OT: carbon dioxide reduction question

[Trevor Wilson]

Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own
CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic beverages,
then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2 generated by the
fermentation process is still essentially man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely attempting to
educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some scientific facts. IE:
That the fermentaion process creates CO2. For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was made that
carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2. A completely
different scenario, though the energy required for manufacture may create
CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2 up in soft drink containers is
actually a good thing (though an incredibly wasteful, energy intensive
method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Roger Blake]

On 2011-10-01, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Humans (and pretty much every other critter on the planet) will gain, when
(or, more likely, IF) CO2 levels are reduced.

Riiiight. And if you close your eyes, Tinkerbell will live.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[amdx]

On 10/1/2011 10:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:45:33 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
robert.a.macy@gmail.com> wrote:


Incidentally, I'm doing my best to contribute to the problem. During
winter, I heat my house with about 2.5 cords of oak and madrone.
http://transitionculture.org/2008/05/19/is-burning-wood-really-a-long-term-energy-descent-strategy/
"The carbon dioxide released when burning wood (about 1900g CO2
for each 1000g of wood burnt) is balanced by the fact that
this carbon was taken up by the tree from the air when it grew.
So this part of the emissions is carbon-neutral. However, many
other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including
one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide;
although the amounts may be small (200 g of CO2 equivalent
per kg of wood burnt), the gas is 300 times more potent as
a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and lasts 120 years in
the atmosphere."
Hmmm... maybe I should install a catalytic converter on the
woodburner.

Get one of these and make fuel with your homemade CO2!
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/4802
Mikek

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Roger Blake wrote:

On 2011-10-01, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
**Humans (and pretty much every other critter on the planet) will
gain, when (or, more likely, IF) CO2 levels are reduced.

Riiiight. And if you close your eyes, Tinkerbell will live.

**Nup. Just the science. Always the science. You may embrace the
supernatural, if that makes you feel more comfortable. Me? I'll stick with
the science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

who where wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The blueprints I saw for one brewery had a large tank, and piping for
tank trucks to deliver Carbon Dioxide.

Deliver? or receive.... The brewing process generates CO2.

Can't you read? I said DELIVER. What was generated by the brewing
process didn't produce enough CO2, so they trucked in what they needed
to get the desired levels. There are a lot of different ways to brew
beer, after all.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own
CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011


Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for you to go
back to school. Your education is severely compromised.

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic beverages,
then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2 generated by the
fermentation process is still essentially man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days ago. In any
case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very basic high school
science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of this, very basic piece of
chemistry, suggests that you are way out of your depth discussing scientific
matters.

For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was made
that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2. A
completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).


The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.

I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of "carbon
pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important), or to my
own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far more
importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own
CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic beverages,
then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2 generated by the
fermentation process is still essentially man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely attempting to
educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some scientific facts. IE:
That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

For some reason, this idiot

continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was made that
carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2. A completely
different scenario, though the energy required for manufacture may create
CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2 up in soft drink containers is
actually a good thing (though an incredibly wasteful, energy intensive
method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.


I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of "carbon
pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important), or to my
own bad health. (very important)

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.



I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.





For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.



I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

We are starting to see your true

"green fascism" personality shine through.


Religious Nutters ? LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell regularly deny science.

So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with.
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
book.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own
CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for you to go
back to school. Your education is severely compromised.



I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic beverages,
then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2 generated by the
fermentation process is still essentially man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days ago. In any
case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very basic high school
science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of this, very basic piece of
chemistry, suggests that you are way out of your depth discussing scientific
matters.





For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was made
that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2. A
completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.



I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of "carbon
pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important), or to my
own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far more
importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor. We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.


Religious Nutters ? LOL


So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[josephkk]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:22:25 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 3/10/2011 1:15 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:41 pm, atec77<ate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2011 11:23 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



who where wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 21:03:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process.

Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?

The ones I have visited (northern Europe, mainly) have tanks for
*collecting* the CO2 byproduct of brewing, and it is then used
industrially or in-house for carbonated drinks.

The blueprints I saw for one brewery had a large tank, and piping for
tank trucks to deliver Carbon Dioxide.

What I know as beer gas
A lot of the generated gas in the fermentation process is used to
compress the kegs and larger container for delivery , very strong beer
smell of course

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

(Not that it matters of course)

yup
basic chemistry , beer is related to yogurt
I know which I prefer

Not all that closely, different bacteria, different inputs, and different
outputs.

?-)

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.



I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.





For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.



I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.


Religious Nutters ? LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell regularly deny science.



So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.


Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with.
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
book.

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:13:11 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.

Only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to do with climate
in their daytime jobs:
<http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/christyschlesinger-debate-part-ii/>
<http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/>
Of course, I'm not an expert on the subject of climate, so please feel
free to ignore me.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:54:19 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic beverages,
then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2 generated by the
fermentation process is still essentially man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

- Franc Zabkar
There is a significant difference. In most cases automobiles use

fossil fuels; thus they release carbon (as CO2) that was sequestered
for millenia. If I take a corn crop and ferment it into alcohol, feed
it to cattle, or plow it into the ground, the carbon (as CO2) was
removed from the atmosphere within the last 6 - 9 months. If the
alcohol is used to produce wiskey it will be out of the atmosphere for
less than a decade; the other uses return it to the atmosphere more
quickly. Even if I let the field go to weeds, the same process will
occur.

PlainBill

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, October 1, 2011 6:03:31 PM UTC-7, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process.


Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?

To control the process, of course. One doesn't want the yeast to
suffer from the waste product while it's fermenting, so you remove
that gas. Then you DO want the yeast to stop metabolizing at
the end of the process, so (maybe) you inject the CO2 back in.
Or, you liquefy it and sell it to the softdrink manufacturers.

Sigh. They were trucking in liquid CO2, not hauling it off.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, October 1, 2011 6:03:31 PM UTC-7, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process.


Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?

To control the process, of course. One doesn't want the yeast to
suffer from the waste product while it's fermenting, so you remove
that gas. Then you DO want the yeast to stop metabolizing at
the end of the process, so (maybe) you inject the CO2 back in.
Or, you liquefy it and sell it to the softdrink manufacturers.

 

[atec77]

On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:

On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.

For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.

I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.

Religious Nutters ? LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell regularly deny science.

So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with.
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
book.

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.


Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
then you must be :

- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".


Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the

release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
outside his limited trade training
B

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[kreed]

On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>  wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>  wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au>  put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net>  wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com>  wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.

For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.

I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

   We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.

Religious Nutters ?   LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell regularly deny science.

So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with..
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
book.

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
  Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.

Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
then you must be :

- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".


Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.

 

[F Murtz]

atec77 wrote:

On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.

For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.

I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.

Religious Nutters ? LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and
George
Pell regularly deny science.

So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity
with.
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the
same
book.

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.


Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
then you must be :

- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".


Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the
release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
outside his limited trade training
B

Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the
CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.

 

[kreed]

On Oct 5, 4:40 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

atec77 wrote:
On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.

For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.

I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.

Religious Nutters ? LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and
George
Pell regularly deny science.

So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity
with.
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the
same
book.

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.

Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
then you must be :

- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".

Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the
release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
outside his limited trade training
B

Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the
CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.

mmm, now that is interesting. Explains a lot too.

 

[kreed]

On Oct 5, 4:40 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

atec77 wrote:
On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

Good, thank you for confirming that.

**You're most welcome.

For what ?

**For this:

"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011

Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.

I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
man-made.

It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
process.

**I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

**Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
of your depth discussing scientific matters.

For some reason, this idiot
continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
the atmosphere).

The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
the first place.

**Duh.

I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
"carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
or to my own bad health. (very important)

**You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.

We are starting to see your true
"green fascism" personality shine through.

Religious Nutters ? LOL

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and
George
Pell regularly deny science.

So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
then if that is the case ?

**Strawman noted. And ignored.

Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.

**The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity
with.
You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the
same
book.

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.

Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
then you must be :

- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".

Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the
release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
outside his limited trade training
B

Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the
CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.

I wonder which one of these he is ?
http://menzieshouse.typepad.com/.a/6a012876778d82970c015434740b5b970c-500wi