afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. the one you posted #-o Ah...yup...ok...That's a pretty big article, are you going to tell me where I 'cut and pasted' from? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong? now you're pretending you didnt even read the article that you linked. the lies keep flowing from you Exactly how am I pretending that I didn't read it? Where did I suggest in any way that I didn't read it?
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. the one you posted #-o Ah...yup...ok...That's a pretty big article, are you going to tell me where I 'cut and pasted' from? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong? now you're pretending you didnt even read the article that you linked. the lies keep flowing from you Exactly how am I pretending that I didn't read it? Where did I suggest in any way that I didn't read it? i already told you you paraphrased it after you searched for hydrogen in the article despite the fact that deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and completely irrelevant to your initial point. if thats the only piece of straw you have to clutch at then by all means go for it. climate change is caused by humans because afrodope paraphrased instead of cutting and pasting. wow you got me there =d> so, how do you get from here... afromanGT wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:When speaking of Natural Gas being greener. I myself see it as a stepping stone away from burning fuel for energy. Every step taken to reduce the pollution is necessary. how is it a stepping stone away from burning fuel for energy when its erm burning fuel for energy? :? Thats why its a stepping stone. It is still burning fuel but potentially (depending on who and how you look at it), better than the coal ect. we burn now. If what we burn is cleaner while we produce better ways of extracting clean energy than it is a good move. If it expedites a move towards hydrogen as an energy source then that can only be a good thing. to deuterium? do you see how you've clouded the whole discussion after your failure on natural gas was exposed? do you remember how you tried to tell me that burning natural gas was reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the environment because its converting CH4 into CO2? and you mentioned that because you found it on a website put out by an oil&gas company, not realising that it was an oil&gas company, because you disputed my claim that oil&gas companies were jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon as it was to their ultimate benefit? however you failed to realise that natural gas is mined from a carbon sink then you tried to obfuscate (a favourite word of your pal but relevant here) by bringing hydrogen into the equation out of thin air? now we're at deuterium this is how your weasel strategy works, however i'm going to keep going back to your original failures which you have still failed to admit
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers, on page 9 wrote:nice job of cutting and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia. So are you going to admit to lying like you accuse everyone else of doing? Or you're taking that accusation of plagiarism back? ricecrackers wrote:do you remember how you tried to tell me that burning natural gas was reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the environment because its converting CH4 into CO2? I never said that. I said it INCREASES the damage caused by greenhouse gases owing to the fact that Methane is 21 times more potent in the greenhouse effect. :roll: Are you even literate? Quote:now we're at deuterium You do realise that Deuterium is Hydrogen, right?
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. It could be. At uni a lecturer of mine was an offshore oil rig specialist and shared with us some of his research into generating energy by extracting hydrogen from sea water by electrolysis. This was a long time ago so I'm scratchy on details but apparently harnessing the wave energy would power the energy generation by electrolysis. The yield of energy would be relatively low but it would by 'green.'
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.
From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof. It could be. At uni a lecturer of mine was an offshore oil rig specialist and shared with us some of his research into generating energy by extracting hydrogen from sea water by electrolysis. This was a long time ago so I'm scratchy on details but apparently harnessing the wave energy would power the energy generation by electrolysis. The yield of energy would be relatively low but it would by 'green.' Maintenance of anything using tidal energy is going to be inhibitively expensive for maintenance though.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Quote:now we're at deuterium You do realise that Deuterium is Hydrogen, right? Slam dunk!
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:afromanGT wrote:Quote:now we're at deuterium You do realise that Deuterium is Hydrogen, right? Slam dunk! no shit, its an isotope of hydrogen requires energy to manufacture just as hydrogen does afrodope was not referring to deuterium in his initial post and he's been back pedaling ever since trust you to buy into his rubbish given your obvious hurt at being hit out of the park every time you stick your nose in it
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecracks is always right, everyone else is always wrong. Shit troll is shit. Quote:requires energy to manufacture just as hydrogen does Every source of energy requires energy to harness in some manner of fashion. Solar panels need to be manufactured, wind turbines need to be smelted, fossil fuels need to be mined. Using "it requires energy to harness" as an argument is Abbot-esque level of flawed logic. Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 11:23:40 AM
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:ricecracks is always right, everyone else is always wrong. Shit troll is shit. Quote:requires energy to manufacture just as hydrogen does Every source of energy requires energy to harness in some manner of fashion. Solar panels need to be manufactured, wind turbines need to be smelted, fossil fuels need to be mined. Using "it requires energy to harness" as an argument is Abbot-esque level of flawed logic. Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 11:23:40 AM what a ridiculous and specious argument and now you're using non-sequiturs as your position is bankrupt you're calling anyone who disagrees with your bullshit a troll we both know you're trying to bullshit your way out of a corner. you might fool someone who hasnt been paying attention but you wont fool me.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Yes, the whole forum disagrees with you and I'm the one who's wrong. Good job moron.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Btw, I'm still owed an apology for that accusation of plagiarism.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
you dont speak for the whole forum afrodope and you're a serial liar you should be the one apologising for your 77000+ posts
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Btw, I'm still owed an apology for that accusation of plagiarism.
|
|
|
Damo Baresi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Climate change - Fiction.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
climate change is fact throughout history however i'm not convinced humans have anything significant to do with it
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Damo Baresi wrote:Climate change - Fiction. Did you walk on Lake Wendouree when it became a fire hazard and the council had to mow it?
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
paladisious wrote:Damo Baresi wrote:Climate change - Fiction. Did you walk on Lake Wendouree when it became a fire hazard and the council had to mow it? :lol: on the Gold Coast i'm currently sitting would have been 15km out to sea prior to the last eruption of Mt. Warning. Water bodies move and change all the time. A lake drying out isn't really spectacular.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:paladisious wrote:Damo Baresi wrote:Climate change - Fiction. Did you walk on Lake Wendouree when it became a fire hazard and the council had to mow it? :lol: on the Gold Coast i'm currently sitting would have been 15km out to sea prior to the last eruption of Mt. Warning. Water bodies move and change all the time. A lake drying out isn't really spectacular. It is when it's man made ;)
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:benelsmore wrote:paladisious wrote:Damo Baresi wrote:Climate change - Fiction. Did you walk on Lake Wendouree when it became a fire hazard and the council had to mow it? :lol: on the Gold Coast i'm currently sitting would have been 15km out to sea prior to the last eruption of Mt. Warning. Water bodies move and change all the time. A lake drying out isn't really spectacular. It is when it's man made ;) It's even less surprising if it's man made :lol:
|
|
|
chillbilly
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:climate change is fact throughout history however i'm not convinced humans have anything significant to do with it So your saying that if humans only came to find Australia, South America or any other continent now, they would find it in exactly the same state and weather patterns it has now.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:benelsmore wrote:paladisious wrote:Damo Baresi wrote:Climate change - Fiction. Did you walk on Lake Wendouree when it became a fire hazard and the council had to mow it? :lol: on the Gold Coast i'm currently sitting would have been 15km out to sea prior to the last eruption of Mt. Warning. Water bodies move and change all the time. A lake drying out isn't really spectacular. It is when it's man made ;) It's even less surprising if it's man made :lol: They dammed a river around a swamp to make the lake. The last time it went dry was back in the gold rush when it was the water supply for much of the town. For it to go dry now was a big deal.
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Amazed how this can get to so many pages when discussing a fat.
To all those deniers, what is your evidence? And what makes your 'evidence' better than the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that get published on the matter every month? Do you mean "fact?"
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:To all those deniers, what is your evidence? And what makes your 'evidence' better than the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that get published on the matter every month? ricecrackers wrote:i am the evidence
- Friday, April 04, 2014 4:57:07 PM
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Amazed how this can get to so many pages when discussing a fat.
To all those deniers, what is your evidence? And what makes your 'evidence' better than the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that get published on the matter every month? burden of proof is upon you you can talk about all the peer review papers you want, but i challenge you to find one that produces definitive proof that humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change (which has yet to happen) if the science was so settled you wouldn't need to spend billions of dollars on propaganda and produce thousands of papers, as well as go to such an extent to marginalise skeptics as infidels to your fanatical dogma
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
So you want to wait until AFTER something catastrophic happens before doing something? By which time it's too late. That's just moronic.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
moronic is worrying about something that a) will never happen, and b) you have no control over
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:moronic is worrying about something that a) will never happen, and b) you have no control over Yeah, it would be a real shame if we went through all this effort developing green energy sources and moving away from fossil fuels and subsequent CO2 emissions -- it's not like fossil fuels are ever going to run out, and it's not like we'd be creating a better society for people to live in anyway. I bet all those people who live in Beijing absolutely love being literally choked to death by pollution.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:Amazed how this can get to so many pages when discussing a fat.
To all those deniers, what is your evidence? And what makes your 'evidence' better than the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that get published on the matter every month? burden of proof is upon you you can talk about all the peer review papers you want, but i challenge you to find one that produces definitive proof that humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change (which has yet to happen) if the science was so settled you wouldn't need to spend billions of dollars on propaganda and produce thousands of papers, as well as go to such an extent to marginalise skeptics as infidels to your fanatical dogma So rather than arguing with an actual argument (of which you have no) you're just going to argue who the burden of proof is on. Science is never about definite proof because we can never know anything with 100% certainty (only religion is dumb enough to promise Truth where as science looks for the best possible explanation). Its about using everything we have to find evidence to gain and understanding until we can propose a theory. Theory, from the Greek concept of theoria, is something with overwhelming evidence in its favour. Science is about continually researching something to check and expand our understanding. With every new way of research and every further paper published on the matter it proves without any reasonable doubt that climate change is real and is amplified by man. Its funny because if less papers were published on the matter youd be saying there isnt enough evidence. The bold just shows your complete and utter ignorance over the matter and a complete unwillingness to actually understand the matter. Its sometimes a pity that wilfully ignorant people like you get to vote and hold the country back. Ive got the thousands of scientific papers published every month, and the vast majority of experts (as in people who know the topic way better than you every will) on my side. Who is on your side? The tinfoil hat brigade? Ricecrackers doesn't believe in climate change because he doesn't see significant physical proof. As usual everybody else is wrong and he's right. He also doesn't believe in gravity, electricity or evolution.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:Amazed how this can get to so many pages when discussing a fat.
To all those deniers, what is your evidence? And what makes your 'evidence' better than the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that get published on the matter every month? burden of proof is upon you you can talk about all the peer review papers you want, but i challenge you to find one that produces definitive proof that humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change (which has yet to happen) if the science was so settled you wouldn't need to spend billions of dollars on propaganda and produce thousands of papers, as well as go to such an extent to marginalise skeptics as infidels to your fanatical dogma So rather than arguing with an actual argument (of which you have no) you're just going to argue who the burden of proof is on. Science is never about definite proof because we can never know anything with 100% certainty (only religion is dumb enough to promise Truth where as science looks for the best possible explanation). Its about using everything we have to find evidence to gain and understanding until we can propose a theory. Theory, from the Greek concept of theoria, is something with overwhelming evidence in its favour. Science is about continually researching something to check and expand our understanding. With every new way of research and every further paper published on the matter it proves without any reasonable doubt that climate change is real and is amplified by man. Its funny because if less papers were published on the matter youd be saying there isnt enough evidence. The bold just shows your complete and utter ignorance over the matter and a complete unwillingness to actually understand the matter. Its sometimes a pity that wilfully ignorant people like you get to vote and hold the country back. Ive got the thousands of scientific papers published every month, and the vast majority of experts (as in people who know the topic way better than you every will) on my side. Who is on your side? The tinfoil hat brigade? you believe experts who have a vested interest you may as well believe catholic priests you're calling me ignorant however your position is completely unscientific, ie your evidence is the 'number of experts' that agree with you science is not a popularity contest there is no overwhelming evidence. there is no significant change occurring with the climate. all your computer models (and thats what all of this so called climate science is based upon) have failed to predict anything you started off by telling us it was global warming, and when that didnt happen you changed the dogma to "climate change" now every time there is a flood, a drought, a storm, no storm, a warm season, a cold season... you say look see, its climate change its real! you're all a bunch of crazies...well those that are gaining financially out of it are not crazy, they're just lacking in ethics the rest of you are just nuts
|
|
|