OT: carbon dioxide reduction question

**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

Get one of these and make fuel with your homemade CO2!

Mikek :-)

**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

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 .

to

Thank you for your assistance Trevor.

For some reason, this idiot

s

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)

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.

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

**Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised. **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. **Duh.

**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

go

any

fic

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.

**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

**Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell regularly deny science. **Strawman noted. And ignored.

**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

own CO2 via

piping for

beer

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

?-)

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:

Of course, I'm not an expert on the subject of climate, so please feel free to ignore me.

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

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

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.

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

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

:

rge

. e

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.

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

Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.

: r

it

r

ion

e

2. > >>>>>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for

O2

m

ew)

in

),

r

ts.

it

y

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

: r

it

r

ion

e

2. > >>>>>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for

O2

m

ew)

in

),

r

ts.

it

y

I wonder which one of these he is ?