Re: carbon dioxide reduction question

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

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

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

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.

Jeff


--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

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

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 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_i...at_glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact..._lamp#Lifespan

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

http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resourc...dule04/08.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

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

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

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