On Oct 4, 9:13*pm, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor *wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor *wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
*put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who *wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
*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 ****, 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.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**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 ****
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.

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.


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 wrote:
On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
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 ****, 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.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**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 ****
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.

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.


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



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

On Oct 5, 4:40*pm, F Murtz wrote:
atec77 wrote:
On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
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 ****, 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.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**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 ****
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.

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.

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

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


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

On Oct 5, 4:40*pm, F Murtz wrote:
atec77 wrote:
On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor
wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
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 ****, 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.

HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.

**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 ****
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.

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.

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

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

I wonder which one of these he is ?
http://menzieshouse.typepad.com/.a/6...0b5b970c-500wi

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 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.

?-/

josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 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.


He's also an anti-gun nutball.


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

On Oct 8, 2:37*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 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.

* *He's also an anti-gun nutball.



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

The further you dig, the worse it gets.

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

kreed wrote:

On Oct 8, 2:37 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 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.

He's also an anti-gun nutball.


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

The further you dig, the worse it gets.


No need to dig. It's obvious.

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

In sci.electronics.repair kreed wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:37*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:34:56 +1000, atec77 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.

* *He's also an anti-gun nutball.



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

The further you dig, the worse it gets.

Also, reading his posts on the CFL thread, he's a religious bigot.

Jerry