that's an attack? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

what is funny is you seem to not understand that in the province of BC, the LNG issues are coming up with our government budgets.

so,

no, you don't need to explain this to me at all.. and to be frank, 7B in that part of the world is almost generous.

tell me, what experience do you have in building the infrastructure necessary for a LNG terminal

what do you call an argument directed at a person, and not a matter of hand?

i know this as an Ad Hominem argument, or, an attack on a persons character rather than.. ba you should probably just read it anyway

Sure, I come from a family that's been in the o&g bidness for 2+ gens. When I graduated HS I didn't go straight to college, I went straight to work for my Uncle's o&g construction business building the very first shale oil retort plant in the USA, google it. This was beginning in 1982 and retort was the precurser tech to the current fracking tech. My brother in law currently overseesthe entire NG gas production infrastructure for the entire midwest region for conocophillips, based out of NM. My uncle now is currently the CEO of a NG fracking outfit based in Houston. My Mom, eh, what's the point I could go on.

You're welcome. :1orglaugh

so your family makes money raping the earth for useless, explosive oil, that has already killed how many americans?

and you think 7b is an incorrect number? :)

Ya, some vehicles use it here too - mostly fleet vehicles, taxis, etc. Not many regular cars use it. Price of NG is going up because of increased demand due to the reduction in use of coal power.

You currently live in a period that is the most prosperous and has the highest quality of life for more people on the planet than at any other time in history.

Most of that prosperity and quality of life is due directly to our exploitation of fossil fuels. Despite that you are somehow able to come up with the notion that it is "useless" and that we are "raping" the earth for it? What natural resource do we not "rape" the earth for?

Go ahead and try to live your life without utilizing any product derived from oil. Maybe you'll be able to find a nice warm cave somewhere.

God damn some people just make no sense.

Don't disguise the fact that the only way you can talk like to anyone is that your address can't be traced to you because you live in your moms basement.

that's probably due to how you interpret what you read.

am i talking about all fossil fuels, or just LNG?

edit: sorry, LPG

again, you claim I attack you when I state you are an opportunistic poster yet when I respectfully answer another question you posed to me, you spin my answer around to make this comment about my family?


:1orglaugh

when you are bringing my family into it, you refer to it as oil.

<-- false
they found oil in alaska and texas thats why the eu is like fuck russian oil thats why things are getting testy

_Richard_ thinks he's so clever, first he schemes to corner me into admitting I don't know wtf I'm talking about re: NG, but when I respectfully reply to that inquiry and fill him in on that, he simply drops that angle and picks up a new one- my family of murderers and earth rapers.

hahahahahahahahahahah, that's _Richard_

well, it's more to underline the fact you have vested interest in anything she says to be wrong

schemes?

have you lost your mind?

well, considering, nevermind

I know this is gfy but that doesn't mean 3rd grade logic works in every case, you had no idea what my interest was with my initial review of her biased opinion column.

So yes, feel free to try and get the thread readers to think you had a master plan here to reveal my agenda but just realize you're pretty much the only buying your schtick.

does it matter? you and your family make money in an industry she and a great deal of other people are fighting against.

whatever you think your reasons are, it really doesn't matter at this point, does it

what does what matter? that you think you gotcha'd me? YOu mean like exactly what I was saying you do? opportunistically try to gotcha people for no reason.


btw, I make money exploiting nekked girls :warning and choose to live green, not point my finger at others for doing so or not.

dude, we are having a pointless discussion on the internet. no one is trying to 'gotcha' you

alright, this is a waste of time, ill be sure to avoid 'gotcha'ing' you in the future. :disgust

yes, that's why when I answered your question re: my experience with NG your retort was to characterize my family as murderers and rapists.

i never said anything about murder, i was referring to the seemingly endless stories of LNG explosions as it's transported around north american and the world, resulting in countless explosions and accidents that have caused the deaths of numerous people.

you called that murder.

in regards to the raping comment..

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/do...e-earthquakes/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...c-fracking.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...na-texas-brine

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcma...m-at-landfill/

which, has the headline of: 'Fracking Truck Sets Off Radiation Alarm At Landfill'

considering the amount of deregulation, propaganda, and disinfo that surrounds this industry, i feel i am a little justified in using such a heavy word.

Yes, killing in this context does not = murder. :upsidedow

so you're saying the shoe fits.. i think so too

o0o00o0oo000o!
you got me good huh!

Australia could be worried about this deal...

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Pheonix didn't mention Thermal.


Woohoo!!!

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup


Why? Gas is dirty and expensive and inefficient. It pollutes the air and water during manufacturing, usage and even dripped from the gas station. Buying Gas puts money into foreign countries that hate you. Why not go electric?


:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup


No one is acting elitist. Electricity is better source of energy for cars. If anything, you are the one acting elitist because you are putting green people down without any facts to sustain your beliefs other than, they are your beliefs.





Hold on there, Skippy: Your bike is alot lighter than a car so of course its going to get better gas millage. But only 40 MPG? Seems kind of shitty for a bike. But don't paint your face green just yet. Motor Cycles pollute more than cars do, even though bikes use less gas. What do you have against polar bears anyway?


PS: I sold my V8 Camaro and ordered a Chevy Volt. No kidding! Expecting delivery any day. Can't wait! Electric is COOL. Gas is not. Cheers!

It's over 30 years... That's chicken scratch for the oil and gas industry in 2013 BP made 350 billion that's nearly this contract for a single year not 10. Yes it's a nice contract, but it's not going to replace sales to Europe..

So not on-topic posts here? :)

Read the thread, I never said anything about not going electric and in fact I've never said anything about not going electric.


Yes, when someone calls other people names for using gas when they use green, that's elitist. the science is settled on that, **********. Umm, I wasn't the one putting people down, again, read the thread. the guy said anyone who uses gas is a retarded moron and I said that's the stupidiest fucking thing I've read here and it was at that point.

What's really nutty is you still haven't figured out I'm prolly the greenest mother fucker in here. I just don't flaunt that, show it off, act superior about it, expect others to do as I do and when they don't, act elite about it.

Electric comes from coal? just as pollutant as oil.


bicycles and public transportation is the way to go until we go 100% solar and wind

**********, I am going to give you some bad news, you should prolly sit down.

Mythbusters is not legitimate science. You need to turn your television off and get your infos elsewhere.

On the first page of this thread you said "that's the stupidest fucking gfy comment I've read in a while." to DMContent's "You guys need to start thinking green" comment. Though, maybe you were talking about his previous comment, in which case, you were right. :)



I have never called anyone names for using Gasoline. I'm not stupid - I know we will never be able to get rid of Gas and Oil. In fact, Gas is probably more efficient when it comes to large vehicles such as trucks. What makes me cringe is when people deny science, or use pseudo-science to justify their beliefs.


The science is settled on what?

See above.

I'm not flaunting. I've driven V8's forever and I've been a hypocrit about it too by bitching about dirty oil and driving V8's at the same time. I've done my research and "learned my lesson" as it were, which is why I'm switching to a much more efficient car. I'm not telling you to do it because I have no idea what you drive already or if going electric is a very green solution for you because maybe you get your electricity from coal for example. All I am doing is pointing out where I think people are wrong on the issue, and hoping they will challenge me on it. I've found that Friendly (!) debates like this are a great way to learn things. I also never call anyone names unless they call me names first.

Not entirely true. Electricity comes from Hydro electric stations, nuclear, solar, wind, thermal, wind, and coal. How much from each source you get depends where you live. The US is getting more and more power from green sources (Congratulations!!!). Almost all of the electricity available to us in Montreal Quebec, is hydro electric, with some of it coming from nuclear. Some of it also comes from Wind I just found out.

that's all you do it flaunt it, **********. LOok at me, I bought a volt, I'm saving the earf. I could easily go dig up 100s of similar posts and threads by you with that same look at me for being green attitude.

On the other hand, you don't see me starting threads like "Look at me I took the cross town train, a bus and my fixie to run my errands today." Or "look at me, I moved into an adaptive reuse building with alternate energy. etc etc on&on. et al.

I believe this thread was originally about natural gas and not gasoline.

Natural gas is the cleanest burning of all the fossil fuels and is used to generate much of the electricity that you urge people to use.

And if you really want to be truly "green", not the marketing the marketing ploy "green", then you should be emitting more CO2 not less. CO2 is plant fertilizer not pollution.

Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Cause Desert Greening, Satellite Observations Reveal

don't disguise the fact that even you found my comment funny as fuck :1orglaugh

Hi Dynamo,

Actually I wash't talking about Mythbusters at all, but since you brought it up, it turns out they were right.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...w-device-shows



I'm sorry - I really didn't think I was "flaunting" anything. I've shot my mouth off while driving a V8, which was hypocritical of me. I've decided to do something about it and get what is in my opinion, a better car, "for me".

I don't want to fight with you. The only thing I will continue to "flaunt" though, are facts over falsehoods. Would that be ok? I love a spirited debate as much as you do I'm sure. Everyone should be allow to post their opinions just as much as everyone else is allowed to shoot them down.

Peace, my green friend.

Natural gas burns fairly clean, but producing it is very expensive, pollution-wise. "Fracking" is probably one of the most pollution-heavy methods of obtaining and refining natural gas there is which is why I'm not a big fan of it. See http://www.cleanwateraction.org/page/fracking-dangers

But besides this, Natual gas is good for heating and other things, but not very efficient when it comes to being used in cars. Like Hydrogen, it would have to be compressed, and storage in a car would be big and heavy.

Plants drink Carbon Dioxide, yes, and push it into the ground. The problem is that there is too much carbon dioxide in the air now, and not enough plant life to drink up the CO2. We have tipped the balance, as it were. More CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat in the earth, raising the average temperature of the planet.

The article you linked to also says this:

Peace.

That article you are linking is citing the mythbusters episode I am referring to, that episode has been busted, here are the key points showing that the testing was not scientific-

:::::::::

Conclusion
Through these 10 points, we see the following:
- A representative sample of motorcycles was not chosen.
- The motorcycles that were used in the test are in no way comparable to the cars used.
- An unacceptable amount of unknown variables are introduced into the test by the question of maintenance.
- All testing achieved was rough verification of emission levels defined by law.
- Total environmental impact was neither tested nor factored into assumptions.
- Testing didn’t replicate real world conditions.
- A portion of the testing went on a tangent unrelated to emissions.
- Unintentionally, poisonous gasses were shown to have little effect on the short term health of humans.
- Test results were weighted towards chemicals harmful to humans, not ones harmful to the environment.

Together, all this represents a serious lapse in science. The results of the testing aren’t repeatable as too many unknown variables — maintenance, vehicle condition — enter into them. The hypothesis, that motorcycles are more damaging to the environment than cars, was sweeping, yet only tested on a single variable — tailpipe emissions. The results of that single variable testing still showed that cars are more damaging to the environment because they produce more global warming-causing CO2, yet the conclusion was weighted to diminish the importance of that data.

Because of this, we have no choice but to declare the premise, “At this point in time, it is not better for the environment to trade your car for a motorcycle,” busted. A more accurate conclusion would be that a race replica motorcycle capable of speeds approaching 200mph uses less fuel and emits less CO2 than a rental car, but does emit more NOx, HC and CO, chemicals which haven’t been shown to be major contributors to global warming. But that wouldn’t have made good television, would it?

Plants do not push CO2 into the ground. They convert the CO2 into carbohydrates.

There is not too much CO2 in the air now and we have not tipped the balance. That is the biggest lie ever used to brainwash a mass of people. It is nothing but the most insidious modern day use of Hitler's "big lie" technique.

More CO2 = more plants. More plants = greener earth.

Current CO2 levels are actually at or near their historically lowest levels and are way closer to the lower limit of alarm than they are to any theoretical higher limit. At 150ppm and lower plant life shuts down. That would cause mass extinction.

If you want to be green fight deforestation and reduction of biomass instead of fighting CO2 emissions.

http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/

As I said in the very first line of my post Dyna Mo, I was not referring to Mythbusters. Here is some other proof for you:

http://www.worldcarfree.net/resource...es/motorcy.htm

Motorcycles Pollute More Than SUVs
http://www.wired.com/2008/06/motorcycles-pol/

So......... agree to disagree.

Really? You brought Hitler into this? Geezuz...

Ok... on a related note then.... can I ask you these questions?

1. Is the earth getting warmer?
2. If yes, are humans contributing to the cause?
3. If yes, can we do anything about it?
4. If yes, Should we do anything about it?

Well, Hitler coined the term "big lie" as a propaganda technique. I don't see the harm in pointing that out when I feel that that technique is being used.

1. For the past 17 years no, but yes it had warmed slightly in the 100 years prior to that. But nothing to warrant the current levels of alarm-ism and hysteria. Temps are still well within the range of natural variability.

2. It has yet to be proven if we are. Even if we are it is likely very minimal and is more likely due to changes in land cover and not CO2 emissions. See article re: deforestation above.

3. Not very likely and certainly not with what current pols and alarmists prescribe. Fight deforestation, promote reforestation and stop focusing all efforts and money on a harmless trace gas. Carbon taxes, carbon credits and all of that nonsense accomplish nothing.

4. No. Warmer > colder and there is no proof that any warming will be catastrophic and no proof that we can do anything about if even we wanted to. So far the prescribed solutions to the proposed problem are more damaging than the problem they supposedly solve. It's like prescribing amputation for a paper cut because it might get infected.

The entire argument is misleading. Do you know where the data you are referring to comes from? A reporter. Here's the original story
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-hy-th...n11-story.html

In it the author refers to a CARB comparison of EPA vehicles, there is no CARB comparison though. She went through and did the comparison herself, which is fine, I don't disagree with the factual results but I find the basic conclusion misleading.

Now, there are emission test reports for vehicles ans sure enough many (not all, not most, many) of the motorcycles are listed as discharging more NOX and/or CO (not CO2).

The reason for this, and it's been known for a long time, is the lack of emissions controls on motocycles.

BUT the CO2 needs to be considered, especially to you since that's what you attribute climate change to, and in that regard motorcyles emit less than cars, suvs and trucks.

Also, the original article was written in 2008, there were several EPA standards in place but not yet required, those kicked in in 2010.

The bigger picture shows that while many models of motorcycles can generate more smog-producing pollution than cars, motorcycles use less gasoline, emit less CO2 and reduce congestion, which contributes even more to reducing pollution.

No surprise here.

Gazprom/Shell joint venture started fracking russian oil this year. Putin supports green energy as long as it is outside Russian borders :)