OT: carbon dioxide reduction question

[kreed]

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.

[gree...@neo.rr.com]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The carbon diozide used in soft drinks comes from the air. So, they
are reducing atmospheric CO2 for the time the CO2 is in the can or
bottle. It is later release back into the atmosphere so there is no
net gain or loss. The CO2 people are worried about comes from burning
fossil fuels where the CO2 comes from the carbon in the fuels combined
with oxygen from the air.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Not from the air:
<http://www.uigi.com/co2recovery.html>
Industrial CO2 (including soda water) comes mostly from waste gases
produced by power plants, lime production, and from corn to ethenol
production.
<http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html>
Were it not used in soft drinks, it would be released to the air and
therefore does not count in the atmospheric CO2 calculations.

Some numbers:
<http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php>
Yearly CO2 emitters Billion metric tons
per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate) 0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations 0.22

I couldn't find anything on industrial CO2 bottled gas production, but
my guess is that it's tiny compared to the above figures.


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

[Robert Macy]

On Oct 1, 8:43 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:56:53 -0400, green...@neo.rr.com wrote:
> >On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com>

> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Finally! a breath of sanity!

Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
man's production.

Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
by this distraction?

[Charlie]

"kreed" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>
> 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.
>

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

For shame!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Some numbers:
>> <http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php>
>>      Yearly CO2 emitters                   Billion metric tons
>>                                                per year (Gt/y)
>> Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate)         0.26
>> Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected)               35.0
>> Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks)                    3.0
>> Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations    0.22

>Finally! a breath of sanity!

Don't hold your breath.

>Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
>man's production.

Ummm... you didn't read it correctly. Man made CO2 production is 35
billion tons per year. Natural sources (i.e. volcanoes) is only 0.26
billion tons per year or 0.7% of what man produces.

>Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
>by this distraction?

Yep. Wanna buy some carbon credits?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com

Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jim Whitby]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:29:01 -0400, Charlie wrote:

> "kreed" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-
b11b-8a1...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> 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.
>>
> Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?
>
> For shame!

Hmmmm... I suppose removing the CO2 is a good idea. The trees, grass and
other plant life wouldn't grow as fast. Less grass to cut. Wait. I don't
have to cut the grass.

Hmmmm... I suppose the plant growth would also slow down the oxygen
produced too. That might be good! Maybe all the CO2 idiots would
suffocate!

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:
> Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

**It's not hype. It's all about science. Something you have no familiarity
with.

>
> 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.

**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.

>
>
> 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.

**Did it strike you to think where that CO2 came from? It is extracted from
the atmosphere. Thus carbonated soft drinks actually help with removing CO2
from the atmosphere.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

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

>
> For shame!

**For shame indeed. WFT were you idiots doing when you were supposed to be
learning science in school?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Utter nonsense. Study up some science sometime.

>
> Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
> by this distraction?

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Metro]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9epg29...@mid.individual.net...

WTF does WFT mean?

[Trevor Wilson]

**LOL! That would be a typo.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Macy]

On Oct 1, 11:11 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
>

> <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Some numbers:
> >> <http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php>
> >> Yearly CO2 emitters Billion metric tons
> >> per year (Gt/y)
> >> Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate) 0.26
> >> Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
> >> Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
> >> Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations 0.22
> >Finally! a breath of sanity!
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
> >Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
> >man's production.
>
> Ummm... you didn't read it correctly.  Man made CO2 production is 35
> billion tons per year.  Natural sources (i.e. volcanoes) is only 0.26
> billion tons per year or 0.7% of what man produces.
>
> >Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
> >by this distraction?
>
> Yep.  Wanna buy some carbon credits?
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com

> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

How much from the Indonesian fires still burning?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Metro wrote:
>
> WTF does WFT mean?


Wantonly Feeding Trolls


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

[Michael A. Terrell]

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?

[Trevor Wilson]

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?

**They don't. Well, not all of them. CO2 is not required for beer, though it
is used sometimes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Plai...@yawhoo.com]

Considering the intellectual content of your post, it would seem you
are a non-CO2 idiot. CO2 content of the atmosphere is not a limiting
factor of plant growth. Moisture, sunlight, minerals, and temperature
are the key limiting factors. Temperature is the wild card - as
temperatures increase plants at the warmer end of their range no
longer thrive. Eventually plants which are hardy at the higher
temperature will supplant them, but in the interim there is less
growth, and less CO2 absorbed.

PlainBill

[Jeff Liebermann]

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

>How much from the Indonesian fires still burning?

It's quite large and constitutes (depending on authority and study)
between 5% to 20% of the approximately 35 billion tons of CO2 that man
belches each year.
<http://trendsupdates.com/forest-fires-cause-20-of-co2-emissions/>
<http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov07/article.html?id=WebExtra111207.html>
<http://www.greendiary.com/entry/forest-fires-emit-co2-in-tons-each-year/>
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2007/10/dirty_burns.html>
Forest and brush fires are usually included as part of the human
contribution to CO2, possibly because many such fires are started by
humans. I guess the lightning that starts most US forest fires is
also man made.

Of course, it's been suggested that global warming "fuels" forest
fires, making the mechanism positive feedback:
<http://www.livescience.com/4113-global-warming-fuels-forest-fires.html>
"The country's western forests, which traditionally act as
storage "sinks" for sequestering 20 to 40 percent of all
U.S. carbon output, are now transforming into a source
of atmospheric carbon dioxide as they burn up, the authors
write."

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.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com

Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Dennis]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:9epfv7...@mid.individual.net...

Now I'm waiting for someone to suggest soft drink vaults for CO2
sequestration... :)

[Jeffrey Angus]

If you really want to cut back on global warming, learn
how to trim and edit your posts.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

[Dennis]

:)

Hows that?

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 10/2/2011 6:41 AM, Dennis wrote:
> :)
>
> Hows that?

Every bit sent via the net takes a small amount of energy
to transmit. Multiply that by the number of news servers
and it adds up.

And yes, ya done good Dennis.

[Metro]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:9eq18v...@mid.individual.net...

CO2 is produced in the production of beer. It is collected ( or harvested
in NS ) and used in the bars and pubs etc for the serving thereof.

[who where]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 21:03:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@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.

[Michael A. Terrell]

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

[atec77]

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

[kreed]

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)

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenre...@gmail.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>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)

I refrain from drinking mineral water because it is indistinguishable
from tap water, but others claim that it, too, has an unacceptable
carbon footprint.

http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/watercrisis/view.php?db=1&article=20080219-119924

"LONDON -- London Mayor Ken Livingstone on Tuesday [February 19, 2008]
launched a blitz against bottled mineral water, urging restaurant
customers in the British capital to ask for tap water to help the
environment.

Livingstone said tap water was not only cheaper but also comes without
the heavy carbon footprint of transporting bottled varieties by road
and often vast distances by air from countries as far away as Fiji and
New Zealand."

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[who where]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?

Yes.

[who where]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:23:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>who where wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 21:03:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.t...@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.

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

[kreed]

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.

[Trevor Wilson]

**You're most welcome.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[atec77]

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

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

[Dennis]

"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:08hi87doid1bf927p...@4ax.com...

I know for a fact that one of the large name mineral waters sold here in
WA is simply bore water from a property in the hills near Perth.

Tap water is the way to go.

[kreed]

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 ?


> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

[kreed]

On Oct 3, 3:23 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com>

> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
> >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)
>
> I refrain from drinking mineral water because it is indistinguishable
> from tap water, but others claim that it, too, has an unacceptable
> carbon footprint.
>

> http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/watercrisis/view.php?db=1&arti...

>
> "LONDON -- London Mayor Ken Livingstone on Tuesday [February 19, 2008]
> launched a blitz against bottled mineral water, urging restaurant
> customers in the British capital to ask for tap water to help the
> environment.
>
> Livingstone said tap water was not only cheaper but also comes without
> the heavy carbon footprint of transporting bottled varieties by road
> and often vast distances by air from countries as far away as Fiji and
> New Zealand."
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I always drank tap water (again no difference in taste in my opinion,
and it is essentially free) but stopped when fluoride was put in by
QLD state government order earlier in the year, as there is plenty of
controversy as to its safety that I would rather not risk it.
Back to rain water for me.


(For those that are into carbon footprints, I don't see how you can
beat rainwater).

[Phil Hobbs]

How about all the ambulance traffic for people who get dysentery from
drinking the bird droppings rinsed off their roof? ;-&

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[kreed]

On Oct 3, 10:04 pm, Phil Hobbs

On modern tanks, you have a "first flush" unit, that discards the
first lot of water, this allows sufficient time for the roof to be
washed clean before the tank starts filling, then the water is fine,
no dirt and crap. Interestingly though, at school a long long time
ago, we had 2x 8,000 gallon (approx) tanks that collected rain water
from the roof for drinking - no first flush or filter, everyone drank
out of them, including the teachers and no one got sick from it.

Of course, if there were toxic chemicals in the air and it wasnt safe,
I wouldnt drink it, but that isnt the case here.

No health problems in my family.

[Trevor Wilson]

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Roger Blake]

On 2011-10-01, Trevor Wilson <tre...@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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Franc Zabkar]

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

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.

[Trevor Wilson]

**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

[amdx]

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 <tre...@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

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[Trevor Wilson]

**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

[josephkk]

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

?-)

[F Murtz]

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

[Plai...@yawhoo.com]

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

[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.

[Michael A. Terrell]

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

[kreed]

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.

[atec77]

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

[F Murtz]

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]

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

[kreed]

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

[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]

**Duh.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Duh.


Typical response from you. :(

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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..

[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

[josephkk]

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.

?-/

[Michael A. Terrell]

He's also an anti-gun nutball.

[kreed]

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

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

The further you dig, the worse it gets.

[Michael A. Terrell]

No need to dig. It's obvious.

[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]

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.t...@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]

There are different brewing methods.