What's wrong...

And they clearly didn't mean that one kilogram of steel physically included 1.8 kilograms of CO2, which is a physically unrealistic nonsense.

Language is a flexible device for conveying information, and you should have paid attention to the meaning that the statement might have been intended to convey as well as to the first - somewhat over-literal - interpretation that sprang up in your mind.

The fact that you had a problem understanding the original statement isn't something that you ought to have admitted. We all know that you are bit dim, but you should still have enough sense left to realise that you don't have to advertise it.

Dan's incapacity to further than the nose in front of his face is now well established.

Pretending that concrete is a means of mitigating CO2 is overdoing it. It won't absorb more than about half of the amount that was liberated to manufacture it in the first place.

I cite from your link: " the concept that the world?s concrete infrastructure could provide the single largest human-made carbon sink has genuine scientific merit" is of course a statement so wrong that it must have been invented by 'creative accounting'.

Jeroen Belleman

You are much dimmer than I. I fully understood what they intended, but they could not express themselves correctly. And I am sceptical of any arguments that include stupid statements.,

You should have enough understanding to know that I was poking fun at the author, but you are too dim to realise that. Never mind trying to justify your statements. Readers of SED already are aware of your lack of wit.

Dan

"Wit" is not all that Slowman is lacking. ...Jim Thompson

te:

e:

e are around 1.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions embodied within a ki logram of steel. That means the steel would contribute a further 4.1 millio n metric tons of CO2.

hat a kilogram of steel would contain 1.8 Kg of CO2. I could believe 1.8 g rams, but have a problem with steel containing more CO2 than steel.

's what they're talking about. Concrete is the worst at 900 Lbs CO2 per cub ic yard, and a cubic yard doesn't get you much in any kind of construction, you need a bunch of them.

of steel embodied 1.8 kilo's of CO2.

uded 1.8 kilograms of CO2, which is a physically unrealistic nonsense.

have paid attention to the meaning that the statement might have been inte nded to convey as well as to the first - somewhat over-literal - interpreta tion that sprang up in your mind.

n't something that you ought to have admitted. We all know that you are bit dim, but you should still have enough sense left to realise that you don't have to advertise it.

Dream on.

elves correctly.

Their use of "embodied" might have been loose, but that's how language evol ves.

The catch is that you are not all that bright, so what looks stupid to you looks merely intellectually demanding to other more gifted - anybody bright er than Jamie ...

author, but you are too dim to realise that.

I can't actually see what you wrote as "poking fun" at the author. You may think that you can get away with claiming that after the event but even on re-inspection what you wrote looks tediously literal.

As I've pointed out already, there's no way that 1 kgm of steel could embod y 1.8kgm of CO2 in any physical sense, and you've not gone to any trouble t o highlight that particular absurdity, and it's only an absurdity if you ar e blind to the more liberal interpretations of "embody".

aware of your lack of wit.

Wit that's unsubtle enough for you to notice. You are drowning here. rather than waving.

ote:

te:

re are around 1.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions embodied within a k ilogram of steel. That means the steel would contribute a further 4.1 milli on metric tons of CO2.

that a kilogram of steel would contain 1.8 Kg of CO2. I could believe 1.8 grams, but have a problem with steel containing more CO2 than steel.

t's what they're talking about. Concrete is the worst at 900 Lbs CO2 per cu bic yard, and a cubic yard doesn't get you much in any kind of construction , you need a bunch of them.

o of steel embodied 1.8 kilo's of CO2.

luded 1.8 kilograms of CO2, which is a physically unrealistic nonsense.

d have paid attention to the meaning that the statement might have been int ended to convey as well as to the first - somewhat over-literal - interpret ation that sprang up in your mind.

sn't something that you ought to have admitted. We all know that you are bi t dim, but you should still have enough sense left to realise that you don' t have to advertise it.

they could not express themselves correctly. And I am sceptical of any arguments that include stupid statements.,

e author, but you are too dim to realise that. Never mind trying to justif y your statements. Readers of SED already are aware of your lack of wit.

Jim regrets that I know more than he does - I lack the degree of ignorance that he exhibits, which also deprives me of the benefits of his political i deologogy, which makes Trump and ex-sherif Joe Arpio the joint pinnacles of political acumen.

Whatever Jim has got, I'm glad I haven't caught it.

You are not very bright. That or you simply have no clue how the base ingredients for concrete are produced. Or both.

I have to agree with you for once.

Maybe like in the movie "Mars Attacks", we can play a certain song and Trump and all of followers' heads will explode and evaporate... Not that there is much mass there to evaporate to start with.

Take your demonstration of stupidity personally? I don't give a shit about you, personally. That doesn't change the fact that you're a flaming idiot.

Just remember higher IQ, better university, and more wealth all tend to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

Dan

Yeah, Bobby, we know. The average wetback is a better soldier than our Special Forces. You can crawl back in your hole now.

And land mines will work for much of the rest.

Don't take it to heart. All krw means is that you have disagreed with him - and since everybody here thinks that krw is some kind of nut-case (even Jim Thompson) this means you've just passed a rather minimal sanity test.

te:

ay you are not as smart as you think you are.

Dan doesn't know what my IQ is, or how much money I've got, and thinks the fact that he went to Princeton says something about how clever he is.

One doesn't have to be all that smart to notice that he's posting what he w ants to be true, rather than anything that demonstrates he's actually all t hat smart.

I find that to be evidence of intellectual inadequacy. In general Dan doesn 't post links that support his point of view, so he doesn't seem to be smar t enough to exploit Google searches. I can manage that.

Dan's first post in this thread claimed that the US electoral college had f unctioned exactly as intended when it chose Trump. He doesn't seem to have known about Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 68 - to which I provided a link in my rejoinder. His original claim displays an unfortunate ignorance of t he public debate that happened after the election, but before the electoral college actually chose Trump, which isn't exactly evidence of smartness.

it's pretty simple really, producing 1kg of steel with currently prevalent technology produces 1.8kg of carbon dioxide as a byproduct

No, not 'better soldier'; rather, 'more practiced infiltrator'.

te:

e:

e are around 1.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions embodied within a ki logram of steel. That means the steel would contribute a further 4.1 millio n metric tons of CO2.

hat a kilogram of steel would contain 1.8 Kg of CO2. I could believe 1.8 g rams, but have a problem with steel containing more CO2 than steel.

's what they're talking about. Concrete is the worst at 900 Lbs CO2 per cub ic yard, and a cubic yard doesn't get you much in any kind of construction, you need a bunch of them.

of steel embodied 1.8 kilo's of CO2.

uded 1.8 kilograms of CO2, which is a physically unrealistic nonsense.

have paid attention to the meaning that the statement might have been inte nded to convey as well as to the first - somewhat over-literal - interpreta tion that sprang up in your mind.

n't something that you ought to have admitted. We all know that you are bit dim, but you should still have enough sense left to realise that you don't have to advertise it.

hey could not express themselves correctly. And I am sceptical of any a rguments that include stupid statements.,

author, but you are too dim to realise that. Never mind trying to justify your statements. Readers of SED already are aware of your lack of wit.

do yourself a favour & killfile him.

NT

ote:

rote:

@gmail.com eorge H.

that it would be hopelessly ineffective and the environmental damage would be huge.

l would reduce the number of border patrol agents needed to stop illegal bo rder crossings. And also places where erecting a wall would cost more than it saved.

ld be large.

are around 1.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions embodied within a kil ogram of steel. That means the steel would contribute a further 4.1 million metric tons of CO2.

at a kilogram of steel would contain 1.8 Kg of CO2. I could believe 1.8 gr ams, but have a problem with steel containing more CO2 than steel.

's what they're talking about. Concrete is the worst at 900 Lbs CO2 per cub ic yard, and a cubic yard doesn't get you much in any kind of construction, you need a bunch of them.

T LOST!

Yeah that seems silly. (It was just the first hit I had searching for concrete CO2 uptake.) There is too much hype on all sides of the CO2 debate.

Personally I don't care about the carbon footprint of 'the wall'. I do care about wasting billions of dollars.

George H.