Here. On page 4 "...despite the fact that combustion of natural gas creates more so called greenhouse gases. " Posted: 24 March 2014 10:18:29



Edited by munrubenmuz: 24/3/2014 10:53:17 AM

Once again you're wrong. Natural gas production has a leakage rate of between 3.5% and 4%.

Your argument is like saying "coal doesn't produce greenhouse gas because it's under ground".

Can anyone, beside ricecrackers, tell me if I'm being unreasonable for asking for proof to an outlandish statement.

Happy to choof off if I'm being obstreperous.

No source then?

Natural gas produces Methane which is 21 times more potent than CO2 in global warming effects. So if we were to produce the same amount of natural gas as we do coal, the leakage alone would cause roughly 5-6 times the amount of damage, let alone the effects of the energy production process.

the combustion of it does create more greenhouse gases...ie it adds to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
i never stated it creates more than the combustion of coal...find me that quote, because i never said it

natural gas comes out of the ground where its not contributing to the so called greenhouse effect,
its then mined and stored in tanks, then burned, creating CO2 in the atmosphere

ie more greenhouse gas

if you cant comprehend that simple concept then you need to go back to primary school

Can anyone please provide a source that says burning of natural gas is worse than burning of coal?

first you must find a quote where anyone here asserted that

go on, get to work...

This is what you said. (and it's a direct cut and paste)

---

main beneficiaries financially from the pro alarmist agenda include...

1. the finance industry
2. the oil and gas industry
3. solar panel manufacturers
4. wind farm operators (which dont work when the wind is either too strong or too weak therefore NG cogen plants are on site and thus ultimately become another example of 2.)
5. various fad alternative energy opportunists, eg electric car makers

the finance industry kicked it off and the oil and gas industry got in later when they realised how they could make money out of it. thats the tipping point at which it became an unstoppable force.

destroy or greatly reduce the coal industry and replace with natural gas generated electricity.
...despite the fact that combustion of natural gas creates more so called greenhouse gases.
natural gas itself a worse greenhouse gas, but its under the ground so doesnt contribute to the so called global warming there (if you believe that theory)

---

Implying that gas is worse than coal and it's pointless to burn gas as it's just as bad, if not worse, and the whole idea of pushing the burning of gas is to "destroy or greatly reduce the coal industry".

Your words.

I hope the above suffices.





Edited by munrubenmuz: 24/3/2014 11:07:13 AM

I'm out. Got a client coming in.

Have fun.

there was no such implication at all. you have poor comprehension skills to say the least.

i see you're going to run away now because you were unable provide proof and you're whole argument has been sunk because you cannot interpret plain English... which would be fine if you were willing to admit it

but since you wont, I'm not going to let you get away with this so easily

answer me this afrodope, is a gas contributing to the greenhouse effect if its buried deep in the ground?

Edited by ricecrackers: 24/3/2014 11:20:08 AM

A does not = B here

Munrubenmuz, I don't think its unreasonable for people to post links to sources for the claims they are making.

From both sides of the argument.

is coal contributing to the greenhouse effect if its buried deep in the ground?

can you answer my question or not?

Meanwhile, in Ballarat:

i'll take that as a NO, as likely you're now furiously googling the internet looking for something to clutch onto

I did answer your question. With a rhetorical question. That's probably a little complicated for you so I'll spell it out for you:
Claiming that something is less bad for the environment because it's sourced underground and harmless in that state when they're both sourced underground and harmless in that state IS FUCKING RETARDED.

ok, we're done here child

No, it's not in the atmosphere.

That would be called a carbon sink (rudely put: biomass that has taken carbon out of the atmosphere and has been trapped in some form). It becomes a problem when it, carbon, is released into the atmosphere.

Edited by Bullion: 24/3/2014 02:41:34 PM

i dont know why you're calling me a troll, however thank you for your answer as it completely supports my position

it should be clear now for all to see why afromanGT deliberately dodged answering my question

Edited by ricecrackers: 24/3/2014 01:17:16 PM

You repeatedly call me 'afrodope' but when I state that your reasoning is retarded I'm the child?

What. Is. Wrong. With. You?!

the shoe fits in your case
i called you a child because you refused to answer a simple question because you realised it completely exposed your position as baseless then like the weasel you are (another term that suits) you try to muddy the waters by changing the subject

you'll make a crap lawyer if that's what you're training to be.

i'm quite sure you initiated the bevy of insults. not that i'm complaining, just pointing it up for the record.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean my position is baseless nor that you should resort to name calling. Which you instigated, btw.

Here's the deal: If gas is underground, it's no use. Saying it's more safe than coal because it's untouched and underground is exactly the same as coal, which is also untouched and underground. The mining and production process for natural gas has a natural methane leakage rate of around 3.5-4% of total overall production. Methane is 21 times more potent to global warming effects than Carbon Dioxide. So if gas production matched the current coal output this would be significantly worse for the environment than coal powered energy. And this is merely from the gas mining process and doesn't factor in CO2 produced by burning gas.

Right there, you responding to my first post in this thread.

That'd be you instigating name-calling and insults.

"here's the deal"? its not a f***ing deal
what the hell are you even talking about?

my position from the start has been that natural gas contributes to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
that is, it creates more greenhouse gas than it would if it were left in the ground

oil&gas companies spin it to pretend they're reducing greenhouse gases by replacing coal with natural gas because its combustion produces less CO2. it still produces CO2. the leakage of methane you speak about just creates even more greenhouse gas

climate alarmism advocates such as US President Obama also spin it to make you believe that natural gas as an energy source is helping prevent climate change, despite the fact its replacing both coal and nuclear powered plants and the overall energy consumption is increasing worldwide yearly

oil&gas companies also are receiving all kinds of exemptions from proposed carbon taxes. carbon taxes are killing the coal industry, they're not killing the natural gas industry. its expanding.

do you see who benefits from the coal industry being erased from the picture?
that would be the oil&gas industry. comprende?

do you see why they'd be promoting the climate alarmism scare when they financially benefit from it?

do you realise that Ken Lay was involving in drafting the carbon trading scheme?

[youtube]sH0Ryek7rHk[/youtube]