species have much of an effect on the climate, and I don't believe they have the right to jail us just for not believing proven liars.
Now if someone who was known for being honest was pushing it, I might take it seriously, but being who they are, why would anybody continue to believe them?
Why would _you _believe them?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Is the climate changing? Yes, that cannot be denied, always has, always will. Are humans affecting the change? Likely. How much? Don't know. The truth, in this debate, is likely in the middle. The climate is not static, humans can have an effect on it, but, I don't believe it will be the disaster that the most rabid proponents of AGW put forth. The debate has become political and that means it is being used, by both sides, to gain/retain power.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> Is the climate changing? Yes, that cannot be denied, always has, always will. Are humans affecting the change? Likely. How much? Don't know. The truth, in this debate, is likely in the middle. The climate is not static, humans can have an effect on it, but, I don't believe it will be the disaster that the most rabid proponents of AGW put forth. The debate has become political and that means it is being used, by both sides, to gain/retain power.


Which is why I keep saying its not following good science. What happens when you do thst? When you ask was the ozone hole there a thousand years ago? You get back " you cant prove there is a God" or "burden of proof is on you". So they see themselves as having no burden of proof. All on you. Its actually hillarious. The churches sjould study this. Faith could be improved with such managent practices. 

Got a fella here ready to live in a tent to save the planet. Hillarious.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> It may surprise you to know I'm actually very environmentally friendly.
> I don't litter, I don't throw candy wrappers and beer bottles out the car window, I don't dump oil on the ground, I recycle when possible, I compost, don't like chemicals on the lawn and garden, and I gripe at people who smoke and litter.
> What I don't believe is that we as a species have much of an effect on the climate, and I don't believe they have the right to jail us just for not believing proven liars.
> Now if someone who was known for being honest was pushing it, I might take it seriously, but being who they are, why would anybody continue to believe them?
> Why would _you _believe them?


Fine, I retract my statement. Honestly, I suspect everyone of a hidden agenda. It's just that I've found the climate science to be quite solid.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Which is why I keep saying its not following good science. What happens when you do thst? When you ask was the ozone hole there a thousand years ago? You get back " you cant prove there is a God" or "burden of proof is on you". So they see themselves as having no burden of proof. All on you. Its actually hillarious. The churches sjould study this. Faith could be improved with such managent practices.
> 
> Got a fella here ready to live in a tent to save the planet. Hillarious.


Your claim was the novel one. Your refusal to back up your claim makes it suspect at best, false at worst.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Your claim was the novel one. Your refusal to back up your claim makes it suspect at best, false at worst.


Tell me then environmental scientist. What year did the hole in the ozone layer first appear?  I will wait while you try and Google which satellites scientists used in the 3rd century.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Tell me then environmental scientist. What year did the hole in the ozone layer first appear?  I will wait while you try and Google which satellites scientists used in the 3rd century.


We don't always have all of the data we'd like to have. You work with what you've got.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> We don't always have all of the data we'd like to have. You work with what you've got.


I see. well, then, burden of proof is on you. we cannot even begin to consider your opinion because you cannot fulfill burden of proof. See how that works? Your junk science is no better than my junk science. Neither side knows what they are talking about. That has been my claim all along. You just wanted to hear I don't believe in climate change or pollution because it helps you feel morally superior.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> I see. well, then, burden of proof is on you. we cannot even begin to consider your opinion because you cannot fulfill burden of proof. See how that works? Your junk science is no better than my junk science. Neither side knows what they are talking about. That has been my claim all along. You just wanted to hear I don't believe in climate change or pollution because it helps you feel morally superior.


But established science has already met the burden of proof through the peer review process. If you have a new idea then you have to do the same thing. Organize your thoughts & data, write a paper, and submit it for peer review.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I see. well, then, burden of proof is on you. we cannot even begin to consider your opinion because you cannot fulfill burden of proof. See how that works? Your junk science is no better than my junk science. Neither side knows what they are talking about. That has been my claim all along. You just wanted to hear I don't believe in climate change or pollution because it helps you feel morally superior.


We have empirical evidence that CFCs cause irreparable damage to the ozone layer. Fact. CFCs are industrial chemicals. Fact. These chemicals were being released into the atmosphere. Fact. Thus, CFC pollution caused or at least contributed to the ozone hole. Fact. 
This is really, really old news. My guess is you're smarting because you feel your business was shut down unfairly. Whenever that happens, there's always another side to the story. It's rarely just the government being mean. I'm sure you'd have loved to continue polluting. Fortunately, you can't. Boohoo.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But established science has already met the burden of proof through the peer review process. If you have a new idea then you have to do the same thing. Organize your thoughts & data, write a paper, and submit it for peer review.


See that would take effort and facts, though. Apparently, that's for the birds.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> See that would take effort and facts, though. Apparently, that's for the birds.


So in the interest of fairness, climate change skeptics want a pass on making their case? What's fair about that?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> But established science has already met the burden of proof through the peer review process. If you have a new idea then you have to do the same thing. Organize your thoughts & data, write a paper, and submit it for peer review.


why did the peer review process eliminate so many "views"? Tell ya what. Lets just agree to let our grandkids decide if you were a blind faith moron. Let us let history decide like we do for Presidents.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> why did the peer review process eliminate so many "views"? Tell ya what. Lets just agree to let our grandkids decide if you were a blind faith moron. Let us let history decide like we do for Presidents.


Because if scientists are correct we're headed for very difficult times if corrective action isn't taken. If they are correct then it will be too late by the time it's obvious that they're correct.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Because if scientists are correct we're headed for very difficult times if corrective action isn't taken. If they are correct then it will be too late by the time they're proven correct.


You convinced me. Its all doom and gloom and mankind is evil. The only rational choice is suicide to save the animals. Can you teach me?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Because if scientists are correct we're headed for very difficult times if corrective action isn't taken. If they are correct then it will be too late by the time they're proven correct.


If that is true, invest in "green" tech. Champion new clean technologies. Live by example with a light touch on the environment. Encourage others to do the same. Do not empower crooks in government to take even more of our property and freedom.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> You convinced me. Its all doom and gloom and mankind is evil. The only rational choice is suicide to save the animals. Can you teach me?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If that is true, invest in "green" tech. Champion new clean technologies. Live by example with a light touch on the environment. Encourage others to do the same. Do not empower crooks in government to take even more of our property and freedom.


Now seriously, you really expect oil & power companies to follow a green example because it's the right thing to do?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Now seriously, you really expect oil & power companies to follow a green example because it's the right thing to do?


Perhaps, but, more likely because they are customer driven companies. If the customers are no longer buying what they are selling, they will sell something else or be no more.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps, but, more likely because they are customer driven companies. If the customers are no longer buying what they are selling, they will sell something else or be no more.


You cannot use facts and reason in a discussion driven only by blind emotion. Give me 50. Foul. Penalty.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

How are you supposed to have a rational discussion with;

Fact: there are no medical issues known related to the ozone layer

Massive societal upheaval

Woohoo. It worked. Noone is sick. Weeeeee.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps, but, more likely because they are customer driven companies. If the customers are no longer buying what they are selling, they will sell something else or be no more.


Now that solar panels have caught on to the point where it's hitting the power companies in the wallet, they're complaining. They were laughing out their sleeves at solar panels just a few years ago.

They think they should make as much as they've always made, regardless of how much power customers buy. I suspect that regulators will go along with them. Regulators propped up phone companies to help them have a steady diet of money, so they'll probably do the same for power companies.

Utility companies have always been a protected species. It's not surprising, since utility companies have bought & paid for a lot of regulators.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

When would the students in oregon have time to learn about the ozone layer anyway? They are too busy campaigning for democrat candidates.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Now that solar panels have caught on to the point where it's hitting the power companies in the wallet, they're complaining. They were laughing out their sleeves at solar panels just a few years ago.
> 
> They think they should make as much as they've always made, regardless of how much power customers buy. I suspect that regulators will go along with them. Regulators propped up phone companies to help them have a steady diet of money, so they'll probably do the same for power companies.
> 
> Utility companies have always been a protected species. It's not surprising, since utility companies have bought & paid for a lot of regulators.


And, as the markets changed, the phone companies changed, in spite of Government protection. Fewer and fewer people even have land lines anymore and charges for "long distance" are largely a thing of the past. 

All the power companies will do is either grab on to the new tech, or, price themselves out of the market. 

Not much oil can be sold to those who don't use oil. 

Private investment in clean energy and new clean technologies will affect far more change, that Climate change proponents want, than all of the crony government meddling can achieve.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> And, as the markets changed, the phone companies changed, in spite of Government protection. Fewer and fewer people even have land lines anymore and charges for "long distance" are largely a thing of the past.
> 
> All the power companies will do is either grab on to the new tech, or, price themselves out of the market.


Phone companies found a fall-back business -- Internet. They put their copper to work delivering DSL. If power generation is decentralized I'm not sure what the power companies can fall back on.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Phone companies found a fall-back business -- Internet. They put their copper to work delivering DSL. If power generation is decentralized I'm not sure what the power companies can fall back on.


Then they will go the way of the buggy manufacturers and, if that is what the market demands, that is fine, or, the power companies can generate power using green alternatives, if that is what he market wants.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Then they will go the way of the buggy manufacturers and, if that is what the market demands, that is fine, or, the power companies can generate power using green alternatives, if that is what he market wants.


People don't care where the power company gets the power it sells. Why should they? There's either going to be a demand for their power or there isn't. That's all that matters.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> So in the interest of fairness, climate change skeptics want a pass on making their case? What's fair about that?


Well actually they should be able to bring their case forward. People are, ideally, supposed to choose the side with the most evidence and best defense, credibility, etc. But it gets very confusing very fast, and all most skeptics do is scoff at established science, which we see in abundance in this thread. If they have evidence that climate change is not this or that, they can bring it forward and in fact I've seenlegit studies published that cast doubt on certain portions of CC. But the theory has never been overturned because the vast majority of the evidence points in the direction of man made cc.
But you already knew that.  Others, not so much.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Then they will go the way of the buggy manufacturers and, if that is what the market demands, that is fine, or, the power companies can generate power using green alternatives, if that is what he market wants.


What the market wants is to be able to continue to burn dirty energy. This is clearly an unsustainable solution.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

thericeguy said:


> Tell me then environmental scientist. What year did the hole in the ozone layer first appear?  I will wait while you try and Google which satellites scientists used in the 3rd century.


 Oh this is some great logic ricedude... Obviously we couldn't measure ozone in the 3rd century, so now that we can, and now that CFCs are proven to destroy ozone molecules, we should just ignore these recent findings, because, ya know, can't prove the ozone hole wasn't always there. Yup, just like 'its been warm in the past, therefore none of mankinds actions can have ANY effect whatsoever.'. Yup, now Im gonna sit back and watch me some more of dat 'Fox'news cause them dang liberals on CNN don't tell me what I want to hear.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Yep, liberal whack jobs used to cry in their corn flakes about the poor whales. Yell at each other in the light of their whale oil lanterns. Then some guy struck oil. Wasn't liberal crybabies that made people quit burning whale blubber, it was entrepreneurial, free market capitalists. Same thing will probably happen with the ozone, if there are any free market capitalists left.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

greg273 said:


> Oh this is some great logic ricedude... Obviously we couldn't measure ozone in the 3rd century, so now that we can, and now that CFCs are proven to destroy ozone molecules, we should just ignore these recent findings, because, ya know, can't prove the ozone hole wasn't always there. Yup, just like 'its been warm in the past, therefore none of mankinds actions can have ANY effect whatsoever.'. Yup, now Im gonna sit back and watch me some more of dat 'Fox'news cause them dang liberals on CNN don't tell me what I want to hear.


Noone else would touch it. Perhaps you are smarter than all of them. The Wiki link I provided. Scientific evidence shows a decline in ozone starting in 1700, long before CFC or even instruments to measure ozone. Care to explain there craig?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> Wasn't liberal crybabies that made people quit burning whale blubber, it was entrepreneurial, free market capitalists. Same thing will probably happen with the ozone, if there are any free market capitalists left.


Just so there's no misunderstanding, regulating CFC's out of existence has fixed the ozone problem. The ozone layer is now repairing itself. So you see, regulation can fix problems sometimes.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

thericeguy said:


> .. The Wiki link I provided. Scientific evidence shows a decline in ozone starting in 1700, long before CFC or even instruments to measure ozone.


 Total ozone fluctuates, whether it rises or declines a few percentage points over a century timescale is irrelevant to the issue of industrial chemicals causing significant ozone loss.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

greg273 said:


> Total ozone fluctuates, whether it rises or declines a few percentage points over a century timescale is irrelevant to the issue of industrial chemicals causing significant ozone loss.


If rise and fall are natural, why is this change suddenly horrible, an indication of the end of life, planetary destruction, biblical end times. Why? Pls explain the difference. Also pls explain the consistent drop since 1700. Thank you craig.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Just so there's no misunderstanding, regulating CFC's out of existence has fixed the ozone problem. The ozone layer is now repairing itself. So you see, regulation can fix problems sometimes.


Pls compare this to any ozone hole present from 1800 to 1900. Science based on nothing is nothing. Are you capable of recognizing anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Pls compare this to any ozone hole present from 1800 to 1900. Science based on nothing is nothing. Are you capable of recognizing anecdotal evidence?


It wasn't just the hole. The entire ozone layer was thinner. The UV breakthrough was measurable.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> It wasn't just the hole. The entire ozone layer was thinner. The UV breakthrough was measurable.


And whst thickness was it 200 years ago? My wife hit a deer one time at 8:53 pm. I conclude deer are suicidal at 8:53. Anecdotal evidence. Small sample size. No control group. Massive unknowns. And you call it science. Shame on you.

It is an observation. Nothing more.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> And whst thickness was it 200 years ago? My wife hit a deer one time at 8:53 pm. I conclude deer are suicidal at 8:53. Anecdotal evidence. Small sample size. No control group. Massive unknowns. And you call it science. Shame on you.
> 
> It is an observation. Nothing more.


Irrelevant question. The ozone layer was diminishing, CFCS were casing it, and when we stopped making them, it went back to mostly normal. End of discussion. Stop rambling.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Irrelevant question. The ozone layer was diminishing, CFCS were casing it, and when we stopped making them, it went back to mostly normal. End of discussion. Stop rambling.


I dont think you have a scientific bone in your body. I dont think you know what science is past what other people tell you to repeat. You are unable to comprehend cause and effect. Now go cry to wr I hurt your inner child.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Hm. Maybe I won't Quote The Post in case it gets deleted. Again.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Hm. Maybe I won't Quote The Post in case it gets deleted. Again.


I will just repeat it with a new set of words that says you have no idea how scientific research happens, you just repeat what the news crews tell you, and do not understand critical thinking such as cause and effect. There, I already did. Whine away.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Repeat it all you want, it's the one thing you're good at.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> I will just repeat it with a new set of words that says you have no idea how scientific research happens, you just repeat what the news crews tell you, and do not understand critical thinking such as cause and effect. There, I already did. Whine away.


What exactly are you suggesting?

* Are you suggesting that CFCs don't react with ozone?
* Are you suggesting that the amount of damage CFCs do is minimal?
* Are you suggesting that the ozone layer wasn't damaged?
* Are you suggesting that something else damaged the ozone layer?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> What exactly are you suggesting?
> 
> * Are you suggesting that CFCs don't react with ozone?
> * Are you suggesting that the amount of damage CFCs do is minimal?
> ...


I am suggesting no scientist on this planet knows if the hole in the ozone id a standing phrnomena,since it was there at the first glance. I am saying that no scientist anywhere can say if the changes in CFC law are responsiblefor changesin the layer. Too small of a sample size. I am saying it is a great big unknown scientifically. 

Notice I did not say CFC did mot cause problems. You made that up and ascribed it to me. Notice I did not say we should not take action. You made that up and adcribed it to me. Notice I did not say climate change was untrue. You made that up smd ascribed to me. Notice I did not say pollution was wrong. In fact I said the opposite. You believed that because of your bias. The same bias that keeps you from seeing the flaws and gaping holes filled only by your emotions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

thericeguy said:


> I dont think you have a scientific bone in your body. I dont think you know what science is past what other people tell you to repeat. You are unable to comprehend cause and effect. Now go cry to wr I hurt your inner child.


 Listen to you! YOU are repeating something someone told you... and you show us this 'consisent drop since the 1700s'... I've seen the tree-ring proxies you appear to be hanging your 'scam' argument on (which are not actual measurements) and they do NOT show a 'consistent drop', its more of a gentle sine wave, something on the order of a few percentage points over centuries, not the actually measured approx. 5% drop per decade since the introduction of CFCs. Must be one heck of a coincidence.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

greg273 said:


> Listen to you! YOU are repeating something someone told you... and you show us this 'consisent drop since the 1700s'... I've seen the tree-ring proxies you appear to be hanging your 'scam' argument on (which are not actual measurements) and they do NOT show a 'consistent drop', its more of a gentle sine wave, something on the order of a few percentage points over centuries, not the actually measured approx. 5% drop per decade since the introduction of CFCs. Must be one heck of a coincidence.


Shall I point out I made no conclusion. That is the difference. You do not even know how I feel about global climate change beyond your own biased opinion grounded solely in ignorance, because I have not told you what I think. You argue conclusions oh enlightened one. I argue for the purity and integrity of science.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Well, it certainly is established fact that corporations can and do lie, for their own reasons, but the same is true in triple-spades of government.

"I am not a crook"........nixon
"I NEVER had sexual relations with that woman"......Clinton
"vast right-wing conspiricy".......Clinton
"If you like your doctor"..........Obama
"none of the emails were even confidentiol'......Clinton
"We do not have nor have we ever had troops in Cambodia"....;.Nixon
" Isis, the JV team, is on the run".........Obama
"Read my lips, NO new taxes".........Bush
"after legalizing those already here, we will close the border".......EVERYBODY

I could wear out my keyboard, but the fact is that government has even a more reliable tendency towards lying than industry, and an even larger money stake in promoting Chicken Little as an infallable oracle and soothsayer, plus a record going back decades of promoting anything that will lessen personal liberty and increase government control over.......EVERYTHING!

Absolutely NOTHING that has been predicted has come to pass, and will not. This is not a scientific movement, it is a political one, although some recognise it and some do not. I believe a lot of people actually do believe in it and also believe that it is a great danger, so I'm NOT accusing anybody who believes in it of duplicity, but I am stating that it is one more popular fantasy that appeals to folks who want to do the right thing, but has no bearing on reality.

Excuse me, i lost a tooth and have to go put it under my pillow so I can collect my quarter....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

By the way, after many years of recognition of the tooth fairy, scientists have discovered a second somewhat less benevolent creature known to those who study these phenomonon as the "toejamb fairy". If one does not clean out the toejamb between his toes before bedtime, the toejamb fairy will invade your bedroom, do it for you, then take a quarter out of your piggy bank......BEWARE!.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Shall I point out I made no conclusion. That is the difference. You do not even know how I feel about global climate change beyond your own biased opinion grounded solely in ignorance, because I have not told you what I think. You argue conclusions oh enlightened one. I argue for the purity and integrity of science. Go blow it somewhere


That's because you've been too busy bashing everyone for anyone to actually ask you any honest questions. I guess with your behavior, people just assume their breath is wasted. Why try to engage in normal conversation when they know you're just going to lob some rotten produce at them?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's because you've been too busy bashing everyone for anyone to actually ask you any honest questions. I guess with your behavior, people just assume their breath is wasted. Why try to engage in normal conversation when they know you're just going to lob some rotten produce at them?


Odd that, right? Could it have anything to do with people picking and choosing which tiny pieces of data to respond to, then summarize it with "you offered no proof. Consensus". You have become so disingenous in your words, you are barely worth typing to. You believe what you believe, and appear as scared as a child in a tiger pit to hear anything to the contrary, all the while thinking yourself enlightened, superior, caring, and noble. Dead scientists the world over are puking in their graves at what you call irrefutable unanimous evidence. Notice, again, I have not said your conclusion was wrong. Only that the method you arrived at it and the means by which you defend it are horribly innaccurate.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> People don't care where the power company gets the power it sells. Why should they? There's either going to be a demand for their power or there isn't. That's all that matters.


You seem to care, the people who vote authoritarians into office, hoping that they will crack down on the "evil" oil/power companies, care. They could easily take matters into their own hands, refuse to do business with the offending companies, convince others, and put a real hurting on the power/oil companies.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Just so there's no misunderstanding, regulating CFC's out of existence has fixed the ozone problem. The ozone layer is now repairing itself. So you see, regulation can fix problems sometimes.


If the people demand companies change, or, lose money, the companies will change. More often than not, governments jump on trends, already in motion, then take credit for the outcome to try and justify their existence.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> What the market wants is to be able to continue to burn dirty energy. This is clearly an unsustainable solution.


What the market wants is to make money. Convince enough people that your ideas are sound and the market will place solar panels on every roof and open field in the U.S. and oil/coal will go the way of the horse and buggy.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> We don't always have all of the data we'd like to have. You work with what you've got.


Understand completely. Last week I had to put a beam up but only had one wall up. But I had to work with what I had so it's the best I could do.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Now seriously, you really expect oil & power companies to follow a green example because it's the right thing to do?


Investor owned utilities in Texas invest 5% of net profits toward energy conservation measures in the private sector. Have since before 9/11. I used to help them spend their money. 

Quit because of politics.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> Understand completely. Last week I had to put a beam up but only had one wall up. But I had to work with what I had so it's the best I could do.


When the inspector got here be was skeptical. I told him not to worry I asked my crew, whom I consider peers, what they thought and they liked it too.

It's all good.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Surface ozone is considered a harmful greenhouse gas, created by dc motors, lightning and sunlight shining on some man-made products, and freon is heavier than air. Freon only becomes a problem when blown straight up by the wind where it can harm the "good" ozone. Is it possible that the greenfreaks actually harmed the planet by banning freon? Since it attacks, "bad" ozone near the surface? Or is "bad" ozone "good" by increasing surface temps, which lead to more thunder storms, which creates more "good" ozone? Hopefully, a volcano will come along, and spew out some CFCs to balance the foolish actions of humans and make them feel small and insignificant, as they truly are.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> What the market wants is to make money. Convince enough people that your ideas are sound and the market will place solar panels on every roof and open field in the U.S. and oil/coal will go the way of the horse and buggy.


Yes of course. I guess it's a similar debate I had with you over race rights. You thought it would happen naturally, and I thought the government kicking people in the teeth to stop discrimination was helpful. Discrimination to end discrimination, I know. And look where we are now? 60+ years later and we're heading back the way of the dodo as far as race relations.

So the point is, if we have enough evidence, why not switch to solar and wind now? We've got the tech. We'll keep some coal plants online for backup. Solar panels are the best but require large areas, so incentivize rooftop panels. Windmills kill birds, but not very many, so put mesh around them. 
We have solutions to everything. We're just not exploring them. Look at what happens to oil constantly. Oil spills devastate wild areas, effects lingering for years afterwards. Trains derail and spill oil and coal. Semis explode. I'm sure we've read about all that in the news. Transporting these things are costly and environmentally damaging in their own.



barnbilder said:


> Surface ozone is considered a harmful greenhouse gas, created by dc motors, lightning and sunlight shining on some man-made products, and freon is heavier than air. Freon only becomes a problem when blown straight up by the wind where it can harm the "good" ozone. Is it possible that the greenfreaks actually harmed the planet by banning freon? Since it attacks, "bad" ozone near the surface? Or is "bad" ozone "good" by increasing surface temps, which lead to more thunder storms, which creates more "good" ozone? Hopefully, a volcano will come along, and spew out some CFCs to balance the foolish actions of humans and make them feel small and insignificant, as they truly are.


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/TroposphericOzone.pdf

Yes, surface ozone is harmful. You have to realize that something that's harmful can be beneficial in the right spot. You breath air. It keeps you alive. If you insert air by accident into your blood vessels, it will harm you.

Also, you must also realize that air currents can move airborne pollutants all sorts of crazy places. 

You'll note the different radiative forcings caused by various GHGs in the first graph of the link.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> So the point is, if we have enough evidence, why not switch to solar and wind now? We've got the tech. We'll keep some coal plants online for backup. Solar panels are the best but require large areas, so incentivize rooftop panels.
> 
> 
> .


Source: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/pv-net-energy-040213.html

*If current rapid growth rates persist, by 2020 about 10 percent of the world's electricity could be produced by PV systems. At today's energy payback rate, producing and installing the new PV modules would consume around 9 percent of global electricity.* However, if the energy intensity of PV systems continues to drop at its current learning rate, then *by 2020 less than 2 percent of global electricity will be needed to sustain growth of the industry.*

So based on an IF, they see a net 1% in energy production globally. Let us not forget about all the pesky energy that goes into making them, installing them, or maintaining them. Its not the free energy some make it sound like.

Based on more IFS that produce technologies and processes no one even knows about yet, but IF they find those things, you get 8%. Gonna keep 2 backup coal plants? I think math says otherwise, but we argued a simple math problem for three days, right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Shall I point out I made no conclusion. That is the difference. You do not even know how I feel about global climate change beyond your own biased opinion grounded solely in ignorance, because I have not told you what I think. You argue conclusions oh enlightened one. I argue for the purity and integrity of science. Go blow it somewhere


I see what you're doing here. You say that since you think the data is inconclusive that we should do nothing. The problem with that is doing nothing is doing something. In fact, since it's contrary to mainstream science, it's doing something very bold.

Strange you don't apply that to the rest of your life. After all, proof of the existence of a deity is inconclusive. Why not suspend belief in God until we have conclusive proof?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes of course. I guess it's a similar debate I had with you over race rights. You thought it would happen naturally, and I thought the government kicking people in the teeth to stop discrimination was helpful. Discrimination to end discrimination, I know. And look where we are now? 60+ years later and we're heading back the way of the dodo as far as race relations.
> 
> So the point is, if we have enough evidence, why not switch to solar and wind now? We've got the tech. We'll keep some coal plants online for backup. Solar panels are the best but require large areas, so incentivize rooftop panels. Windmills kill birds, but not very many, so put mesh around them.
> We have solutions to everything. We're just not exploring them. Look at what happens to oil constantly. Oil spills devastate wild areas, effects lingering for years afterwards. Trains derail and spill oil and coal. Semis explode. I'm sure we've read about all that in the news. Transporting these things are costly and environmentally damaging in their own.
> ...


Government force breeds animosity. A return on investment breeds more investment and growth of the industry in question. You say we have solutions for everything, but, we are not exploring them, so, use your money to explore them. Convince others to use THEIR money to explore them, just don't empower government to steal my money to explore them.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I see what you're doing here. You say that since you think the data is inconclusive that we should do nothing. The problem with that is doing nothing is doing something. In fact, since it's contrary to mainstream science, it's doing something very bold.


So sorry, but the article uses industry data and paints a pretty rosey picture of what is happening. For the first time in its existence, solar has the possibility of paying back all the burned fossil fuel used to create the industry. Thats a pretty good achievement. 

What I did do was throw a dose of reality on uour celebration lap. At a realized net gain of 1%, you wont be shutting down any coal plants soon.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya we have only had 17 years now of COOLING, to the despair of the climate change fanatics./ I Love It. And yet another hoax perpetrated by the greenie people was that CFC's crap. In fact CFCs is absorbed by the *SEA* and* other water resources*. It cannot climb all the way up into the atmosphere and destroy the ozone layer. And yet lie that cost the American people millions in converting things and recapturing freon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> If current rapid growth rates persist, by 2020 about 10 percent of the world's electricity could be produced by PV systems.


That assumes conditions being constant, which I doubt. Solar PV panels contain a lot of silver, so what would happen if silver goes to several hundred dollars per ounce? The best payback is from grid-tie system, which require a grid. What technology will replace the grid? Can battery technology replace having a grid?

Growth rates for a technology like that are impossible to predict from current growth rates.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> That assumes conditions being constant, which I doubt. Solar PV panels contain a lot of silver, so what would happen if silver goes to several hundred dollars per ounce? The best payback is from grid-tie system, which require a grid. What technology will replace the grid? Can battery technology replace having a grid?
> 
> Growth rates for a technology like that are impossible to predict from current growth rates.


Exactly my point. At the moment the industry has a realized net energy profit of 1%. To rely upon more than that is analysis would be counting your chickens before they hatch. But we argued for a week about facts based on no data, right?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The CFC thing is a corporate sponsored political hoax, at best. Hairspray went out in the nineties. Not that hairspray could compete with volcanoes and sea sponges anyway.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

barnbilder said:


> The CFC thing is a corporate sponsored political hoax, at best. Hairspray went out in the nineties. Not that hairspray could *compete with volcanoes *and sea sponges anyway.


40 VOLCANOES ARE ERUPTING RIGHT NOW That is already above the yearly average. Course the Global warming, climate change, earth changes, whatever the newest catch phrase is today they do not even want to go into THAT area of thinking cause it would throw all their made up data out the window.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Seem some pretty neat stuff in my time. Quite a lot was just summary documentaries on tv. Show no longer exists. For example, a plant that used solar power to seperate H2O into its base elements. Now you can transport hydrogen, a dense energy source, to locations where energy is needed, burned, create power, and the byproduct is water. I sorta liked that idea. Wonder why there are none of those around? Politicians want money. Oil companies have money. I cant figure it out. 

Another fella designed a system where he shredded tires, used a heating chamber where he extracted the oil in the rubber to be used as heating oil. The steel was recycled. The rest was a fit material to be used in, wait for it, the making of tires. He said he needed $1 per tire support from the govt to make it work. Last tire you bought, how much disposal tax did you pay? Ever seen one of these plants? Why?

Pig farmers in one of the Asiatic countries. Maybe Taiwan. I forget. Manure was a problem going in rivers causing disease. Govt built a test unit. Water from a pump washed manure into tanks where methane was captured to run the pumps. Effluent then went into tanks where algae collected the nutrients. Upon depletion, the cleaned water went into the river. The algae got fed to the pigs to, wait for it, make manure. 

We go about this all wrong IMO.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That assumes conditions being constant, which I doubt. Solar PV panels contain a lot of silver, so what would happen if silver goes to several hundred dollars per ounce? The best payback is from grid-tie system, which require a grid. What technology will replace the grid? Can battery technology replace having a grid?
> 
> Growth rates for a technology like that are impossible to predict from current growth rates.


If silver goes up those that hold it will be very happy, huh?:icecream:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> If silver goes up those that hold it will be very happy, huh?:icecream:


That's the idea.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Seem some pretty neat stuff in my time. Quite a lot was just summary documentaries on tv. Show no longer exists. For example, a plant that used solar power to seperate H2O into its base elements.


I've never seen anything that can split water efficiently enough that it was worth doing.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I've never seen anything that can split water efficiently enough that it was worth doing.


Related to this conversation, early solar panels cost more energy than they produced in a lifetime. Good thing that didnt stop us. We now have a "free" 1% worldwide energy source.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Truce. See if you can figure out how this next little saying plays into all the threads; transgender, police brutality, global warming, welfare. 

The problem with a rat race is that, win or lose, you are still a rat.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Government force breeds animosity. A return on investment breeds more investment and growth of the industry in question. You say we have solutions for everything, but, we are not exploring them, so, use your money to explore them. Convince others to use THEIR money to explore them, just don't empower government to steal my money to explore them.


The government steals lots of money to finance projects. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the Purse. It's the people's responsibility to dictate where the money get's spent, or at least for Congress to act in accordance with the will of the people. It's just a disagreement of where the money should be spent.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I've never seen anything that can split water efficiently enough that it was worth doing.


Well, it's rather the point behind hydrogen cars. Currently the industry uses platinum catalysts to efficiently separate the H from the O, but as you can imagine this is very expensive. I read an article a long time ago about a synthetic catalyst that was more effective. Taking that into account, I don't know why we're not exploring the hydrogen car market more. Hydrogen vehicles could solve almost all of the transportation industries pollution problems.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, it's rather the point behind hydrogen cars. Currently the industry uses platinum catalysts to efficiently separate the H from the O, but as you can imagine this is very expensive. I read an article a long time ago about a synthetic catalyst that was more effective. Taking that into account, I don't know why we're not exploring the hydrogen car market more. Hydrogen vehicles could solve almost all of the transportation industries pollution problems.


The alternative to gasoline & Diesel powered cars is not to change fuels, but to migrate away from internal combustion engine technology altogether. Electric cars are now a reality, and both Tesla & Faraday are ramping up production.

I think the outlook for oil company products will look very different in 10 years. The development of electric cars will likely be as profound as the transition from horse & buggy to automobiles.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> The alternative to gasoline & Diesel powered cars is not to change fuels, but to migrate away from internal combustion engine technology altogether. Electric cars are now a reality, and both Tesla & Faraday are ramping up production.
> 
> I think the outlook for oil company products will look very different in 10 years. The development of electric cars will likely be as profound as the transition from horse & buggy to automobiles.


Just need more coal plants to charge the millions of cars. Perhaps an improvement, but no home run. Hows this for an idea. Stop shipping everything we buy from China. Make them here. Save freight fuel. Stop making it so I find a tomato from Mexico in the store. They grow here. Cucumbers from Canada. You get the idea. Too much freight. Its a decent start. Change the way we do things, not so much what we do it with.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I see what you're doing here. You say that since you think the data is inconclusive that we should do nothing. The problem with that is doing nothing is doing something. In fact, since it's contrary to mainstream science, it's doing something very bold.
> 
> Strange you don't apply that to the rest of your life. After all, proof of the existence of a deity is inconclusive. Why not suspend belief in God until we have conclusive proof?


Because God has not been definitavely and falsely telling me for decades that the world is about to end unless I get rid of my gas guzzler............

Sorry, I couldn't pass it up ....Joe


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

joebill said:


> Because God has not been definitavely and falsely telling me for decades that the world is about to end unless I get rid of my gas guzzler............
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't pass it up ....Joe


I ignored those words because they were not worthy of a response about them. All the conclusions made, all of them, were wrong. Driven by a biased opinion exactly as I said. No way a Christian who isnt falling at your feet while breaking their neck nodding in agreement with every word said could be on the same side of the issue just for different reasons. Why, to believe that could POSSIBLY be true would require at least 9 phd degrees. It just cant happen. Oops. It did.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

thericeguy said:


> *.*
> 
> So based on an IF, they see a net 1% in energy production globally. Let us not forget about all the pesky energy that goes into making them, installing them, or maintaining them. Its not the free energy some make it sound like.


 They are figuring in the cost of not only the materials and energy used to make the panels, but also the factories and infrastructure, a cost that goes down each year. Actual embodied energy payback' in a solar panel is closer to 2 years. Given the lifespan of PV panels are upwards of 20+ years, a solar panel will generate far more energy in its lifetime than it took to make. 

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

greg273 said:


> They are figuring in the cost of not only the materials and energy used to make the panels, but also the factories and infrastructure, a cost that goes down each year. Actual embodied energy payback' in a solar panel is closer to 2 years. Given the lifespan of PV panels are upwards of 20+ years, a solar panel will generate far more energy in its lifetime than it took to make.
> 
> http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf


Its come a long way. I do believe I stated that clearly. The technology was financed both in capital and energy through an extended net loss period. I am glad it was finally overcome. 

Tell me, to replace all the nuclear, gas, and coal fired generating plants, which millions of acres of habitat will be turn into solar generation? Just keep pumping them into the desert where noone looks?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

thericeguy said:


> Its come a long way. I do believe I stated that clearly. The technology was financed both in capital and energy through an extended net loss period. I am glad it was finally overcome.
> 
> Tell me, to replace all the nuclear, gas, and coal fired generating plants, which millions of acres of habitat will be turn into solar generation? Just keep pumping them into the desert where noone looks?


 Who said we had to replace ALL nuclear, gas and coal?? Thats not gonna happen anytime soon. As to where to put them, look up on your roof. See any sunlight hitting it? If yes, then its probably a good place to put a solar panel.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Mentioning that electric cars would replace modern conventional cars just like modern cars replaced the horse and buggy would be a much better analogy, if conventional automobiles required horses to wind up a giant spring over night.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

thericeguy said:


> Seem some pretty neat stuff in my time. Quite a lot was just summary documentaries on tv. Show no longer exists. For example, a plant that used solar power to seperate H2O into its base elements. Now you can transport hydrogen, a dense energy source, to locations where energy is needed, burned, create power, and the byproduct is water. I sorta liked that idea. Wonder why there are none of those around? Politicians want money. Oil companies have money. I cant figure it out.
> 
> Another fella designed a system where he shredded tires, used a heating chamber where he extracted the oil in the rubber to be used as heating oil. The steel was recycled. The rest was a fit material to be used in, wait for it, the making of tires. He said he needed $1 per tire support from the govt to make it work. Last tire you bought, how much disposal tax did you pay? Ever seen one of these plants? Why?
> 
> ...


I'll take a few of those questions;

First the hydrogen. I was one of the guys who made a hydrogenator, used an old toilet tank and carbon rods. Easy to make hydrogen, Oxygen, easy to blow the whole thing up, too, if you happen to switch polarity, plus it migrates through a lot of differfent tank materials, burns like gas, but you cannot see the flame, costs more to create than the energy it produces.

On the plus side, the combination of the two gasses makes a great big bang with only water used as fuel when you mess up. I never had so much fun failing at something!

Tires, a guy came to me about making a press to compact tires so you could haul more of them, but I do not make machines that rely on government whims for financing. Too many broken promises. When the politico has gotten the credit for cooking up something or supporting it and the next election is over with, it's out the door. The guy who wanted the press started collecting them and getting the buck a tire for it, then stacking them up into a mountain of tires the likes of which I have never seen. Never seemed to move any of them out. One fine day, they caught on fire, lots of theories about that, but I KNOW NOTHING!, and eleven YEARS later, they were still burning!

http://www.abqjournal.com/36734/tire-fire-has-been-burning-in-socorro-for-11-years.html

As far as I know, the only thing that survived was the disposal fee, and we still pay it today. i DO see some of them chipped up and used as mulch, but a tiny deal, overall. Once again, some politico likes it for a while, but no big advantage and if you work just as hard doing anything else, you'll make more money.

UMMMM....Next
They do raise some hogs in different places on grates with a vault underneath, or used to. Fed them stuff that made the pig poop liquid so they could pump it onto the fields as fertilizer. Vaults sprung leaks, pip poop in groundwater, and if you can get a germ directly into ground water without passing through a zone of areation first, it travels like it was riding a crotch rocket. Don't know if that is still done or not, but just raising hogs in the traditional way is a pretty good money maker, and the plant to do the other thing is not cheap.

I also had a guy who wanted me to build a machine to cut papercrete into cubes for building material. he had got a grant to build a mixer, which was the stupidest machine I ever saw built, and figured he could get me to do the bandsaw and mark it up for another grant. I turned that one down, too. I built usefull things for people who would use them, not unicorn traps for the whims of government grandstanders.

I have seen so many causes adopted by government folks, most of which never really happened, once they figured out that nobody was going to deal them in for the lion's share of the profits for getting the funding.

In short, if an idea seems like a winner, then go pursue it on your own. If there is no profit in it, it's never going to fly anyway, and any government money that goes into it is like a poison pill that dooms any practical plan from the beginning......Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Who said we had to replace ALL nuclear, gas and coal?? Thats not gonna happen anytime soon. As to where to put them, look up on your roof. See any sunlight hitting it? If yes, then its probably a good place to put a solar panel.


I'm slightly less skeptical of Solar than I have been in the past, but considerably more pessimistic than those who do the write-ups, because the whole story seldom gets told.

Unless one has a grid-tie system, one must figure in some VERY expensive batteries which do not last all that long. It's an ongoing expense, and my neighbor who had solar for about 15 years and who left me his property in his will also left me between 8 and 10 thousand POUNDS of scrap solar batteries he had bought over that time span. Another friend spends about as much on batteries as he would if he had power from the co-op, and all the while his panels are getting older and older.

Grid-tie is better by far, but far more expensive to hook up, and must include a utiltiy-grade inverter and isolation switches that do not come cheap or last forever, either.

I see giant solar farms around here, with the great big ol; wires running miles and miles across the desert to deliver the power to civilization and the big power substation that had to be put in.

Also, even grid-tie systems do not maintain themselves, despite popular hype. Get on some forums about them, and read about the guys repairing them and wiring past bad parts to get a bit more time out of the panels.

Just about everybody I know that has solar it is because they live off-grid and have no other options but generators and stuff, and they all have to keep generators around anyhow, for when they need extra power of the system is down. My friend called his place "where generators go to die". Solar is a way to live off-grid for those who want to not be too primitive, but anybody I know who has the option has power put in from the co-op.

I think we are a long way from net gain on solar, when everything, EVERYTHING is considered, but if we stopped demonizing that which we have already got plenty of, our bills would be a lot lower......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Battery tech has really been improving the last few years. Hybrid batteries generally last 150-200k miles before failing. That's really not too bad, considering all the other things that generally break on a car with high mileage. They can also be recycled. Of course. But mining the nickel is very bad for the environment. 

In other news, I'm not sure how I feel about carbon offsets. It has the feel of not really accomplishing a whole lot. 

I think the main problem is that the fossil fuel industry has been raking the gold for decades. There's been no reason to explore technologies. We can get rich off green energy just as well as coal and oil


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Hard to get rich off of something that is expensive and unreliable, when hydrocarbon deposits are so readily available. (Notice that I didn't express supposition by using the term "fossil fuels").


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Hard to get rich off of something that is expensive and unreliable, when hydrocarbon deposits are so readily available. (Notice that I didn't express supposition by using the term "fossil fuels").


Solar and wind are a fairly reliable option. Better battery tech will be needed to prevent blackouts, probably, or backup coal plants. Transportation is honestly trickier - putting giant batteries on a semi with only a 200 mile range is problematic at best.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

We're getting left in the dust on this stuff.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130...in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

https://www.rt.com/news/336116-japanese-electric-car-vehicle/

http://www.gizmag.com/dual-carbon-fast-charging-battery/32121/

http://www.sciencealert.com/world-f...-supercritical-steam-that-rivals-fossil-fuels


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> We're getting left in the dust on this stuff.
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130...in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
> 
> ...


We're ushering in a new age of innovation, energy and technology. Some will embrace the future -- others shall be left in their own dust.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's why I support an open discussion on the matter. banning anything they think doesn't support AGW will inevitably end with good science getting swept under the rug along with the garbage. Whether or not the science is solid, the school should support an open exchange of ideas.
> 
> That being said, I'd like to reiterate that almost all the science supports that humans are one of the major factors contributing to climate change.


Text books in the classroom is not the correct forum for debate. Text books should contain teach what is the most accepted theories not every theory out there. Those who continue their education in science will be exposed to all the theories as they become more equipt to add to the debate and and decide what is right.

Jim


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Getting back to the original topic... ordinarily I agree with open debate, but there are not always two reasonable sides of debate to every issue. Sometimes, there's a right side and a wrong side. This is the case with climate change and the lengths to which some have gone -- most notably, fossil fuels corporate interests -- to obscure the debate and create confusion by creating and employing misleading pseudo-science. 

I'm not at all surprised that Portland schools have taken a stand against this. It's one thing to have an honest debate based on good science on both sides of an issue. It's another to proactively mislead the public for corporate gain, thereby jeopardizing the public good -- as has been the case in the climate change debate.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Exxon's behavior in all this is criminal and I hope they are ultimately prosecuted for their misdeeds. Those crimes have cost us dearly, all in the name of protecting their corporate profits.

The science is largely settled on the issue, has been for years, and is accepted throughout the world without any serious disagreement. There may be some quibbles on minor specifics, but the overall evidence is overwhelming. We're so far behind because of what our fossil fuels corporations did to the debate here in the States. I applaud the Portland schools for taking a courageous stand against the misinformation campaign.

I mostly no longer debate this issue because I think we have won. The tipping point of scientific evidence was reached at last, culminating in the Paris climate accord. There is much work to be done, but that was a decent start. 

There will always be die-hard deniers sniping with the same old, tired, thoroughly-debunked arguments (Fred Singer, Oregon Petition, the "14-year cooling trend," etc.), but those voices are fewer and fewer. I'll bet that within 5-10 years, you'll have a hard time finding anyone who will admit they were once a denier. Kind of like people who will admit to having voted for Nixon.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

"Fossil fuels" is a term based on an assumption derived from 18th century science. Science, if practiced correctly, produces more questions than answers. If we are bitterly clinging to fossil theory, we are the same people that wanted Galileo thrown in jail. At the very least, we should admit that there is much that we don't understand. When we do understand more, and can make affordable and reliable energy that's not bubbling up from the depths, then fossil fuels will become as popular as whale blubber. Filling children's heads with theories preached as anything but just that, a theory, is not the path to that level of understanding.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> We're ushering in a new age of innovation, energy and technology. Some will embrace the future -- others shall be left in their own dust.


There's been a lot of new tech coming out on go fund me sites like solar highways and stuff. Pretty promising stuff too.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> "Fossil fuels" is a term based on an assumption derived from 18th century science. Science, if practiced correctly, produces more questions than answers. If we are bitterly clinging to fossil theory, we are the same people that wanted Galileo thrown in jail. At the very least, we should admit that there is much that we don't understand. When we do understand more, and can make affordable and reliable energy that's not bubbling up from the depths, then fossil fuels will become as popular as whale blubber. Filling children's heads with theories preached as anything but just that, a theory, is not the path to that level of understanding.


I don't understand. What's wrong with the terminology? It merely refers to fuels derived from ancient dinosaurs and ferns.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand. What's wrong with the terminology? It merely refers to fuels derived from ancient dinosaurs and ferns.


 I think he's hinting at the unproven fringe theory that petroleum doesn't derive from ancient plant life, but is being created all the time by 'abiogenesis'. Ya know, like a neverending oil well.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Getting back to the original topic... ordinarily I agree with open debate, but there are not always two reasonable sides of debate to every issue. Sometimes, there's a right side and a wrong side. This is the case with climate change and the lengths to which some have gone -- most notably, fossil fuels corporate interests -- to obscure the debate and create confusion by creating and employing misleading pseudo-science.
> 
> I'm not at all surprised that Portland schools have taken a stand against this. It's one thing to have an honest debate based on good science on both sides of an issue. It's another to proactively mislead the public for corporate gain, thereby jeopardizing the public good -- as has been the case in the climate change debate.
> 
> ...


As usual, a very well written post, and I completely agree. We need to move forward with action and a plan, instead of sitting back and complaining about scientific maligning. Even the skeptics here are either still using the same arguments, even though science has progressed another couple years and the earth is till getting hotter, or they're quieting down because they know they've been overturned.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> I think he's hinting at the unproven fringe theory that petroleum doesn't derive from ancient plant life, but is being created all the time by 'abiogenesis'. Ya know, like a neverending oil well.


I suppose chemistry wouldn't have anything to say about that?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

greg273 said:


> I think he's hinting at the unproven fringe theory that petroleum doesn't derive from ancient plant life, but is being created all the time by 'abiogenesis'. Ya know, like a neverending oil well.


Yeah, the theory that has never been discussed, because it would be heresy. After all, it was them gosh darned Nazis that discovered it. We are far too vain for that.

I mean, come on, a bunch of dinosaurs marched miles under ground and were deposited in vertical columns with coal on the top and oil under it. Plants and dinosaurs, that turned into coal, except for the leaves that somehow didn't turn yet and left their imprint in the coal seams. Coming from swampy jungles filled with life, even the deposits near the north pole, where the sun doesn't shine six months out of the year. Theory, nothing but theory, nobody was there.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The earth's orbit around the sun was once an unproven fringe theory. The one thing that is capable of separating myth from theory, is the one thing that man cannot create, and that is time. Technological advancements, like the telescope, take time. Want to prove planetary orbit theories, need to wait on the technology. Then wait for acceptance. Don't believe me? Then it should be no problem for you to ask Galileo.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Yeah, the theory that has never been discussed, because it would be heresy. After all, it was them gosh darned Nazis that discovered it. We are far too vain for that.
> 
> I mean, come on, a bunch of dinosaurs marched miles under ground and were deposited in vertical columns with coal on the top and oil under it. Plants and dinosaurs, that turned into coal, except for the leaves that somehow didn't turn yet and left their imprint in the coal seams. Coming from swampy jungles filled with life, even the deposits near the north pole, where the sun doesn't shine six months out of the year. Theory, nothing but theory, nobody was there.


Gravity is a theory too. Can't prove how it works. You might think you can, but it's all about space time distortions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> Yeah, the theory that has never been discussed, because it would be heresy. After all, it was them gosh darned Nazis that discovered it. We are far too vain for that.
> 
> I mean, come on, a bunch of dinosaurs marched miles under ground and were deposited in vertical columns with coal on the top and oil under it. Plants and dinosaurs, that turned into coal, except for the leaves that somehow didn't turn yet and left their imprint in the coal seams. Coming from swampy jungles filled with life, even the deposits near the north pole, where the sun doesn't shine six months out of the year. Theory, nothing but theory, nobody was there.


 You do know that continental drift means the polar regions, at least the continental crust, was once much closer to the equator, right?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

They would have to have been much closer to the equator, and in the form of a chasm many miles deep filled with dinosaurs to have enough carbon present to make some of the larger coal deposits. Some of the continents would have to have drifted quite far, as in outside of the earth's orbit, to account for the extra terrestrial hydrocarbon deposits that have been discovered. They would have had to have drifted quite recently, as well, to have incorporated the numerous human artifacts that have been found embedded in coal.

Gravity is nothing like the fossil theory. I can prove that gravity exists. Nobody can prove that coal comes from fossilized organic matter.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> They would have to have been much closer to the equator, and in the form of a chasm many miles deep filled with dinosaurs to have enough carbon present to make some of the larger coal deposits. Some of the continents would have to have drifted quite far, as in outside of the earth's orbit, to account for the extra terrestrial hydrocarbon deposits that have been discovered. They would have had to have drifted quite recently, as well, to have incorporated the numerous human artifacts that have been found embedded in coal.
> 
> Gravity is nothing like the fossil theory. I can prove that gravity exists. Nobody can prove that coal comes from fossilized organic matter.


Yeah. If a computer falls on your head ( it didn't, did it?) it proves gravity exists. Good luck explaining WHY it exists. Simply saying big stuff attracts other stuff is insulting to at least &#8531; of the US population. 
Anyways, your grasp of geology is absolutely frightening.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

You are the one with silly notions about a bunch of ferns turning into coal. That is even more frightening.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> You are the one with silly notions about a bunch of ferns turning into coal. That is even more frightening.


http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html

Oil = a bunch of dead stuff. Seems pretty basic to me. Maybe some of it was from abiogenesis.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html
> 
> Oil = a bunch of dead stuff. Seems pretty basic to me. Maybe some of it was from abiogenesis.


 Sure does, and there is nothing but good that comes out of it, OIL. That is good science.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> Nobody can prove that coal comes from fossilized organic matter.



Have you ever seen a coal deposit? There are literally plant impressions within the soft bituminous coal that underlies much of this area, there are outcrops in my creek I can walk to in 5 minutes. 
I hope this is not too offensive, but you're really spouting a bunch of nonsense on this subject. 
I find it amazing in this day and age, 2016, with the worlds largest repository of human knowledge literally at peoples fingertips, that I, a lowly carpenter, have to debate with someone whether coal comes from plants. Amazing and sad at the same time.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> They would have to have been much closer to the equator, and in the form of a chasm many miles deep filled with dinosaurs to have enough carbon present to make some of the larger coal deposits.


 Lol... please study some geology. No one ever claimed oil or coal was from 'piles of dinosaurs'. Its mostly ancient algae and plant life, according to people who make their living studying and extracting this stuff. 


> A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.
> "Even some of the dinosaurs may have gotten involved in some of this," says William Thomas, a geologists at the University of Kentucky. "[Although] I think it would be quite rare and a very small and insignificant contribution."


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Most geologists agree that the carbon present in "dead stuff" would have to be literally miles thick to have created some of the thickest coal deposits. Imagine, piles of algae the size of Mt. Everest. How does that happen? Maybe the plates shifted and all of the organic matter on Earth at that time got trapped between two of them.

I understand why you don't embrace abiotic theory. It has been shunned for many years, because the Nazis suggested it. So, therefore, it has not been on the table for scientific debate. Abiotic theory is much more plausible for explaining some deposits. Especially the deposits that NASA has discovered on Titan, among other places. 

Carbon, is a very common element, it would be hard to believe that there are not vast deposits of it deep within the earths core, given the common percentages that we are familiar with. Nobody has said that there is no fossil based hydrocarbon deposits, quite the contrary, but to completely dismiss the idea of abiotic hydrocarbons shows deep political and emotional overtones, clouding any grasp of objective science.

Belittling other people's grasp of geology, really doesn't do much to increase your credibility, when it is obvious that there vast gaps in understanding of this issue, at many levels.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> I understand why you don't embrace abiotic theory. It has been shunned for many years, because the Nazis suggested it. So, therefore, it has not been on the table for scientific debate. Abiotic theory is much more plausible for explaining some deposits. Especially the deposits that NASA has discovered on Titan, among other places.


The abiotic theory is widely accepted in the oil industry. The biogenic material present in petroleum is considered to be a contaminant, not the major constituent. Coal is another story.

We can surmise that coal is mature peat, and we see very thick deposits of peat.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> Most geologists agree that the carbon present in "dead stuff" would have to be literally miles thick to have created some of the thickest coal deposits. Imagine, piles of algae the size of Mt. Everest. How does that happen? Maybe the plates shifted and all of the organic matter on Earth at that time got trapped between two of them.


 It doesn't take 'piles the size of mount everest' to make coal seams. Most coal seams are seldom larger than 5 to 6 feet thick, which translates into roughly 35feet of uncompressed organic sediment.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Most geologists agree that the carbon present in "dead stuff" would have to be literally miles thick to have created some of the thickest coal deposits. Imagine, piles of algae the size of Mt. Everest. How does that happen? Maybe the plates shifted and all of the organic matter on Earth at that time got trapped between two of them.
> 
> I understand why you don't embrace abiotic theory. It has been shunned for many years, because the Nazis suggested it. So, therefore, it has not been on the table for scientific debate. Abiotic theory is much more plausible for explaining some deposits. Especially the deposits that NASA has discovered on Titan, among other places.
> 
> ...


I try to be open minded, so I'll bite. Where's the evidence for most oil being of abiotic origin?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I try to be open minded, so I'll bite. Where's the evidence for most oil being of abiotic origin?


A few things.

* Meteorites commonly contain iron carbide, which decomposes upon contact with water to produce propyne gas. The theory is that the earth also contained iron carbide and water reached it through deep crevices in the earth. The propyne was trapped and polymerized with time, producing heavier hydrocarbons.
* Oil tends to be found along geologic faults, like anticlines and along mountain ranges. That's where the proposed contact with water would logically occur. In other words, it's where we would expect it to be.
* The amount of petroleum produced to date is a lot more than would be expected from biogenic sources alone.
* Hydrocarbon from biogenic sources makes up a very small amount if petroleum. That suggests a non-biogenic source for a good portion of it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> A few things.
> 
> * Meteorites commonly contain iron carbide, which decomposes upon contact with water to produce propyne gas. The theory is that the earth also contained iron carbide and water reached it through deep crevices in the earth. The propyne was trapped and polymerized with time, producing heavier hydrocarbons.
> * Oil tends to be found along geologic faults, like anticlines and along mountain ranges. That's where the proposed contact with water would logically occur. In other words, it's where we would expect it to be.
> ...


Very interesting. I thought, being organic hydrocarbons, fossil fuels were obligated to come from living matter. It would almost support some people's theory that God gave us oil to burn on purpose.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Lol... please study some geology. No one ever claimed oil or coal was from 'piles of dinosaurs'. Its mostly ancient algae and plant life, according to people who make their living studying and extracting this stuff.


Actually somebody DID claim it. Sinclair Oil used a dinosaur as a mascot on their signs......named him Dino, as I recall. got a lot of "mileage" out of him, too.

Lots of stuff "everybody agreed on" back then, too, as I remember. Back then, the world was going to end when the Russians dropped the bomb, so we practiced hiding under our school desks.

Later, there was no question the the population bomb was going to get us before the ruskies did, and I saw a display in the Chicago museum of science and industry ( or maybe the natural history museum) that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Before that, and I was far to young and never heard about it until much later, many reputable scientists were telling Fineman and the rest of them that the detonation of a nuclear bomb would explode the universe. Glad we didn't know about that before it didn't happen.

Of course, you really can't be reading this, because I am only a ghost, killed in my mid-thirties by all of the asbestos dust I breathed while replacing car brakes and the pack and a half of smokes I have consumed daily for around 55 years.

I was also very concerned when I learned that HIV was mutating and would soon be able to transmit itself through the air and kill us all, but aparently it mutated backwards and spared us. Very considerate of that bug, wouldn't you say?

I rate all of the above about the same as I rate my great uncle Cordy shaking his finger in my mother's face and telling her that the sputnic would be the death of us all, because if God had intended us to visit heaven before our time, he would have sent us there himself.

Every generation is the smartest ever born. Just ask them/us......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Actually somebody DID claim it. Sinclair Oil used a dinosaur as a mascot on their signs......named him Dino, as I recall. got a lot of "mileage" out of him, too.
> 
> Lots of stuff "everybody agreed on" back then, too, as I remember. Back then, the world was going to end when the Russians dropped the bomb, so we practiced hiding under our school desks.
> 
> ...


Great thing about science, though, is that is does progress. If someone comes out with a study that shows all the weather data is incorrect and that CO2 is actually being vented out into the atmosphere, kaphooey there goes the theooey. (Dang it, that really didn't rhyme.)


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Do you actually think it would make the news at this particular point in time, if the science behind such an emotionally charged topic was found to be lacking?

Here is some reading. Always good to read, no matter your feelings on the subject.
http://principia-scientific.org/rus...ossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

This one has pictures. Check out the those coal seams. That is a lot of peat.
http://unconventionalgeology.blogspot.com/2012/01/origin-of-black-coal.html

More reading.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/

Then you have Eugene Island to consider. How does an oil well restock itself?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I haven't read all, but here's a rebuttal to the first link:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-07-05/peak-oil-debate

You might need to wade through some actual, calm logic to get to the answers you like instead of finding a cherry picked, emotionally charged article showing only your side of the debate. 

What does it prove if oil can be abioticly procured, which may be true under certain circumstances? It's like like we can wait for oil to magically appear.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joebill said:


> Actually somebody DID claim it. Sinclair Oil used a dinosaur as a mascot on their signs......named him Dino, as I recall. got a lot of "mileage" out of him, too.


Yeah, it was a common myth, even long after scientists knew better. But if you listen carefully to the following commercial clip you'll note that they kept it truthful, although it was somewhat misleading. The commercial didn't say that petroleum came from dinosaurs, the commercial said the dinosaurs "became part of a layer of organic material." Strictly speaking that's true, since crude oil is unquestionably tainted with a small amount of material that came from living creatures.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gei3gpG2IYU[/ame]


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I haven't read all, but here's a rebuttal to the first link:
> 
> http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-07-05/peak-oil-debate
> 
> ...


I wasn't really trying to enter into the peak oil debate, just using that link as a reference to the Russian acceptance of abiogenic theory. That theory would factor in to the peak oil debate though. If oil is constantly forming, refilling reserves, while procurement technology is advancing, fuel efficiency technology is definitely advancing, maybe, we can hold off until alternative energy technology advances a little. Without the chicken little theatrics and extra taxes. Right now alternative transportation technology looks like it is relying on batteries made from petroleum products and metals rarer than petroleum charged with petroleum generated energy. 

Maybe we should look into sequestering carbon in hemp, and developing hemp oil diesel technology, but you have the whole Dupont funded "reefer madness" conspiracy theory to unravel first.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Very interesting. I thought, being organic hydrocarbons, fossil fuels were obligated to come from living matter. It would almost support some people's theory that God gave us oil to burn on purpose.


Very long article, but it may answer some of your questions...

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oila-creationist-answer/

That puts a neat little twist into what we allow to be taught in schools, huh?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I have no thoughts on where it comes from, only that they have been telling me we are at peak pumping since the 1950's, with a few pinches coming when folks thought we neeeded them like in the 70's.

Also, every time they go looking for a thimble full, they find a lake of it, it seems. Everything I hear says we have a LOT of oil, and the weak economy is reducing demand, and prices seem to indicate that's true.

When/if it truly DOES start running short, believe me, there will be no question about it.....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Very long article, but it may answer some of your questions...
> 
> https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oila-creationist-answer/
> 
> That puts a neat little twist into what we allow to be taught in schools, huh?


 If you have to twist and stretch the facts that much to make it fit the 'young earth scenario', then perhaps its the scenario that needs changed, not the facts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joebill said:


> I have no thoughts on where it comes from, only that they have been telling me we are at peak pumping since the 1950's, with a few pinches coming when folks thought we neeeded them like in the 70's.
> 
> Also, every time they go looking for a thimble full, they find a lake of it, it seems. Everything I hear says we have a LOT of oil, and the weak economy is reducing demand, and prices seem to indicate that's true.
> 
> When/if it truly DOES start running short, believe me, there will be no question about it.....Joe


We're not going to use up all the oil. I expect oil demand to take a serious hit in the next decade. The Saudis know this too. That's why they're so committed to driving US producers out of business with low oil prices. The Saudis would rather get $20/barrel today than get stuck with it in the ground with no market.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> If you have to twist and stretch the facts that much to make it fit the 'young earth scenario', then perhaps its the scenario that needs changed, not the facts.


You apparently like to print lies about me as well.
Maybe you and Bearfoot can start your own club.
:heh:

I'll go ahead and make the correction as the moderators will not do it.

I do NOT believe in the young earth theory, nor did the link I posted.
It was the age of the *petroleum deposits* that was the subject discussed NOT THE AGE OF THE ENTIRE EARTH!!!

I know the reason people like you distort the facts. It's an attempt to make believers in the truth look foolish.
We have been foretold of this for a long time now and know from whom these lies originate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I do NOT believe in the young earth theory, nor did the link I posted.
> It was the age of the *petroleum deposits* that was the subject discussed NOT THE AGE OF THE ENTIRE EARTH!!!


Was the proposed age of petroleum deposits in the link consistent with the young earth theory?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Very long article, but it may answer some of your questions...
> 
> https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oila-creationist-answer/
> 
> That puts a neat little twist into what we allow to be taught in schools, huh?


As with most AIG stuff, this takes a whole lot of conjecture and guesses and spins a theory out of it. Spontaneous oil production would encourage one to believe God had something to do with it, but only if they were searching for the evidences deliberately.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> As with most AIG stuff, this takes a whole lot of conjecture and guesses and spins a theory out of it.


They spin a hypothesis out of it, not a theory. A hypothesis has to stand the test of peer review before being considered a theory.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> They spin a hypothesis out of it, not a theory. A hypothesis has to stand the test of peer review before being considered a theory.


Sure, sure. I was referring to the idea that maybe God put it there.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Was the proposed* age of petroleum deposits in the link* consistent with the young earth theory?



Only if you read the link AND the Bible ignorantly.
I have explained this many, many times.

Technically the answer is YES, 6,000 years..........But neither the link nor the Bible says the EARTH is 6,000 years old.
Only the ignorant or those intentionally trying to discredit with deception, say that.
Read the book of Job sometime to hear what God actually said about the age of the earth.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sure, sure. I was referring to the idea that maybe God put it there.


And the facts discovered by the scientists, some of atheists?
Are they now NOT facts and irrelevant?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> And the facts discovered by the scientists, some of atheists?
> Are they now NOT facts and irrelevant?


Which facts point to God putting the oil there?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Which facts point to God putting the oil there?


I'll use one of BFF's lines.......

I'm not going to post it again, scroll back and read it yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You apparently like to print* lies about me* as well.
> Maybe you and Bearfoot can start your own club.
> :heh:
> 
> ...


*Show* the "lies" I (or anyone else) told about you

Be specific and provide links along with your proof it's a "lie".

You've played this game before and never provided anything but melodrama.

Maybe you should start a new thread about your endless "persecution" so as to not get another one locked down


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Go ask Google MOMMY.
> 
> * I do not speak to people like you anymore*.


I didn't realize you were also a prophet
How's that working out for you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> You apparently like to print lies about me as well.
> Maybe you and Bearfoot can start your own club.
> :heh:
> 
> I'll go ahead and make the correction as the moderators will not do it.


Maybe not, but I suspect that the mods will be talking to you if you don't learn to play nicer with others. The general code of conduct around here is pretty simple; treat others with respect. That includes people with whom you disagree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> *I do NOT believe in the young earth theory, nor did the link I posted.*
> It was the age of the petroleum deposits that was the subject discussed NOT THE AGE OF THE ENTIRE EARTH!!!


Then why did they feel a *"need" *to come up with a third explanation of the origin of oil that *fits *the "young-earth scenario"?



> This suggests that a third alternative is needed, especially as neither model fits into a young-earth scenario.


Why would they even think to *mention* something they "don't believe in"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
> Which facts point to God putting the oil there?





> Originally Posted by farmrbrown
> I'll use one of BFF's lines.....
> I'm not going to post it again, scroll back and read it yourself.


I went back and read it all, and didn't see any "facts" that point to god making oil.
I just saw a bunch of talk about some theories that your source made up to push their agenda


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

God is an irrelevant part of this argument. God made fossils, God made mineral deposits, there is no difference. The fact is, that abiotic oil production is a theory, and a quite plausible one. Russians embrace it, and they are a world superpower in oil production. We might not be for long, if we listen to a bunch of old hippies, politicians with alternative energy ponzi schemes up their sleeve, and lefty movie stars all working in lockstep to spread 'chicken little' rhetoric. We will starve and decay, while Russia pumps oil to feed to China, who will gladly take up our slack polluting the world and making money doing it. It's almost as if some of the genius hippies don't realize that our air and China's air is the same air.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll use one of BFF's lines.......
> 
> I'm not going to post it again, scroll back and read it yourself.


I find the topic fascinating, but I'm not inclined to read a tome of an article just to debate your assertion.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Here y' go!

http://www.odorfreemachines.com/?gc...t8eIjgVw_bCj5YbV4DR3cxeiYcw2CXNByiBoC6Sfw_wcB

Just what the environment ordered! 

They used to have a thing like that in automotive garages that they claimed would keep carbon monoxide from killing you. I think some of them were as old as the oldest automobiles, and still got plugged in daily....Joe


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> As with most AIG stuff, this takes a whole lot of conjecture and guesses and spins a theory out of it. Spontaneous oil production would encourage one to believe God had something to do with it, but only if they were searching for the evidences deliberately.


Well, that's what is said about a lot of scientific research.
You can believe it was sincere or you can believe it had a subversive motivation.
:shrug:



Heritagefarm said:


> Which facts point to God putting the oil there?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Then why did they feel a *"need" *to come up with a third explanation of the origin of oil that *fits *the "young-earth scenario"?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they even think to *mention* something they "don't believe in"?




Ok.
Yes, there was an argument made at the end, in favor of a young earth theory.
The original question was about organic vs. inorganic origins of petroleum, which even Nevada concurs.
I found an extensive article detailing the science and chemistry offering the evidence of timelines and inorganic processes, which was the question of interest.
If you chose to focus on the 2% versus the 98% of the paper, have at it.




Heritagefarm said:


> I find the topic fascinating, but I'm not inclined to read a tome of an article just to debate your assertion.



I realize that, and I should have been more polite and said, "Scroll to the bottom of the link and read the last few sections."
My skin has been worn thin lately by some acidic remarks by others, so I would like to offer my apologies.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

You don't need a fancy machine to make ozone. If we could generate enough greenhouse gasses to warm the earth a little, there would be more thunderstorms. Lightning creates ozone, for free. We could drive muscle cars and fix the ozone at the same time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Maybe not, but I suspect that the mods will be talking to you if you don't learn to play nicer with others. The general code of conduct around here is pretty simple; treat others with respect. That includes people with whom you disagree.


Yeah, if that conversation hadn't already taken place, I'd agree with you.
I have no trouble playing "nice" or playing by any other rules, I just had to clarify what those rules were, that's all.
That's done.
Looking at the posts above yours, I'm surprised you would even go there.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, that's what is said about a lot of scientific research.
> You can believe it was sincere or you can believe it had a subversive motivation.
> :shrug:
> 
> ...


Okay, so i did read the last few parts, so here's my objection to their conclusion:
It is indeed an interesting proposition, and if God exists, it's not unlikely he also created oil. (although that feels like an excuse to continue burning fuel, which is wrong.) 
What I have a problem with, however, if that they're using the flood to explain the reallocation of oil reservoirs. The evidence for a global flood is sketchy at best, simply bad science as worst. Plenty of folk lore tales tell of global flooding - but then, they tell of many things. 

So, if their argument is that the flood caused the relocation of oil reservoirs, I reject that claim on the basis of not enough evidence of flooding. (i.e., lack of evidence.)



barnbilder said:


> You don't need a fancy machine to make ozone. If we could generate enough greenhouse gasses to warm the earth a little, there would be more thunderstorms. Lightning creates ozone, for free. We could drive muscle cars and fix the ozone at the same time.


Ive always been fond of McLarens.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I neither accept nor reject the concept of global flooding as is described in the Bible, but it sure is a part of a lot of cultures and religions other than Christianity. I guess my reaction is "hard to make this stuff up so in many times and places" plus the vast areas that have been underwater at some time that are nearly impossible to flood today.

Again, that's not an argument, just an observation......Joe


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joebill said:


> I neither accept nor reject the concept of global flooding as is described in the Bible


It's easy enough to reject. I can accept that the entire world was flooded, if that means the entire world as people knew it then (maybe a large area of the middle east). But flooding the entire earth? There just isn't enough water.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It's easy enough to reject. I can accept that the entire world was flooded, if that means the entire world as people knew it then (maybe a large area of the middle east). But flooding the entire earth? There just isn't enough water.


Maybe there is enough water - just stuck in a rather odd locale.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface



> The water is locked up in a mineral called ringwoodite about 660km (400 miles) beneath the crust of the Earth, researchers say. Geophysicist Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University in the US co-authored the study published in the journal Science and said the discovery suggested Earthâs water may have come from within, driven to the surface by geological activity, rather than being deposited by icy comets hitting the forming planet as held by the prevailing theories.


I'm guessing that may be enough water to flood the surface. Maybe God stuck it there after the flood?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Sure there is enough water to flood the entire earth. Just wait 'til those polar icecaps melt on account of that dadgum climate change. When the polar bears jump in it will displace it.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Considering how simple the formula is and how much of both elements we have on hand, are we intimating that the water inventory has been stable since the beginning?....Joe


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe there is enough water - just stuck in a rather odd locale.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/science...underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface


It's not really water.

_The water is present only as single oxygen and hydrogen atoms (âOH) bonded to the most common mineral in the Earth's mantle: olivine, a ferromagnesian silicate named after its characteristic color. If mantle rocks containing ringwoodite sink below the transition zone, the ringwoodite breaks down into its constituent parts: olivine and water. *Despite that the concentration of water is never high enough to make droplets of liquid water*_
http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2014/06/earths-underground-ocean-no-remnant-of.html


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It's not really water.
> 
> _The water is present only as single oxygen and hydrogen atoms (âOH) bonded to the most common mineral in the Earth's mantle: olivine, a ferromagnesian silicate named after its characteristic color. If mantle rocks containing ringwoodite sink below the transition zone, the ringwoodite breaks down into its constituent parts: olivine and water. *Despite that the concentration of water is never high enough to make droplets of liquid water*_
> http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2014/06/earths-underground-ocean-no-remnant-of.html


Hmm... Yes, that would prove problematic. The great thing about believing God did it is that you can pull the wild card of "Well, I'm sure he did that too."


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> The earth's orbit around the sun was once an unproven fringe theory. The one thing that is capable of separating myth from theory, is the one thing that man cannot create, and that is time. Technological advancements, like the telescope, take time. Want to prove planetary orbit theories, need to wait on the technology. Then wait for acceptance. Don't believe me? Then it should be no problem for you to ask Galileo.


 While we wait we have two options. We can proceed as if climate change is real and try to improve our technology to keep the planet cleaner or we can continue doing what we have been doing and the planet gets more polluted. 

What is the down side to a cleaner planet with renewable energy?

Jim


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> It's not really water.
> 
> _The water is present only as single oxygen and hydrogen atoms (&#8211;OH) bonded to the most common mineral in the Earth's mantle: olivine, a ferromagnesian silicate named after its characteristic color. If mantle rocks containing ringwoodite sink below the transition zone, the ringwoodite breaks down into its constituent parts: olivine and water. *Despite that the concentration of water is never high enough to make droplets of liquid water*_
> http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2014/06/earths-underground-ocean-no-remnant-of.html


Speaking of water why do we not build hydro plants much anymore? 

Don't say its because of fish because the dams are already there to stop them from migrating. More of those are being built yearly so why not just make them hydro instead?

I ask you because you are the hydraulic expert on here and would probably know better than anyone else on here.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> You apparently like to print lies about me as well.
> Maybe you and Bearfoot can start your own club.
> :heh:
> 
> ...


 No need to play the 'persecuted Christian card' again... and calling someones posts 'Lies from the pit of hell' isn't too neighborly either, but apparently thats your take. 
Anyway, YOU posted a link that included 'young earth' material, so pardon me if I took that to mean you endorsed that particular notion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> Speaking of water why do we not build hydro plants much anymore?
> 
> Don't say its because of fish because the dams are already there to stop them from migrating. More of those are being built yearly so why not just make them hydro instead?
> 
> I ask you because you are the hydraulic expert on here and would probably know better than anyone else on here.


If there's a dam it should have a electrical-dam widget attached to it to generate some dam electricity. What? I haven't said a single swear word.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> No need to play the 'persecuted Christian card' again... and calling someones posts 'Lies from the pit of hell' isn't too neighborly either, but apparently thats your take.
> Anyway, YOU posted a link that included 'young earth' material, so pardon me if I took that to mean you endorsed that particular notion.


I did, and I explained the reason why I did.
But as to the young earth theory question, I answered that already .............in another thread.



farmrbrown said:


> I would never tell you that.
> It's both unscientific an unbiblical.
> 
> I know where and how that idea came about, and I am sorry some of my brothers and sisters were led astray by not reading carefully enough.
> But nowhere does God say the earth is only 6,000 years old, in fact he tells a very different story.......





greg273 said:


> Aside from your faith in Jesus and his divine nature, what is your view on the origin and evolution of the universe? Do you subscribe to the 'young earth' theory?





farmrbrown said:


> As you can see from the quotes from a few pages ago, I already answered you once.
> The answer is the same.
> No, I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
> I do believe it was created by God billions of years ago.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> If there's a dam it should have a electrical-dam widget attached to it to generate some dam electricity. What? I haven't said a single swear word.


I'm fairly sure (somewhat sure anyway) that the last hydro here in Texas was built in the '70's. Its a big state with lots of rivers so WHY?

We finished a new dam last few years in our county and no power generator at all there. I think Cedar Creek was the last one and before that was Sam Rayburn lake after the old speaker of the house under LBJ. 


I hope I am wrong about that but don't think so.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Speaking of water why do we not build hydro plants much anymore?
> 
> Don't say its because of fish because the dams are already there to stop them from migrating. More of those are being built yearly so why not just make them hydro instead?
> 
> I ask you because you are the hydraulic expert on here and would probably know better than anyone else on here.


You don't want to hear it, but it's the fish. The dams nearly destroyed our salmon fishing industry here in the PNW. Dams had to be extensively retrofitted with fish ladders and other modifications to accommodate the salmon runs. So before you blame the "dang environmentalists," remember that the fishing industry here would have collapsed without their intervention.

Further, more recent studies reveal a complex relationship between salmon and the forests further inland. Turns out the salmon carry food to the trees they wouldn't otherwise have access to. Cutting off the salmon access created collapses in other important environmental relationships which we are only just beginning to grasp.

Two of our biggest industries, fishing and timber, were at risk because of dams. We won't be building any more of them, even though water here is abundant. Many are being removed as their power generation is replaced with wind and solar. Industry and environmentalists are in agreement with this goal here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, that's what is said about a lot of scientific research.
> You can believe it was sincere or you can believe it had a subversive motivation.
> :shrug:
> 
> ...


By others, huh?

Son of Satan, liars, ignorant, deceivers, line of Cain, using the bible to insult people ...That wasn't "others". :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Speaking of water *why do we not build hydro plants much anymore? *
> 
> Don't say its because of fish because the dams are already there to stop them from migrating. More of those are being built yearly so why not just make them hydro instead?
> 
> I ask you because you are the hydraulic expert on here and would probably know better than anyone else on here.


Whose land to you want to take and flood?
Which scenic rivers and streams do you want to destroy forever?

When lots of people had *no* electricity and no jobs, building dams was a great idea. Also the US population was *much* lower.

Now that there are sources of power that use less real estate, they are the preferred options


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> You don't want to hear it, but it's the fish. The dams nearly destroyed our salmon fishing industry here in the PNW. Dams had to be extensively retrofitted with fish ladders and other modifications to accommodate the salmon runs. So before you blame the "dang environmentalists," remember that the fishing industry here would have collapsed without their intervention.
> 
> Further, more recent studies reveal a complex relationship between salmon and the forests further inland. Turns out the salmon carry food to the trees they wouldn't otherwise have access to. Cutting off the salmon access created collapses in other important environmental relationships which we are only just beginning to grasp.
> 
> Two of our biggest industries, fishing and timber, were at risk because of dams. We won't be building any more of them, even though water here is abundant. Many are being removed as their power generation is replaced with wind and solar. Industry and environmentalists are in agreement with this goal here.


Yeah, I've visited the big electric plant there outside of Portland. The fish ladder is pretty neat, what with all the flopping, jumping salmon.

However, I think what mreynolds was getting at was why not attach hydro to any new dams we build? It seems a fair question. I imagine there are a few dams sitting around with their potential energy being wasted. Not that I'm in favor of flooding people out of their homes and making life hard for the fish.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yeah, I've visited the big electric plant there outside of Portland. The fish ladder is pretty neat, what with all the flopping, jumping salmon.
> 
> However, I think what mreynolds was getting at was why not attach hydro to any new dams we build? It seems a fair question. I imagine there are a few dams sitting around with their potential energy being wasted. Not that I'm in favor of flooding people out of their homes and making life hard for the fish.


Yes, that's exactly it. Why not even build a generating plant _in front_ of existing dams?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Whose land to you want to take and flood?
> Which scenic rivers and streams do you want to destroy forever?


Ah yes, you found me out. Its my evil plot to destroy mankind. 007 just hasn't caught up to me yet. 

No Bear. I am talking about existing dams and dams that are slated to be built. I hate to break it to you but water is getting scarce so TPTB will continue to build dams. There is much money to be made for a few that control the water in the next 50 years. Ask T. Boone Pickens why he is buying al those water rights. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/t-boone-pickens-a-water-baron-for-the-21st-century/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Ah yes, you found me out. Its my evil plot to destroy mankind. 007 just hasn't caught up to me yet.
> 
> No Bear. *I am talking about existing dams* and dams that are slated to be built. I hate to break it to you but water is getting scarce so TPTB will continue to build dams. There is much money to be made for a few that control the water in the next 50 years. Ask T. Boone Pickens why he is buying al those water rights.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/t-boone-pickens-a-water-baron-for-the-21st-century/


I don't see where you specified "existing dams" only.



> Speaking of water *why do we not build hydro plants* much anymore?
> 
> Don't say its because of fish because the dams are already there to stop them from migrating. More of those are *being built yearly* so why not just make them hydro instead?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't see where you specified "existing dams" only.


I thought it was reasonably implicit.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

There are people in this world that only see the problems and delight in arguing, and there are people that can see the solutions and intelligently discuss them.
Discerning the difference isn't difficult.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I recall seeing a sketch of the world's first hydroelectric plant, which was a stern-wheeler tied to a bridge and floating downstream of the bridge, the current turning the wheel. Generator hooked up to wheel.

Pretty simple stuff. Also, whatever happened to tidal generators, with the paddle wheels across a coastal inlet?

Seems to me that hydroelectric would be far superior for a lot of reason, to solar and wind. Smaller, more numeerous but less intrusive plants would be a piece of cake compared to a solar farm, where nearly every component has to be ferried halfway acros the continint on "oversize load" rigs, including, often, the crane to put them together.

1. bodies of water tend to be nearer population centers than the vast land areas required for solar and wind farms, less power transmission required.

2. water being the heavier and more viscous medium, smaller rotors required, plus fewer complications related to hundred foot towers.

I don't claim to have a sharp enough pencil to tally cost/benifit on either type system, but from what I have seen of those farms, located near the dead center of nowhere at all, it would take a lot of costs to NOT do better with hydro.....Joe


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't see where you specified "existing dams" only.


Why, by golly you are right. I didn't mention existing dams only. 

Where could I have gone wrong?

I misplaced something somewhere I guess. 


Oh you bolded the part about the dams being built yearly right? So you did understand. You are just pulling my leg right? 

Why do we not make those being built right *now* hydroelectric? The ones planned for next year? the next decade? 

You know the ones I mean. The ones already slated to displace all those people and flood the area. 

My plan is working and 007 will never catch me.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

joebill said:


> I recall seeing a sketch of the world's first hydroelectric plant, which was a stern-wheeler tied to a bridge and floating downstream of the bridge, the current turning the wheel. Generator hooked up to wheel.
> 
> Pretty simple stuff. Also, whatever happened to tidal generators, with the paddle wheels across a coastal inlet?
> 
> ...


I know next to nothing about hydro. That's why I hoped Nevada may have some input in this topic. But I do know that we have had one that has been supplying my city since the '60's. Good fishing on both sides of the dam too. Of course we don't have salmon either. Water wheels were good enough before electricity to grind corn meal and thousands of other stuff too. Its an ancient tech in regards to todays solar, nuclear and even coal.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Yeah, I understand the old stern-wheeler wasn't a great dyno, but at least they didn't have to worry about ecoterrorists cutting the anchor rope.....  ....Joe


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

*mreynolds*, your questions made me curious about this so I did a little research to learn the varying points of view. After reading in more than a few places, this article sums it up pretty well in an even-handed way, I think. Basically, the economics no longer make much sense, and where they do, hydro has already been put into use.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/americas-hydropower-future_b_1749182.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> There are people in this world that only see the problems and delight in arguing, and there are people that can see the solutions and intelligently discuss them.
> *Discerning the difference isn't difficult*.


I'm still waiting for your evidence of the "lies" I've told about you.
I suspect you won't make any attempt at backing up those claims.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Why, by golly you are right. I didn't mention existing dams only.
> 
> Where could I have gone wrong?
> 
> ...


How do you know they won't?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> *mreynolds*, your questions made me curious about this so I did a little research to learn the varying points of view. After reading in more than a few places, this article sums it up pretty well in an even-handed way, I think. Basically, the economics no longer make much sense, and where they do, hydro has already been put into use.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/americas-hydropower-future_b_1749182.html


Interesting. Thanks


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How do you know they won't?


Well, the ones I *know* about aren't slated to have them built. 


How do you know they will?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The reason we aren't doing more hydro is simple. Hydro works, and it's dependable. Do you honestly think that a bunch of corrupt politicians and ponzi scheming alternative energy CEOs want to SOLVE the climate/energy crisis? What would they do for money in a few years?

This is why they are doing the wind and solar. Huge components, made from petroleum, with components made in Chinese factories belching coal smoke, so they can exacerbate the problem, but never solve it."We were this close, only a few more billion."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> The reason we aren't doing more hydro is simple. Hydro works, and it's dependable. Do you honestly think that a bunch of corrupt politicians and ponzi scheming alternative energy CEOs want to SOLVE the climate/energy crisis? What would they do for money in a few years?
> 
> This is why they are doing the wind and solar. Huge components, made from petroleum, with components made in Chinese factories belching coal smoke, so they can exacerbate the problem, but never solve it."We were this close, only a few more billion."


It would help if the public encouraged real action on climate change instead of bickering about what they think the scientists think.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> The reason we aren't doing more hydro is simple. Hydro works, and it's dependable. Do you honestly think that a bunch of corrupt politicians and ponzi scheming alternative energy CEOs want to SOLVE the climate/energy crisis? What would they do for money in a few years?
> 
> This is why they are doing the wind and solar. Huge components, made from petroleum, with components made in Chinese factories belching coal smoke, so they can exacerbate the problem, but never solve it."We were this close, only a few more billion."


Pity, I can only find one "LIKE" button...Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> It would help if the public encouraged real action on climate change instead of bickering about what they think the scientists think.


I have to take their word, pro AND con, as to what they think, according to what they have written. Please show me where one of them claims we can reverse it by doing what you want...Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Well, the ones I *know* about aren't slated to have them built.
> 
> How do you know they will?


I didn't say they would.
I simply asked you a question


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I know next to nothing about hydro. That's why I hoped Nevada may have some input in this topic.


Dams interest me, but I don't have a technical background in it. I'm more of an oil man.










But most dams are build for other purposes, such as flood control and maintaining river levels for natigation. Flood control dams are often "dry" dams, where there is no standing lake behind the dam when there is no flood risk. It wouldn't do to erect hydroelectric power equipment for a flood control dam.

Dams that maintain river levels for navigation are also sometimes seasonal. That because there has to be a set of locks at each dam to allow river traffic to pass, so if the dam is open navigation is much simpler. During time of sufficient river level the dam is lowered.

But the biggest reason is that generating electric power economically takes a lot of head pressure. We have that advantage out here along the deep canyons cut by the Colorado River. But most of the dams in the country don't have that high of a water head. It wouldn't be worth doing.

To really answer the question you would have to take the case of each dam individually. There are probably logical reasons behind each dam for deciding to pass on hydroelectric power.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> It would help if the public encouraged real action on climate change instead of bickering about what they think the scientists think.


 Climatists might get more support if the public didn't see billions going for research on what the public is told is "settled science".


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> I have to take their word, pro AND con, as to what they think, according to what they have written. Please show me where one of them claims we can reverse it by doing what you want...Joe


The main goal is to reduce emissions to the point where we circumvent as much damage to the climate as possible. At the current forecast, it's unlikely we'll stop it in time, so don't worry. The next generation will suffer the consequences of our inaction. 



barnbilder said:


> Climatists might get more support if the public didn't see billions going for research on what the public is told is "settled science".


I'm sure you'd like to cut off all university funding, of course. Then only "profitable" science gets studied.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

joebill said:


> I have to take their word, pro AND con, as to what they think, according to what they have written. Please show me where one of them claims we can reverse it by doing what you want...Joe


 Reverse it? Man can Not stop it, Slow it down, OR is powerful enough to reverse what might be happening NATURALLY. A Earth cycle that has been occurring for 4.3 billion years and man thinks he can slow mother nature up? How dumb. Cause Man is not doing this Mother Nature is in a natural cycle of things. No biggie, man will just have to adopt or be left behind.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm still waiting for your evidence of the "lies" I've told about you.
> I suspect you won't make any attempt at backing up those claims.


No sir.
The blind can't see and the deaf can't hear.
I have shown your lies to the moderators and even they refuse to do anything, so no, I won't be showing you a darn thing, but my backside.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Reverse it? Man can Not stop it, Slow it down, OR is powerful enough to reverse what might be happening NATURALLY. .


 Humans are part of 'Mother Nature' as well. One man doesn't change much, but several billion do. We're digging up MILLIONS of years worth of buried solar power and releasing that carbon back into the biosphere. We're gonna have an effect, 'mother nature' doesn't care if its a volcano, or billions of humans thickening the layer of greenhouse gasses, the result will be higher temps, unless there is some negative feedback we do not presently comprehend... but the science points to amplification of heating, not a decrease. 
Obviously you'd rather not talk science, we've had this conversation numerous times, and you'd rather yell about AlGore, environmentalists, and 'dirty liberal communist hippies' instead of admitting humans could possibly have any effect on the environment.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Dams interest me, but I don't have a technical background in it. I'm more of an oil man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Nevada er I mean JR. That's kinda the answer I was looking for. It makes sense and the link from Raeven was helpful too.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> Reverse it? Man can Not stop it, Slow it down, OR is powerful enough to reverse what might be happening NATURALLY. A Earth cycle that has been occurring for 4.3 billion years and man thinks he can slow mother nature up? How dumb. Cause Man is not doing this Mother Nature is in a natural cycle of things. No biggie, man will just have to adopt or be left behind.


My point exactly.

Noplace in all the reams of bull hockey put out by the ecowhacos OR the administration do they even bother to claim that anything they are doing is going to do a particle of good, and yet they are willing to wreck several industries, spend us into the poorhouse, raise the price of gramdma keeping her house warm in the winter and cool in the summer, intrude on personal liberties and private property rights, Kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, scrap power plants, demonise those who speak out against it and in general sow seeds of dishamony across the nation, to do it.

The death of logic......Joe


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Forget Global Warming. Global Whining is worse. People never seem to amaze me as much as a few do when they are wrong and debunked they still whine, cry and have a fit, still won't make a difference though, just makes them look foolish that is all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No sir.
> The blind can't see and the deaf can't hear.
> *I have shown your lies* to the moderators and even they refuse to do anything, so no, I won't be showing you a darn thing, but my backside.


You haven't shown them any lies, because there are none and I knew you couldn't back up your claim.

It's just your usual "con man" routine with a little "persecuted victim" tossed in.

Same stuff, different day.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I have shown your lies to the moderators and even they refuse to do anything, so no, I won't be showing you a darn thing, but my backside.


It's not as much of a true/false thing, as it is a respect/disrespect thing.

The mods here don't arbitrate who's right and who's wrong, but they do arbitrate who isn't being nice.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Forget Global Warming. Global Whining is worse. People never seem to amaze me as much as a few do when they are wrong and debunked they still whine, cry and have a fit, still won't make a difference though, just makes them [look foolish] that is all.


Yes. You do.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> My point exactly.
> 
> Noplace in all the reams of bull hockey put out by the ecowhacos OR the administration do they even bother to claim that anything they are doing is going to do a particle of good, and yet they are willing to wreck several industries, spend us into the poorhouse, raise the price of gramdma keeping her house warm in the winter and cool in the summer, intrude on personal liberties and private property rights, Kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, scrap power plants, demonise those who speak out against it and in general sow seeds of dishamony across the nation, to do it.
> 
> The death of logic......Joe


I see a lot of demonizing of science by skeptics. Scrap the scientists reputation and you don't have to believe a thing they say - very convenient. Maybe the skeptics should gang up and make a movie called

A Convenient Lie


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Global warming is like religion for people that think they are too smart for religion. Lakes aren't made for electricity much anymore, they are made for all of those rich Prius driving college professors to have a place to drive around in their big honking boat with the twin 460s pulling somebody on skis. But it's OK, because the exhaust goes into the water. 

The science is there, yeah, we probably shouldn't set all of the extra natural gas wells on fire that aren't being used, just so we can have light at night. Taxing our most advanced economies into poverty and unrest, breeding the perfect environment for a massive global war, probably won't help our carbon emissions any. 

Maybe, with a little luck, we can have some volcano eruptions, ocean current shifts, minimum solar flare periods, (all huge factors in weather) and keep surface temperatures under 120 long enough for technology to advance to the point of alternative energy being as safe, affordable, and dependable as carbon based energy. If not, the problem will fix itself, if it gets hot enough, it will kill some of us, more plants will grow, carbon dioxide gets turned to oxygen, lightning will turn oxygen into ozone, and everything will be OK. People will still be selling solar powered freezers to people in the arctic circle, though, because they will be human still. Humans are too small and insignificant to have much of a lasting effect on climate or human nature.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Global warming is like religion for people that think they are too smart for religion. Lakes aren't made for electricity much anymore, they are made for all of those rich Prius driving college professors to have a place to drive around in their big honking boat with the twin 460s pulling somebody on skis. But it's OK, because the exhaust goes into the water.
> 
> The science is there, yeah, we probably shouldn't set all of the extra natural gas wells on fire that aren't being used, just so we can have light at night. Taxing our most advanced economies into poverty and unrest, breeding the perfect environment for a massive global war, probably won't help our carbon emissions any.
> 
> Maybe, with a little luck, we can have some volcano eruptions, ocean current shifts, minimum solar flare periods, (all huge factors in weather) and keep surface temperatures under 120 long enough for technology to advance to the point of alternative energy being as safe, affordable, and dependable as carbon based energy. If not, the problem will fix itself, if it gets hot enough, it will kill some of us, more plants will grow, carbon dioxide gets turned to oxygen, lightning will turn oxygen into ozone, and everything will be OK. People will still be selling solar powered freezers to people in the arctic circle, though, because they will be human still. Humans are too small and insignificant to have much of a lasting effect on climate or human nature.


I think you're being overly optimistic. This is not how it will play out. What happens when you have a burgeoning population of 7+ billion people and a shifting climate? What happens to these people when their oasis turns into a desert? You you think they'll just die, leave everyone else alone, and we can go on our merry way fixing the planet? Of course not. We already have water shortages in areas, and wars are being fought over water and oil. Arguably, a good deal of wars have already been fought over oil. What's not to like about homegrown enery and fancy electric cars that can sneak up on squirrels? It's better for national security, it's better for the economy (despite your claims that it's ruining the economy), and it's better for public health and the environment. 

If 7 billion people get it into their head that their locale is insufficient, we will have a global war on our hands for resources. And don't go sticking your head in the sand and give me the "unlimited resources" argument, because that's a total farce. Even in historic times it's been completely possible for humans to log too much of their natural resources and have a crop of environmentalists decry the problem. If you think environmentalism is a modern problem, you're flat wrong.

Also, you seem to have an unhealthy disregard for hybrids.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It's not hybrids I have a problem with, it's the nuts driving them. I have yet to see someone in a Prius drive with courtesy and respect for other drivers. I'm glad that you have an expensive car that you plug in to a coal mine at night, but could you please merge now, and a signal every now and then would be nice. Maybe the turn signal draws too much current.

If there are 7 billion people when the climate goes south, there won't be 7 billion for long, and then when the parking lots and formerly glaciated soil sod over, the climate will fix itself. It really is a self cleaning system, if you keep people out of the way.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> It's not hybrids I have a problem with, it's the nuts driving them. I have yet to see someone in a Prius drive with courtesy and respect for other drivers. I'm glad that you have an expensive car that you plug in to a coal mine at night, but could you please merge now, and a signal every now and then would be nice. Maybe the turn signal draws too much current.
> 
> If there are 7 billion people when the climate goes south, there won't be 7 billion for long, and then when the parking lots and formerly glaciated soil sod over, the climate will fix itself. It really is a self cleaning system, if you keep people out of the way.


Aha. So you admit the environment is better off without humans plundering it? Maybe we agree on something. 

Hybrids don't plug into the wall. Plugin hybrids do, though, and they look the same. There are also also partial hybrids; these may just have energy assist tech like shutting the engine off at stoplights automatically. Then there are full electric models like Tesla and Leaf. 

You're basing your dislike of hybrids off bad drivers. I drive past at least as many anemic Prius drivers as zippy ones. We always notice the bad more than the good.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

No matter how you slice it, those so called 'cars' mentioned, are STILL Tinker Toys. LOL


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I see a lot of demonizing of science by skeptics. Scrap the scientists reputation and you don't have to believe a thing they say - very convenient. Maybe the skeptics should gang up and make a movie called
> 
> A Convenient Lie


Go for it! But as a student of marketing, I'd advise you that if you want to show a profit, you'd probably be better served to wait until folks stop laughing and slapping their knees over the predictions in Gore's "An inconveient truth" movie, because nobody has made a bigger fool of himself since the Y2K crowd.

I am still waiting to hear how, if you ruled the world, you would bring your hypothetical warming to a screetching halt. You must have a plan, or you guys would be talking about how to survive it, not how to discredit those who do not believe in it.

You believe that you can infuence the climate, so spit it out. If you have no plan that anybody thinks will work, then it's time to adapt, and you MUST have that all worked out, so share, please.

The very act of parking the Caddy is predicated on the theory that it might help somebody, so if you have truly given up, no reason to go buy a prius......Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Speaking of predictions, the folling link was a true event, and I knew some of those, as adults, who had to emerge and face the world as teenagers;

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1960/07/12/BGY503280160/?v=0

They were the most bitter about being decieved by their parents and made fools of in front of their friends and classmates. Still known in some circles as "the gophers". How do YOU think the country will react in another 20 years when everything is just fine? I'm betting that all the cafe standards will be dropped and Ford will come out with a V48 engine in a 4 ton sedan that burns crude oil, UNREFINED!...........Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> It's not hybrids I have a problem with, it's the nuts driving them. I have yet to see someone in a Prius drive with courtesy and respect for other drivers. I'm glad that you have an expensive car that you plug in to a coal mine at night, but could you please merge now, and a signal every now and then would be nice. Maybe the turn signal draws too much current..


 Aw, I thought the environmentalists were supposed to be 'emotional ones'? Yeah right. We know who are the emotional ones, the ones yelling 'get a real car, ya hippie' as the 'rich liberal college professor' zips past them in their prius.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> You're basing your dislike of hybrids off bad drivers. .


 Of course, when he couldn't offer any sort of science based rebuttal, then he's down to 'his emotions' and 'his feelings' and antecdotal stories about 'rich college professors'.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Around here, the only people that have them are the university people. They don't want to live in town, so they use them on their two hour commute to their lakefront property. They ride around all week sneering at people that need to have an actual vehicle to transport goods and equipment. Then on the weekends they pull their giant boat out of the slip and tool around on the lake, yukking it up with their friends.

Honestly, idealing with these prius drivers, in my service based industry that takes me to lakefront properties, is what began my questioning of climate change science. If those are the people that are coming up with these theories, often contrary to all previous science, and in some cases ignoring the laws of physics, then it is all bogus.

The energy tycoons that live at the lake are all super nice people, by the way.

About all we have is measurements. The basic core of the argument is CO2. There are higher CO2 levels right now than when we first started measuring them. According to scientists that have studied the fossil record, they have been much higher at times. Were those previous high carbon eras the result of some ancient civilization? Is our current CO2 saturation our fault? We are told by science that CO2 is soluble in water. We know this because we drink soda. What happens when you open a cold soda? what happens when you open a warm soda? The ocean can hold a lot of CO2, the more you heat it up, the more it releases. Ocean water goes through warm and cool cycles of it's own accord. These can affect air temperatures, as well. Climate scientists, (who are in the minority) point to high co2 in the air (which plants love) and high temperatures, and fail to correctly identify which came first.

There are a lot of scientists, I don't think they all go to a secret wizard cave once a year or anything, I don't think they have a tattoo that hurts their arm when the head scientist wants to gather them. You keep seeing these numbers bandied about by the climatists about the majority of scientists being behind this stuff. This is based on what amounts to a questionnaire, that was circulated by climatists, and 30 something percent of scientists believed that there was man made global warming. Of those, (who knows how many were political scientists, rather than geologists) 97% said that it was a "significant" source of warming. This is where they get their numbers, "proving" that "the majority" of science is behind the issue. Like they can even generate a mailing list for all scientists. Probably the best and brightest in pertinent fields are working for the private sector, and actually instrumental in producing something, and don't have time for questionnaires and phone polls..


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> No matter how you slice it, those so called 'cars' mentioned, are STILL Tinker Toys. LOL


My Prius has 225k miles, and I can fit 8' lumber in it.:nana:



joebill said:


> Go for it! But as a student of marketing, I'd advise you that if you want to show a profit, you'd probably be better served to wait until folks stop laughing and slapping their knees over the predictions in Gore's "An inconveient truth" movie, because nobody has made a bigger fool of himself since the Y2K crowd.
> 
> I am still waiting to hear how, if you ruled the world, you would bring your hypothetical warming to a screetching halt. You must have a plan, or you guys would be talking about how to survive it, not how to discredit those who do not believe in it.
> 
> ...


Under my plan, we continue to leave the coal and gas plants operational until renewable energy is compatible with the grid. Finance extensive research on batteries to create a strong, cheap, Eco-freindly battery and then give the tech foe free to all the companies. Next, switch the grid to renewable. With the new battery tech, electric cars get the same range and reliability as gassers. Incentive the trucking industry to switch their semis to electric as well, but don't punish them if they don't. 



joebill said:


> Speaking of predictions, the folling link was a true event, and I knew some of those, as adults, who had to emerge and face the world as teenagers;
> 
> http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1960/07/12/BGY503280160/?v=0
> 
> They were the most bitter about being decieved by their parents and made fools of in front of their friends and classmates. Still known in some circles as "the gophers". How do YOU think the country will react in another 20 years when everything is just fine? I'm betting that all the cafe standards will be dropped and Ford will come out with a V48 engine in a 4 ton sedan that burns crude oil, UNREFINED!...........Joe


Nice, you're comparing established science and those who believe it to some cult willing to lock their family in a basement. Lovely.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Around here, the only people that have them are the university people. They don't want to live in town, so they use them on their two hour commute to their lakefront property. They ride around all week sneering at people that need to have an actual vehicle to transport goods and equipment. Then on the weekends they pull their giant boat out of the slip and tool around on the lake, yukking it up with their friends.
> 
> Honestly, idealing with these prius drivers, in my service based industry that takes me to lakefront properties, is what began my questioning of climate change science. If those are the people that are coming up with these theories, often contrary to all previous science, and in some cases ignoring the laws of physics, then it is all bogus.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you have to put up with idiots, but trust me, they're everywhere. Using my Prius, I've saved over $8,000 in fuel in 3 years, compared to driving my old truck, the only other vehicle I can afford. It's safe, reliable, the gas mileage is obviously great, and as I just mentioned I put lumber, paint, tools, and lots of other stuff in it. It's also very fun to drive. The dash panel incentivizes slow speeds for better gas mileage. Used, it cost only slightly more than a Camry or Corolla, so stop yapping about rich people driving them.

All right, now here's the thing. CO2 induces warming. Water absorbs CO2. The oceans are acidifying. Ocean acidification is killing coral reefs. So we're pretty darn sure the CO2 came first.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You wrote;

"Under my plan, we continue to leave the coal and gas plants operational until renewable energy is compatible with the grid. Finance extensive research on batteries to create a strong, cheap, Eco-freindly battery and then give the tech for free to all the companies. Next, switch the grid to renewable. With the new battery tech, electric cars get the same range and reliability as gassers. Incentive the trucking industry to switch their semis to electric as well, but don't punish them if they don't."

OK, from the top;
Obama has already declared war on coal. Coal, coal miners,coal burners, coal power plants. Will you now lobby to end this? Not compatable with your plan.

By "renewable energy being compatable with the grid" do you mean AC panels and batteries? 

Are you not aware that there is already "extensive research on batteries to create a strong, cheap, Eco-freindly battery" and that the LEAST likely road to solving the problem instead of creating more problems is to resort to government financing? That only encourages folks to line their own pockets, because government really doesn't want nor expect results, just the glorious "credit for trying". Government does not really solve problems, it only "honors" them by spending money on them, so people will think they are trying, and the various grants will bring in campaign fund dollars and voters.

If your "new battery technology" will, indeed, get all the advantages of a gasoline or diesel powered car, and if the car is built properly, they may well become popular, and of course, if they produce a financial advantage for trucking lines, business is about profit, so they would go for it.

Problem is, there is no such battery, and no such road tractor, let alone a step van for UPS to operate. We are nowhere near that, and will not be anywhere near it before, according to you, we will be cooking eggs inside our frigidares. We CERTAILY will not get there by leaving the job to government, and private industry has been villified and shunned to the point where if they DID create this battery, they are certainly aware that they would not be allowed to patent it and expect their rights to be honored.

Much of my working life, i was an innovator, and those who do that learn quickly who expects to pay and who expects them to give away their work. They learn quickly to avoid the latter at all costs.

Anyway, are you telling me that all of the above is all we need to do to stop "manmade global warming"? Will that turn the trick? because in my experience it lacks enough extra taxes and social controls and punishments to satisfy most greenies. They want to see industry suffer and bleed, and oil men hung upside down from their derrics.

If the above is REALLY all you want, it is either within the capabilities of private industry, or not within ANYBODY's capability at all. You should be fundraising to offer a huge reward to the first company to create your battery, with mandatory specifications published in major trade publications. i bet you can get on Fox News and get more free publicity than Trump!

Failing that, you should go check and see if those underground bunkers in Benson are still available, because according to you, the surface is gonna get real hot real soon.....Joe


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

joebill said:


> You wrote;
> 
> "Under my plan, we continue to leave the coal and gas plants operational until renewable energy is compatible with the grid. Finance extensive research on batteries to create a strong, cheap, Eco-freindly battery and then give the tech for free to all the companies. Next, switch the grid to renewable. With the new battery tech, electric cars get the same range and reliability as gassers. Incentive the trucking industry to switch their semis to electric as well, but don't punish them if they don't."
> 
> ...


There are hybrid semi tractors on the roads today (in the test stages) getting better fuel economy than most p/u's, suv's so there are certainly inroads being made in the technology.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I have had people come to my farm, buy a piglet, and put it in the back seat of a Prius, on several occasions.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Ocean acidity is highly variable, depending on location and season. There have been recent samples that have put the ocean well within "normal" pH levels. The idea of human carbon emissions acidifying the ocean, when co2 levels have historically been much higher, is not logical, given the supposed age of the coral reefs. Either coral regenerates much faster than previously thought, or high co2 is not that harmful to it, according to accepted science. Evidence that the coral reefs are being harmed comes largely from photographs circulated by greenpeace, they take a picture of coral in southeast Asia after a tycoon and then tell everyone that it is "evidence" of harmful, man-made climate change in the great barrier reef in Australia. Of course, like the religious zealots they are, they will turn right around and say that the tycoon was caused by man-made climate change.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You said;

"There are hybrid semi tractors on the roads today (in the test stages) getting better fuel economy than most p/u's, suv's so there are certainly inroads being made in the technology. "

More power to them (no pun) and I'm sure that if they work financially, freight companies will line up to buy them, and if not, they will be a miserable failure. I'm all in favor of progress, and dead set against regression to bikes and foot traffic....Joe


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

joebill said:


> You said;
> 
> "There are hybrid semi tractors on the roads today (in the test stages) getting better fuel economy than most p/u's, suv's so there are certainly inroads being made in the technology. "
> 
> More power to them (no pun) and I'm sure that if they work financially, freight companies will line up to buy them, and if not, they will be a miserable failure. I'm all in favor of progress, and dead set against regression to bikes and foot traffic....Joe


I am of the same mind. If the ideas are sound, they will replace current technology, if they are not, they will be abandoned. Allowing government to put its big, messy, inefficient finger on the scale does no good in the long run. It simply enriches those with the "right" political connections and wastes all of our money.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

joebill said:


> You said;
> 
> "There are hybrid semi tractors on the roads today (in the test stages) getting better fuel economy than most p/u's, suv's so there are certainly inroads being made in the technology. "
> 
> More power to them (no pun) and I'm sure that if they work financially, freight companies will line up to buy them, and if not, they will be a miserable failure. I'm all in favor of progress, and dead set against regression to bikes and foot traffic....Joe


And you said there is no such road tractor I was just pointing out the fallacy of that statement. There is some really interesting battery tech. testing out there now, and we all know that electric motors are more efficient than gas/deisel engines, just look at deisel electric locomotives.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I am of the same mind. If the ideas are sound, they will replace current technology, if they are not, they will be abandoned. Allowing government to put its big, messy, inefficient finger on the scale does no good in the long run. It simply enriches those with the "right" political connections and wastes all of our money.


Alternative energy and technological advancement we need, we don't need the big, messy, inefficient finger.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> Were those previous high carbon eras the result of some ancient civilization?


No, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation where CO2 is ramping up precisely because of human activity. 
Set aside your emotions and your hatred of 'AlGore', hippies, environmentalists and 'rich liberal college professors' and look at the basic science involved in all this. CO2 plays a big part in climate, and we're driving it to levels not seen in 15 million years. 
Oh, and the seas were around 100ft. higher back then as well.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> I have had people come to my farm, buy a piglet, and put it in the back seat of a Prius, on several occasions.


A pig in a prius.


Sounds like a breakfast food. Now I'm hungry.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> A pig in a prius.
> 
> 
> Sounds like a breakfast food. Now I'm hungry.


I've taken goats and sheep (small ones) to the auction in mine. Got some funny looks. More maybe I just thought that since I'm an egotistic rich college professor.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

heritagefarm said:


> ...i just thought that since i'm an egotistic rich college professor.


I knew it!!!!


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've taken goats and sheep (small ones) to the auction in mine. Got some funny looks. More maybe I just thought that since I'm an egotistic rich college professor.


Dang!!! You are more interesting in a forum than some of my professors were in a class room!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Raeven said:


> I knew it!!!!





no really said:


> Dang!!! You are more interesting in a forum than some of my professors were in a class room!


LOL! :hysterical:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You said;
> 
> "There are hybrid semi tractors on the roads today (in the test stages) getting better fuel economy than most p/u's, suv's so there are certainly inroads being made in the technology. "
> 
> More power to them (no pun) and I'm sure that if they work financially, freight companies will line up to buy them, and if not, they will be a miserable failure. I'm all in favor of progress, and dead set against regression to bikes and foot traffic....Joe


As stated, we already have hybrid tractors. The problem is the batteries, but our battery tech is getting better fast. Most innovations have been placed on gas and gas vehicles, and even then not very fast. Sometimes the free market doesn't work - people wouldn't buy Ford vehicles with safety equipment like seat belts because they thought it meant their vehicles were less safe, so they needed to install more safety equipment. So they bought GM cars without seat belts and got deadified.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I would have more respect for scientists, but it has been my experience that they are prone to saying really hurtful things, like "Hey, you, you can't come in here", and "Why are you naked?", and "I can't hold him, he's covered in baby oil".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

coolrunnin said:


> we all know that electric motors are more efficient than gas/deisel engines, just look at deisel electric locomotives.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What would be a more efficient arrangement?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I took all the smog junk off my truck, much better.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> I would have more respect for scientists, but it has been my experience that they are prone to saying really hurtful things, like "Hey, you, you can't come in here", and "Why are you naked?", and "I can't hold him, he's covered in baby oil".


You need to find a different college to hang around. Also I don't even understand those insults.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> I took all the smog junk off my truck, much better.


Honestly, if the vehicle gets better gas mileage, I can understand that. Technically it's getting lower emissions by burning more efficiently. Unless you're the type who likes "rolling coal," then I have no respect for them based simply on IQ.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

coolrunnin said:


> And you said there is no such road tractor I was just pointing out the fallacy of that statement. There is some really interesting battery tech. testing out there now, and we all know that electric motors are more efficient than gas/deisel engines, just look at deisel electric locomotives.


I repaired and maintained about 30 of those systems installed in mine haul trucks that hauled 250 tons each of mine ore/waste. Nothing magic about them. They were still a diesel engine, but power was through a huge generator that powered two traction motors controlled by another somewhat smaller (about the size of a refrigerator) alternator. They were a pain in the ankle to diagnose and repair and they needed a LOT of both.

The combination of truck and payload was about 500 tons going up and down hills at 45 MPH. Same system as a GM locomotive, but not what I would call a breakthrough. Different, not better...Joe


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

joebill said:


> I repaired and maintained about 30 of those systems installed in mine haul trucks that hauled 250 tons each of mine ore/waste. Nothing magic about them. They were still a diesel engine, but power was through a huge generator that powered two traction motors controlled by another somewhat smaller (about the size of a refrigerator) alternator. They were a pain in the ankle to diagnose and repair and they needed a LOT of both.
> 
> The combination of truck and payload was about 500 tons going up and down hills at 45 MPH. Same system as a GM locomotive, but not what I would call a breakthrough. Different, not better...Joe


Find the like internal combustion engine that can haul those loads.
With the same energy usage. There's a reason these systems are used.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

The gigantic Titan dump trucks are hybrids, at least some of them. The have to be trucked in pieces to the jobsite. My guess is they consume too much fuel if they're not hybrid.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You haven't shown them any lies, because there are none and I knew you couldn't back up your claim.
> 
> It's just your usual "con man" routine with a little "persecuted victim" tossed in.
> 
> Same stuff, different day.


Why not PM the mod of this sub-forum and ask if it's true?
It's against the rules for me to reveal the PM's, but if they give me permission I'd be happy to to do it.
But asking for proof that will result in an infraction sounds like another set up to me.
I'm not taking the bait.



Nevada said:


> It's not as much of a true/false thing, as it is a respect/disrespect thing.
> 
> The mods here don't arbitrate who's right and who's wrong, but they do arbitrate who isn't being nice.




That was the gist of my conversations with them.
Apparently telling lies, repeatedly and falsely calling a derogatory name that means "thief" ............. is being nice according to the standards here.

That wasn't the definition of "nice" where I came from. :shrug:

As I said, It's good to know.
Even if I don't like those rules, I CAN learn how to play by them, once they are explained to me.


* Of course, there very first thing that will be pointed out, are my comments about the seed line of Cain that I made - not "nice".
They may not qualify as nice, true.
But after re-examining the posted comments made about the existence of God and lack of proof, the mental illness of those who believe in Him, tell me - which seed line does that sound like to you?
I'm more concerned about whether the statements are true, we can discuss "nice" once THAT is established.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *Why not* PM the mod of this sub-forum and ask if it's true?
> It's against the rules for me to reveal the PM's, but if they give me permission I'd be happy to to do it.
> But asking for proof that will result in an infraction sounds like another set up to me.
> I'm not taking the bait.
> ...


Why not just prove your allegations instead of going through the usual drama routine? 

Seeing PM's with more false allegations isn't proof of any "lies".
It's just proof of your constant complaints of persecution

If " deceptive con man" is "derogatory", and means "thief" that's really not my problem, since those are *your words, used to describe yourself*



> I'm more concerned about whether the statements are true


Evidently you aren't since what I said is true and you keep complaining about it being "lies". 

I took you at your word when you said you are a "deceptive con man"
Was it a lie when you said it?



> But asking for *proof that will result in an infraction* sounds like *another set up to me*.


How could you get an infraction by *proving* I told a "lie" about you?
That's just a dodge, and a pretty lame one at that.

How could anything I say to you possibly be a "set-up" when I have no control over what you post. 

You've made the allegations on more than one post in more than one thread, and have even hinted at them on other sites.

*Show some proof* of the "lies" or stop with the silly games and get over yourself


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not just prove your allegations instead of going through the usual drama routine?
> 
> Seeing PM's with more false allegations isn't proof of any "lies".
> It's just proof of your constant complaints of persecution
> ...


I think lots of people have been deceptive from time to time. Maybe he's just more honest about it. Regardless, your constant screeching about "deceptive con man" are getting old - you just use it to get a reaction, which is your bogus operandi.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

coolrunnin said:


> Find the like internal combustion engine that can haul those loads.
> With the same energy usage. There's a reason these systems are used.


Yes, LOTS of reasons, all having to do with profits, and every factor, including maintenence is important. Not claiming that they do not get a lot better mileage, because I simply do not know, that was not my area of interest.

I do know that two of them made the most expensive wreck in the history of the mine, and they used a system which turned the traction motors into generators for a "jake brake" effect, which made them tend to do a 360 loop on a wet road, which was a rare thrill with a 1000 foot drop- right beside the road.

I was a bit skeptical of them, because the needs of a mine haul truck and a locomotive are considerably different in terms of control and such, and GM just did a direct transfer of the entire drive train and control system. That DID cause some problems, but overall they were good trucks. The electrical system needed far better protection from dirt, sun, sabatoge by union workers than it did on the locomotive, and I do not know if it ever got that.

Prob'ly two generations of new ones since I worked on them, so it's all in the past anyhow......Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I think lots of people have been deceptive from time to time. Maybe he's just more honest about it. Regardless, your constant screeching about "deceptive con man" are getting old - *you just use it to get a reaction*, which is your bogus operandi.


I used it after being called a "child of the father of lies" and "seed of Cain" or some similar drivel in one thread, and repeatedly being called a liar in others. 

You're correct I want a reaction.

I want to *see* the proof of these "lies" since this has been an ongoing pattern for the past year.

If my "screeching" is getting old to you, don't read it. :shrug:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Yes, LOTS of reasons, all having to do with profits, and every factor, including maintenence is important. Not claiming that they do not get a lot better mileage, because I simply do not know, that was not my area of interest.
> 
> I do know that two of them made the most expensive wreck in the history of the mine, and they used a system which turned the traction motors into generators for a "jake brake" effect, which made them tend to do a 360 loop on a wet road, which was a rare thrill with a 1000 foot drop- right beside the road.
> 
> ...


Are these the giant dump trucks like Titan?



Bearfootfarm said:


> I used it after being called a "child of the father of lies" and "seed of Cain" or some similar drivel in one thread, and repeatedly being called a liar in others.
> 
> You're correct I want a reaction.
> 
> ...


Mostly I think you two just like arguing with each other.:idea:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Somewhat like the Titan, yeah. i never worked on A Titan, so i don't know that much about them.

The Terex was a 250 ton hauler with all the guts of a GM locomotive.

The only Titan I knew about carried a crew of 2, unlike the Terex, which had not only a single operator and a single seat.

That one Titan I knew about was the first vehicle I had heard of with a backup- camera, and they were always in radio communication with the shovel that loaded them.

Buying either one was a bit of a risk, because the money they cost wiped out the budget for a number of other trucks, and if it got seriously wrecked or disabled, that left pit operations short on haulage.

The Terex AND the smaller KW darts they replaced also had to be assembled on site, and we rebuilt them in a department called "frame rebuild" where we brought in a bare frame and started installing rebuilt parts from our shop on the frame until it was a new truck with a new number

The frame had to be lifted off of the semi that delivered it by a combination of a 50 ton and a 25 ton gantry crane, and each had to be attached at the correct spot on the frame to avoid wrecking the gantry cranes.

I still see the giant beds for those trucks go through here on oversize load semis from time to time, heading somewhere to replace one that is worn out.

Sitting in the driver's seat, it was like driving a schoolhouse down the road. They were 20' wide, 20 feet tall, blundering through the arizona desert, radiating heat that was stifling, no AC, outdoor temps of maybe 110 F.

The good old days.....  ...Joe


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not just prove your allegations instead of going through the usual drama routine?
> 
> Seeing PM's with more false allegations isn't proof of any "lies".
> It's just proof of your constant complaints of persecution
> ...


Since I never "said it", the lie being told isn't mine.
Since the thread is open for viewing, I see no need to "prove" anything, it's in black and white for all top see, should they desire.
:shrug:




> How could you get an infraction by *proving* I told a "lie" about you?
> That's just a dodge, and a pretty lame one at that.
> 
> How could anything I say to you possibly be a "set-up" when I have no control over what you post.


How? Really?
It is explicitly stated in the forum rules, section 4......

*"As a user of the Site, you are responsible for your own communications and are responsible for the consequences of their posting. You must not do the following things: post material that is copyrighted, unless you are the copyright owner or have the permission of the copyright owner to post it; post material that reveals trade secrets, unless you own them or have the permission of the owner; post material that infringes on any other intellectual property rights of others or on the privacy or publicity rights of others; post material that is obscene, profane, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive hateful, or embarrassing to another user of the Site or any other person or entity; post a sexually-explicit image; posts and/or links to sites containing adult content; post content moved, deleted, removed and/or otherwise modified by the Web Site moderators and/or administrators; post content of private messages; post advertisements or solicitations of business or personal funding; post chain letters or pyramid schemes; or impersonate another person.

Homesteadingtoday.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any communications posted by other users of the Site or endorse any opinions expressed by users of the Site. You acknowledge that any reliance on material posted by other users of the Site will be at your own risk.
"*








Bearfootfarm said:


> I used it after being called a "child of the father of lies" and "seed of Cain" or some similar drivel in one thread, and repeatedly being called a liar in others.
> 
> You're correct I want a reaction.
> 
> ...


Just my observation.
Jesus reserved some of his sharpest comments for the Pharisees, including his referral to "their father".
They insisted on being shown more "proof" of Him, even after being present at several miracles. They constantly harassed Him, baited Him, asked leading or incriminating questions and did what they could to discredit the existence of God's authority and His Son.


Any of that sound familiar?



Heritagefarm said:


> Are these the giant dump trucks like Titan?
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly I think you two just like arguing with each other.:idea:



On some occasions that is undoubtably true.
:happy2:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *Since I never "said it", the lie being told isn't mine.*
> Since the thread is open for viewing,* I see no need to "prove" anything,* it's in black and white for all top see, should they desire.
> :shrug:
> 
> ...


Lots of useless rambling, still no proof of any lies anyone told about you.



> Just my observation.
> Jesus reserved some of his sharpest comments for the Pharisees, including his referral to "their father".
> They insisted on being shown more "proof" of Him, even after being present at several miracles. They constantly harassed Him, baited Him, asked leading or incriminating questions and did what they could to discredit the existence of God's authority and His Son.
> *Any of that sound familiar?*


None of that has anything to do with your false allegations
It's just more diversionary drivel, so yes it sounds all too familiar

Stop hiding behind biblical references and either *show the "lies"* or just admit there were none.
I never asked you to show the "private messages" since they are just more baseless allegations, and you are only using them as another diversion



> Since I never "said it", the lie being told isn't mine.


Yes, you said it and explained it in detail, even though you are denying it now and calling me a liar for repeating your own words :shrug:

You could easily prove me wrong by simply showing the "lie" you claim I told.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of useless rambling, still no proof of any lies anyone told about you.
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with your false allegations
> ...


I'm so very, very glad that I have no idea what this is about.....  .... Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I used it after being called a "child of the father of lies" and "seed of Cain" or some similar drivel in one thread, and repeatedly being called a liar in others.
> 
> You're correct I want a reaction.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately your screeching comes through even when you're on ignore. Plus I actually agree with you on some stuff, which is really weird as I said, but you're still really annoying in a fun way. That was a compliment - take it or stomp on it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Unfortunately your *screeching* comes through even when you're on ignore. Plus I actually agree with you on some stuff, which is really weird as I said, but you're still really annoying in a fun way. That was a compliment - take it or stomp on it.


It's just the facts.

Notice he keeps saying I lied about him, but refuses to *show* exactly what I said that was a lie. This has been his pattern for the past year. 

At one point he even threatened to sue me and the site for "libel" due to these "lies" which he has yet to *show*, even while claiming he's "shown the moderators"

He's not showing the "lie" now because he knows what I said is the truth



> comes through even when you're on ignore.


You have to *choose* to read it and I have no control over that


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's just the facts.
> 
> Notice he keeps saying I lied about him, but refuses to *show* exactly what I said that was a lie. This has been his pattern for the past year.
> 
> ...


Sure but can you show the posts that you think means he admitted to being a con man? Because good con men usually don't admit to it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sure but can you show the posts *that you think means* he admitted to being a con man? Because good con men usually don't admit to it.


I don't "think" that's what he meant.
Those were his words. 

He even said "that's the way you beat the "other" con men" 

I want to see the "lie" *I *told first though


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sure but can you show the posts that you think means he admitted to being a con man? Because good con men usually don't admit to it.


:bored:...............

I will, since you asked, and you're generally civil even when things get a little heated, lol.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/536677-finding-lost-relative.html

On a few threads over the years, I HAVE offered tips to those who were trying to find close relatives they were concerned about and lost touch with.
I tell them about the legal resources I know that might help, and if they still can't locate them, I have suggested how to go further.

My 2nd post in that thread is where he gets his entertainment.
In this person's case, they expressed concerns about their aunt's mental and physical health, as well as the possibility that she was being kept from others intentionally, for not-so-good reasons.

If I was in the same position, I know what I would do and I know the how easy it is for those doing harm can avoid being found out.
It is in those extreme circumstances that my advice has been twisted into something that was never intended.

I'm quite sure that the emergency knife I carry *could* be used to break into a car to steal something, rather than to extricate an accident victim, but recommending that tool does not mean I advocate theft.

But that will be obvious to you when you read it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm quite sure that the emergency knife I carry could be used to break into a car to steal something, rather than to extricate an accident victim, but recommending that tool does not mean I advocate theft.
> 
> But that will be *obvious *to you when you read it.


It's obvious you haven't shown where I lied about what I said



> Before I go any further, I'll tell you that *deception on your part is key*, playing by all the rules will get you nowhere.





> I know it sounds like *you are a being a shady con man because you kinda are being one*, using it for good rather than evil, but t*hat's the way you beat the "other" con men*.





> It is in those extreme circumstances that *my advice has been twisted* into something that was never intended.


Nothing was twisted.
I merely repeated your words

Show the "lie" I told


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I've also rescued my neighbor's dogs from a hot truck when they managed to hit the power door locks, when she exited her vehicle to get something in her driveway. 
Saved my wife an expensive locksmith bill when she locked the keys in a friend's truck she borrowed for the day.
(I own a pretty good "slim jim" set)
Guess that means I'm a car thief AND a con man?

:happy2:

Context anyone?




Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> You still want to take it *out of CONTEXT*





Bearfootfarm said:


> *Read* *what he SAID*, and it needs no explanation
> 
> The truth is you *already KNOW* what he meant, but you still make it out to be something negative, when it's *simply the truth*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I've also rescued my neighbor's dogs from a hot truck when they managed to hit the power door locks, when she exited her vehicle to get something in her driveway.
> Saved my wife an expensive locksmith bill when she locked the keys in a friend's truck she borrowed for the day.
> (I own a pretty good "slim jim" set)
> Guess that means I'm a car thief AND a con man?
> ...


I realize you love talking about how great you are, but the fact remains you have repeatedly accused me (and others) of "telling lies about you" when you knew I (we) didn't, and now you're just trying to gloss it over with more tales of your "good deeds" and silly icons

Do you have any proof of any "lies " I've told about you or not?

It's a simple question that doesn't require more than showing the proof, or just saying "no".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you have any proof of any "lies " I've told about you or not?
> 
> It's a simple question that doesn't require more than showing the proof, or just saying "no".


Very well, as you say, it IS simple.
There are a few other similar posts you've made, claiming that I have described myself as a "con man" when in fact I only advised how to investigate and retrieve information.............



Bearfootfarm said:


> If " deceptive con man" is "derogatory", and means "thief" that's really not my problem, since those are *your words, used to describe yourself*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, as an equally simple task, show MY posts where *I called myself* a "deceptive con man".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Very well, as you say, it IS simple.
> There are a few other similar posts you've made, claiming that I have described myself as a "con man" when in fact *I only advised how* to investigate and retrieve information.............
> 
> Now, as an equally simple task, show MY posts where *I called myself* a "deceptive con man".


I already did.

You "advised" them of *your* methods, which makes *you* the "con man" to whom you referred, using deception as your tool. 



> Quote:
> Before I go any further, I'll tell you that *deception on your part is key*, playing by all the rules will get you nowhere.
> 
> Quote:
> I know it *sounds like you are a being a shady con man because you kinda are being one*, using it for good rather than evil, but that's the way you beat the "other" con men.


No matter how you now want to parse words, I didn't "lie" *about you* at all. 

You can't beat the "other con men" without saying you're one too.

If you want to say it's just "advice" but not something you would do, you'll have to find someone more gullible.


----------

