OT: carbon dioxide reduction question

[Uwe Hercksen]

Trevor Wilson schrieb:

**Because, my scientifically ignorant 'friend', the CO2 used for the
production of soft drinks is extracted from the air. IOW, the CO2 in soft
drinks is actually assisting with the REMOVAL of CO2 from the atmosphere.
That is a good thing. OTOH, a case could be made for banning soft drinks on
the basis that they use energy for their manufacture and are, generally, an
appalling way for humans to obtain kilojoules.

Hello,

the CO2 in soft drinks is released to the atmosphere again when these
drinks are consumed. This CO2 is exhaled after some time.

Bye

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Uwe Hercksen wrote:

Trevor Wilson schrieb:

**Because, my scientifically ignorant 'friend', the CO2 used for the
production of soft drinks is extracted from the air. IOW, the CO2 in
soft drinks is actually assisting with the REMOVAL of CO2 from the
atmosphere. That is a good thing. OTOH, a case could be made for
banning soft drinks on the basis that they use energy for their
manufacture and are, generally, an appalling way for humans to
obtain kilojoules.

Hello,

the CO2 in soft drinks is released to the atmosphere again when these
drinks are consumed. This CO2 is exhaled after some time.

**Duh.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.


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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.


Typical response from you.

**Nope. Just a succinct one. Here, OTOH, is a typical response from me
(after an idiotic post from you):

**I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:

http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_info/bulbs_at_glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Lifespan

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resources/firstlight/module04/08.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating

This is an interesting primer on the topic:

http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.


Typical response from you.

**Nope. Just a succinct one. Here, OTOH, is a typical response from me
(after an idiotic post from you):

**I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:

You can find websites that say whatever you want, 'Chicken Little'.
None of their so called science is proven, just like your claims.


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

 

[kreed]

On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

   Typical response from you.

You can't expect much more from it.

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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.


You can't expect much more from it.

**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor have you
commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your idea of a cogent
argument is to refuse to respond to questions and points of logic and resort
to pitiful sniping.

You are a failure.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[atec77]

On 6/10/2011 6:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.


Typical response from you.


Considering how little demonstrable formal education tweva had his

response is not surprising , when queried about education the reply was
studiously avoided offering a fair indication of having nothing to back
the claims bar fallacious innuendo and blurred badly modelled results
based on poor information and guesses designed to support a result
rather than obtaining a truthful result and hence by omission maintain
the funding model and income .

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

kreed wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.


You can't expect much more from it.

I don't expect anything from people who refuse to look at the sources
of the material they quote.


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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Oct 6, 11:32 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.

You can't expect much more from it.

**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor
have you commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your
idea of a cogent argument is to refuse to respond to questions and
points of logic and resort to pitiful sniping.


Nothing that could be said to you would break you out of your cult.

**Nothing YOU can say will suggest that the science is wrong. You are far
too stupid to be able to mount a credible argument. You have failed, thus
far, to do so.

You are a failure.


In what way ?

**You're not very bright. You continue to snipe, rather than presenting a
rational, reasonable argument. Look at how Mr Liebermann conducts himself.
You're nothing like that. You are a failure.

I would say that my life has been pretty good to me regarding my
career, marriage family, friends, health etc. I worked hard for
everything I have and have not had to accept handouts, or "sheltered"
jobs, "jobs for the boys" etc.

To me that is not failure and if it is failure in your opinion, so be
it.

**A failure in the sense that you think you are smarter than you really are.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Oct 6, 11:32 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.

You can't expect much more from it.

**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor have you
commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your idea of a cogent
argument is to refuse to respond to questions and points of logic and resort
to pitiful sniping.

Nothing that could be said to you would break you out of your cult.

You are a failure.

In what way ?

I would say that my life has been pretty good to me regarding my
career, marriage family, friends, health etc. I worked hard for
everything I have and have not had to accept handouts, or "sheltered"
jobs, "jobs for the boys" etc.

To me that is not failure and if it is failure in your opinion, so be
it.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

As long as you keep quoting, paid off/vested interest "sources" as
fact, I'm not going to..

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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
He is an audiophool salesman / module replacement tech? Some education.

?-/

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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
He is an audiophool salesman / module replacement tech? Some education.

He's also an anti-gun nutball.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

kreed wrote:

On Oct 8, 2:37 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 <ate...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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
He is an audiophool salesman / module replacement tech? Some education.

He's also an anti-gun nutball.


I forgot about that one. He is into victim disarmament, and with it -
discrimination.

The further you dig, the worse it gets.

No need to dig. It's obvious.

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

 

[kreed]

On Oct 8, 2:37 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 <ate...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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
 He is an audiophool salesman / module replacement tech?  Some education.

   He's also an anti-gun nutball.

I forgot about that one. He is into victim disarmament, and with it -
discrimination.

The further you dig, the worse it gets.

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

 

[keithr]

On 1/10/2011 11:42 PM, kreed wrote:

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.


This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.

Lets use helium instead then we could sound like Mickey Mouse - should

be a major hit with the kids.

 

[Jerry Peters]

In sci.electronics.repair kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 2:37 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 <ate...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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
 He is an audiophool salesman / module replacement tech?  Some education.

   He's also an anti-gun nutball.



I forgot about that one. He is into victim disarmament, and with it -
discrimination.

The further you dig, the worse it gets.

Also, reading his posts on the CFL thread, he's a religious bigot.

Jerry

 

[who where]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:58:30 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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?

Yep, sure can.

I said DELIVER.

Duh, rooly? No need to get bent out of shape.

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.

There must be, if European breweries (who were brewing the stuff long
before your lot) produce excess CO2 and have resorted to making
carbonated soft drinks (er, that's "pop" to you) among other methods
of using the EXCESS.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

who where wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:58:30 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


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?

Yep, sure can.

I said DELIVER.

Duh, rooly? No need to get bent out of shape.

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.

There must be, if European breweries (who were brewing the stuff long
before your lot) produce excess CO2 and have resorted to making
carbonated soft drinks (er, that's "pop" to you) among other methods
of using the EXCESS.

There are different brewing methods.


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