Used antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol Base) processing. Anyone know much about it?

[large_ghostman]

I'm here for opinions on options and if I see no merit in a an opinion then I have no need to follow it if I think what I already have is better. That's how life works when you're the one doing the actual work.

Now if gophorts claim that Ethylene Glycol can be had for ~ $4 a gallon (without major hurdles) that changes my views considerably.

Then one day a knock on the door, the EPA want to see how you disposed of the toxic waste you made.... suddenly the ex wife bank account looks better than yours and you are sleeping on her sofa. Thats real life, same as people getting paid to put right others mess because they think the rules have an exclusion for them.

Yes Gophert told you it was cheaper to buy, but i told you that post 1. Little point me answering your threads, i am not jonsea. i give up banging my head as soon as it starts to hurt.

Contact a mixing company and go in on a group buy, hard way to make money though

 

[large_ghostman]

Normally, (rule of thumb) is that a pallet of drums is about double the price per pound vs bulk quantities (a 44000 lb tank truck).

You can get a pallet of drums (4 x 55 gallons) at $7.36/gallon on eBay.
Note the pricing model (very common in the chemical industry ) is that the first drum covers all the one-time order costs and additional drums are dirt cheap. This supplier charges $1395.00 for the first drum and $75 for each additional drum to fill the pallet...



**broken link removed**



https://vi.raptor.ebaydesc.com/ws/e...tegory=104233&pm=1&ds=0&t=1504754386000&ver=0

Whats he normal anti corrosion additive over there? In the UK we dont have much ETOH in fuel, we also tend to use different seal material. Not sure what the current one is but it stinks when you extract it.

 

[tcmtech]

You can get a pallet of drums (4 x 55 gallons) at $7.36/gallon on eBay.

Same rough price range I paid last year for a 55 gallon drum from Napa working through a local auto shop a buddy of mine owns. No shipping costs either.

That rout works fine for premade automotive and light commercial stuff but for boilers that don't need most of the additives either and 100 - 200+ gallons at a time that's a rather spendy ticket to pay for.

Largely its part of the DIY concept which if the boilers I design with the control systems they have were given fair market equivalent costs they would be worth $8 - $10+K rather than the $1000 - $1500 I can build them for.

Plus as a DIY /recycler the whole concept of doing something good and useful with something nobody wants anymore for whatever reasons they do is a win for me as well.

 

[gophert]

Whats he normal anti corrosion additive over there? In the UK we dont have much ETOH in fuel, we also tend to use different seal material. Not sure what the current one is but it stinks when you extract it.

There is no "normal" anticrossion package here. The best recommendation is to use what ever the manufacturer recommends. I know it irks everyone to hear it but, Honda, Ford, Toyota or whoever has spent years finding the right package - making sure their specific alloy of aluminum radiator, specific rubber hoses, specific gasket it material, specific water pump, ... are all compatible with the additives. If you think you are going to save a bunch of cash by using Pennsoil or Zerex or Costco antifreeze, you've got a "pay me now or pay me later" story to tell. Suck it up ad pay the $26/gallon every 100,000 Miles.

 

[gophert]

That route works fine for premade automotive and light commercial stuff but for boilers that don't need most of the additives either and 100 - 200+ gallons at a time that's a rather spendy ticket to pay for.

The chemicals used in boilers to prevent corrosion, scale build-up and bio-fouling make up a significant subcategory of the chemical industry - known as "water treatment chemicals". It sounds like you haven't run your boilers very long or hard If you think additives are not important.

 

[tcmtech]

Then one day a knock on the door, the EPA want to see how you disposed of the toxic waste you made.... suddenly the ex wife bank account looks better than yours and you are sleeping on her sofa. Thats real life, same as people getting paid to put right others mess because they think the rules have an exclusion for them.

One day I'll be dead too but I don't live my life today as if I am already dead now or it's going to happen tomorrow either. Do you?

Also they have to have an actual reason and proof to go after a private person with anything above warning, of which given we do not have such tight regulations on the general populace its a non issue beyond unrealistic -what if - worst case scenario imaginations. Rather why OSHA and MSHA and many EPA rules don't apply to the private home tinkers small private farmers and business owners and whatnot. There's no power or money to be had going after the private citizens over unprovable claims.

Thats real life, same as people getting paid to put right others mess because they think the rules have an exclusion for them.

Yes it is and that what I am doing. Trying to combat a world thats being screwed up by bad people with bad and highly unrealistic non science and rational fact of life based agendas that have grown from perverting and twisting past good ones.

Why do you think that bypassing emissions systems on vehicles and heavy equipment is now a approaching being a multi billion dollar a year industry? Do you think it's because all those people that the environment or more likely because dont like getting screwed over on BS regulations that make everything worse on every functional level that were made by people who have proven they have very poor understanding of the rational realistic science behind their wants and agendas?

 

[tcmtech]

The chemicals used in boilers to prevent corrosion, scale build-up and bio-fouling make up a significant subcategory of the chemical industry - known as "water treatment chemicals". It sounds like you haven't run your boilers very long or hard If you think additives are not important.

Just finished my 17th year of running off of home built hot water heating.

First boiler was made of 10 ga sheet and lasted 15 years running nothing but straight well water and abusive amounts of burning anything that would hold a flame before the bottom started seeping.

I call that successful enough for an experimental design I didn't expect to make 3 - 4 years.

 

[large_ghostman]

The chemicals used in boilers to prevent corrosion, scale build-up and bio-fouling make up a significant subcategory of the chemical industry - known as "water treatment chemicals". It sounds like you haven't run your boilers very long or hard If you think additives are not important.

My mum just had new radiators put in on the Scotland keep warm scheme, she got lucky and the grant covered the cost. 5 years ago when we moved in the system had been drained and flushed, left dry for 18months.

So i know 5 years ago the radiators where clean, we filled the system with additives as prescribed by the boiler company. When they changed the radiators the amount of hydroxides was shocking, worse still was they found a tiny pipe leak under the floor, really small but enough to eat 4 inches through a 6 X 4 joist! Probably more the rot than anything, the stuff we got now dosnt list the chemicals but its high temp as we have a couple of different boilers due to the house layout.

Interesting chemistry in coolants, personally the mix of copper pipe and steel radiator would stop me using water on its own. The guy on the next farm uses tractor coolant in his house system apparently it has lasted 15 years, then again he hasnt flushed the system in 15 years lol.

 

[large_ghostman]

Why do you think that bypassing emissions systems on vehicles and heavy equipment is now a approaching being a multi billion dollar a year industry? Do you think it's because all those people that the environment or more likely because dont like getting screwed over on BS regulations that make everything worse on every functional level that were made by people who have proven they have very poor understanding of the rational realistic science behind their wants and agendas?

If you want a honest answer to that i will give it then you go put me on ignore ok, its big business because your always going to get selfish people. Its large because the world is full of people that think environmental issues are not there problem and they deserve different rules.

So these people prey on the selfish who pay for the bypass, far from being a agenda of some sort, its mostly science led evidence that has started to bring about tighter rules. The one thing most agree on however is the simple fact the rules are not strict enough, we have passed the point we can avoid severe issues. For now the best that can happen is to try and manage the consequences, sure you mock it and think its all tin hat, to me that just marks you out as part of the problem.

Unfortunately many share your views but i think many are also in your exact same position, kids? grand kids? i doubt it it would surprise me and probably make me feel more sorry for you than i already do. The world is moving on without you, slowly those with your views are starting to become the minority, you find the smarter the person the quicker they change. Some wont ever change because they got a fall back, if they read pure scientific evidence from the best sources they console themselves with looking around for (what normally turns out to be a fairly obscure or discredited source) 'evidence' to support their case.

Others realize that what they did 15-20 years ago was based on ignorance, much like doctors in the 50 and 60's giving people cigarettes for nerves. The effects were not understood so its reasonable that people did the wrong thing, but when clear evidence came out to show smoking was seriously bad for you, you ended up with roughly 3 types. Those that would not believe it, they thought it was simply another exercise to extract tax etc, and to be fair the governments did and still do take advantage of this.

But the main reason the continued to smoke was because of the belief no one could tell them what to do, the rules and consequences didnt apply to them. This would of been ok had they smoked at home and not in bars etc, in those places people who chose not to smoke were forced to inhale the toxins, its interesting that every single one of these people have the exact same attitude...I f you dont want to smoke then go some place else, they feel they have the right to smoke in the bar and the non smokers should move, but that does not take into account those serving them that may not smoke.

Equally it dosnt take into account others rights to not have their health affected by the selfish actions of others.

Type of the smoking group, modified their behavior they became aware it was bad for them, but either because of addiction or the acceptance of the risk, they continued to smoke. This is of course their right. On the whole however they didnt go into denial or smoke in restaurants at tables with people eating, they went outside or smoked at home.

Then you got type 3, they simply gave up, accepted the facts and decided the risk didnt outweigh the pleasure. What might interest you is the fact i smoke, i havnt smoked for long but i do in fact smoke. I smoke alone and in one place and one place only, yes i know the risks yes i accept them. What i do dosnt affect anyone but me and those close to me if i should roll the dice and get sick from it.

The same thing, actually the exact same thing applies to environmental issues, same kind of types of people but the ramifications affect more people and are far more dangerous down the line, see you think i am young and stupid and to some extent that may apply. But i am upto date on both sides of the environmental arguments, i am fact based science lead so i take time to convince. I dont look for things to support my view i take a neutral view until i have enough evidence to weigh up the case, then i decide which side i am on.

Take coolant, its often quoted 1 gallon of antifreeze in an aquifer will seriously taint 1 million gallons of ground water, actually this figure is wrong and should never have been used, the amounts are lower by a large margin. But what do you think when you find out that a old common practice like dust control, actually is a problem to the environment? Do you accept the science and stop or does arrogance prevent you from accepting that past behavior was wrong?

You dont have to answer any of this as its mostly rhetorical, most people are well aware where your world view would sit, and there you have the main problem. People see through it all, some people are easy to weigh up and others are not so easy, you wouldnt need to give an opinion on most topics of the world or environment or even political views. Far from being unique you fall into that really predictable group, ad as i have said many times before, thats ok. Those who will try and sort things out already know what and who they are up against.

If you had longer on the planet then it might be worth trying to change your view or doing something about it, but its actually more effective just to factor in the minority of people with similar views and not waste the time. Oh and yes birds of a feather and all that, mean you likely think your in the main crowd or one of the majority. But your views are not with the majority and day by day your numbers get smaller.

Mr T is seen as a bad guy on the whole, but thats pretty silly. Hes somewhat normal with a few skewed values that a reasonable person would expect. His views on the environment and climate change ar5e wrong, and its interesting to see so many Americans standing up and supporting Paris, that dosnt mean he is wrong on everything. Actually some of it i agree with, despite having met him twice before he became president while he was in Scotland, on a personal level i didnt like him as a person, but he has some merits going for him. Infact he is like most people, he has some good bits and some bad bits.

You asked a question at the start and asked for opinions from people with chemical experience, you dismiss alot of what i said or didnt read it properly, then Gophert who has industrial experience of it told you the same thing and you except it. Now what do you think that says on a wider level? Again dont answer i wont see it.


Gophert expect a U2U in a few weeks i have a slightly strange question on antifreeze, its unlikely its in the books lol. Also i checked your pricing against UK prices, we use a slightly different price model, mostly i think its because your barrels are 55 gallons? is that correct? We tend to use 210 or a odd 220 ltr barrel except the metal type which works out at 46 UK gallons. Contrary to popular belief it has nothing to do from when we switched from imperial to metric, the odd sizes are more to do with regs on weight limits and working conditions, something we got stuck with from the EU. Same as dry weight we went from 52lb to 25Kg then 20Kg. exception being cement used to be around 100lb i think (values in the literature differ). Odd that potatoes where sold in sacks always as 52lb, but you actually paid for 50lb. I need to find a ref for that as its just a factoid that stuck ages ago and i cant remember where i saw it.

 

[tcmtech]

Now you get it! But unfortunately that's the exact same view we have on this side and unlike so much of your sides claims we have real solid fact proven science confirmed by nature and loads of independent peer reviews and in the reality that those like you, who make great and horrific claims have had a huge and ongoing problems with reality never coming remotely close to proving yourselves right as much as you claim to have.

That annoying fact of reality also proves us right to many times to dismiss plus not having the skeptic side running under a near continual track record of exposed data manipulation and scaremongering scam after scam has done loads for our reputations credibility now too. Yours not so much.

As for feeling sorry or whatever emotional games you are trying to conjure up, that has zero relevance or effect on my or anyone else's life but your own.

The fact is people like me are happy and quite content with what we believe being we have loads of solid and confirmed by nature proof of our views and reasons to be sceptical backing us up. Plus our data and studies have been cross checked and confirmed by many many independent scientists over a vast range of fields and specialties who too refute the very basis and agendas your side stands for.

Our science and agenda is not based on emotional manipulations or feeling sorry or manipulating the uneducated or emotionally driven types, like al gore did for your side with both of his absurd factless movies. Nor is it backed by fake data produced by supposed scientists, who refused to let their data be peer reviewed and cross checked for accuracy or even reality. Or MSM money and power manipulation games as well.

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ Very bad play there given how much world environmental policy ws based on that scam.

It's based on logical observation and confirmable repetitive proofs derived from real world measurements past and present all balanced against empirical known ranges and limits demonstrated by nature itself and sure our data is not perfect every time but so far its always fallen well within the known and likely limits of what nature operates at and has been backed by nature itself on a vast multitude of variables rather than 1 - 2 highly over simplified mono varate trends. Like the Global Average Mean Temperature trend that attempts to reduce the whole of climate reality down into a single data lineset.

Its not based on pseudoscience claims and bad poltical policies, that came from scammers who refused to allow their data to be analyzed by other scientists to be confirmed but by real cross checked and highly scrutinized plausible merritt. Maybe you don't look that side of thing but you really need to at this point because its gaining ground hard. So hard that as of recent your side got called out for bad data and questionable presentations inthe climate change trial while the big oil guys so far have been standing solid on refuting most everything thrown at them.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/climate-change-trial-starts-rough-footing-environmentalists/ Not a good foot to lead with but likely the same bad one that has been lead with all the way so far.

The thing is, we are not out to destroy the world and the environment or take over everyone lives and force them to live by our doctrines upon threat of death for not complying. Quite the opposite in fact. What we are about is preventing abusable poltical rules and regulations from being put in place that are based on bad science and smug self righteous irrational feelings that serve no gainful purpose to us or anyone else or nature itself.

Here's what our side did over the last 40 years before our own agency became corrupted by politics and bad science that supports it.

https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos#page-2 That looks like a pretty damn impressive show of real world measurable and naked eye confirmable accomplishments to me!

BTW, the problem has been around way longer than the last 100 years. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...oblem-since-the-days-of-ancient-rome-3950678/

Now as for myself, In fact about 20 years ago I was you and I felt and believed just as you did, and just like you I loved to argue that I was smuggly and irrefutable right. But to do so I had to have solid fact based data to work with to make my points, since I will not drop to playing petty emotions and false accusations games.

The problem was the harder and deeper I dug into things to prove I was right the less and less credible the science it was built on proved to be until in good impartial scientific process I had to accept I was wrong and was supporting a very bad poltical agenda being pushed by some very bad people and not real true honest and good environmental issues.

Believe it or don't, but trust me I know how you feel and self justifying your feelings means nothing to real hard empirical science if the science says your wrong about more than you're right. Mine started with a surprisingly good Environmental Geology class 16 - 17 years ago and snow balled out from there in the opposite direction my ego wanted it to go, but here I am now and I do not regret it nor what I stand for on the topic today.


Feel what you want to feel an chastise you who wish for what you wish. It's your life. I'm busy forever trying to find the truth that goes beyond the claims and manipulations of the poltical realms but lays where emotions and ego driven wants mean nothing. Something I think both sides needs to be doing far more of right now.


That's why I a m not making a mountain out of a grain of dust over wanting to do some experimenting with cleaning up used antifreeze myself. I know my history and reality of where I fit into it. (Like a grain of dust in a field.)

 

[JonSea]

Well said LGM.

I haven't followed all of this thread, but I did see comments about fracking not causing any damage. This is pure BS. The state of North Dakota has experienced a huge number of oil spills, leaving much of the state contaminated. Oil tankcar fires have become commonplace.

In the state of Oklahoma, not historically known for earthquakes, there are now hundreds of quakes a year. They stated just after fracking began. A coincidence? I think not.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, built over sacred Indian lands in South Dakota over their protests, has had over 5 spills in 6 months of operation. The Keystone XL pipeline recently leak and spilled over 200,000 gallons of oil.

We are not being good stewards of the environment. Too many people can't see this damage; can't see the mess we are leaving to future generations.

 

[tcmtech]

but I did see comments about fracking not causing any damage.

Where did you see this in this thread?

The state of North Dakota has experienced a huge number of oil spills, leaving much of the state contaminated. Oil tankcar fires have become commonplace.

Contextually and factually accurate proof please. Casualty of incidence does not equal cause of incidence.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170207b.aspx

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/07/ntsb-north-dakota-train-crash/97587398/

So far there have been zero pipeline related spill within 50 miles or more of my place so equating my place and property to be contaminated by one is a lie. Or more factually was the immediate areas of where the spills occurred contaminated when they occurred until they were cleaned up?

Gross over exaggerations and conveniently left out truth (or claims based on outright lies and misinformation) of the greater picture does not lead to credibility of your narrative on your part. Don't paint with too broad of brush else you stand to get your own paint on yourself.

Point is, there are two sides to all of this. Spill and leaks happen and are unavoidable however not acknowledging that they are being properly handled and remediated doesn't make your views fully factually true or paint you in a good light of using realistic and objective reasonings.

In the state of Oklahoma, not historically known for earthquakes, there are now hundreds of quakes a year. They stated just after fracking began. A coincidence? I think not.

Yes that is true. It was an unforeseen side effect that is now being studied to see what and why and to what actual significance its carries there in that region.

However what happens there does not equate to all of reality. We are not having earthquakes from fracking here nor are the vast majority of places world wide either. One issue in one area does not represent the factual reality of everything everywhere at all times.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, built over sacred Indian lands in South Dakota over their protests,

There is way more to that story than you are implying. Those lands were a combination of land they have no clear present claims to and some was also private property and the tribes were given ample heads up and opportunity to buy yet never lifted a finger to do so and all of that is public record if you are willing to dig deep enough to find it.

We are not being good stewards of the environment. Too many people can't see this damage; can't see the mess we are leaving to future generations.

And yet here is solid historical fact based proof your own eyes can see showing just how far we have came forward from our worst times.

https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos#page-2

I'm not against regulation when said regulation done is a fair an justified amicable fact and reality based way. Never have been never will be. What I am against is blind unproven unrealistic all or nothing rules and regulations made by people who do not show they have all their facts and info together in all levels. Nor those made by hypocrites who will cut their own throats to get what they think is right.

The way I see it is simple. If you don't like something then don't buy or use it which if you don't like what the oil industry does then stop using their products and services, All of them all the time very time until the end of time!

If you don't like the town butcher because he kills and chops up animals then stop buying the meats and other products he makes and get everyone else to do the same until he goes out of business and if they will not then accept that not everyone feels and want to live as you do for the reasons you do and learn to live with it or start putting your own time money and effort into finding more favorable alternatives for you and everyone else to use that will take away his business until he shuts down.

Otherwise consider the reality that if you shut him down for your views and your wants you may very well be cutting off the lifelines to countless others who are then more than likely going to start putting an active effort into making your life miserable in return. Goes around comes around so think your action out fully regarding who all they may effect and why just because you don't agree with something does not make it and everyone who depends on it bad. Especially if you yourself depend on it too either directly or indirectly inway you may not be even be aware of.

My point is, be very careful about that which you chose to regulate because that regulation you put in place may very well be one that cuts your own throat or the throats of many others who have no fault in any of it all and they will be all to happy to retaliate for it with all the self justifications in doing so as you had to do what you did and possibly even more.

Live by example and do no harm or expect to pay the consequences or get used to being callout for being an ignorant hypocrite and worse, just as you do to others.

 

[large_ghostman]

You did exactly what i said you would, you picked a few cases that showed your view your way. Its called denial, so one guy lies about the problems and because you want all environmental scientists burnt at the stake with as much oil as you can muster, you then label all scientist in that field as wrong or liars.

Its like Mr T's fake news, if you dont like the story call the book fake. Chops and butchers? Strawman argument and purely used to plump up a post with no evidence. Yes nice pics of bad things, things have got better but you didnt read the bit where i noted that things are changing because those that except we have a problem is growing.

You dont want fair, not by a long way. What you want is things done on your terms, claiming we should not use oil if we think oil is damaging is another straw argument. Again a common tactic outlined above, no one said ban oil and no one said it shouldnt be used. What Paris and other agreements are about is using it in a responsible manner.

Same with coolant, no one said dont do it, what was said was how to find out if the return was worth doing it. No one is against recycling coolant, far far from it. Its common practice and a really good idea, but to you its a cash making thing and i am sorry to say but recycling it responsibly (i.e not throwing heavy metal laden waste on the ground behind a bush, is not responsible) dosnt make money unless done on a large scale with alot of equipment.

See last night tried it with UK antifreeze and while salt dosnt work so well potassium carbonate does salt out the water to a pretty good degree, you could get the potassium carbonate back as well. But energy wise its over unity if you think you can recover EG ethically (NOTE ethically ) and make money. You could be a decent guy and recover it to help recycle it if you wanted to, but it will cost you precious money and not make you any, so i guess thats off the table then.

You could also recover it at a profit but that would require breaking several EPA laws on toxic waste and carries a pretty heavy carbon footprint. So that way isnt good for the environment (which means other people), but could make you a profit. I am sure your comfortable with that solution so i might detail it for you.

Emotional black mail?? not at all, i dont have a problem with you being you, after all you exist and so do many others with the same view, as i said before its better to except this fact and work around you. As a species your dying off, so no point wasting time convincing you. I have posted papers from nature etc in the paste on climate based things, people who know me well are aware i do the legwork first and then post, it is not a good idea to back up what i said before by posting straw man arguments or p[roof of low quality.

Try and find a paper from a non oil company paid source, in any of the top 100 journals, that backs fracking as environmentally friendly. Does that make me anti oil? to you it might, but no I am not anti oil at all, in fact i think banning diesel and petrol in 2040 is a bad idea. I think its a knee jerk reaction and counter productive, i also dont think we need to.

But i also dont think we need to use so much fossil fuel oil, to me its really ironic we have chocked sewers full of FOG's or fatbergs (depends what you prefer to call them), these are actually profitable to process, if you do it correctly you can even recover and use the CO2 from the process. Bio fuel is a good way forward, save the stuff in the ground for things we cant do with other materials.

But i wont go on, most of it goes over your head or you miss the point.

One last thing... you post a pic of broken glass from a river, what point where you making? You said things where m,uch better, so the implication is broken glass is no longer in that river? Seriously?? You find a pic of broken glass and so now none exists in rivers?

 

[Fredski]

Just finished my 17th year of running off of home built hot water heating.

First boiler was made of 10 ga sheet and lasted 15 years running nothing but straight well water and abusive amounts of burning anything that would hold a flame before the bottom started seeping.

I call that successful enough for an experimental design I didn't expect to make 3 - 4 years.

those old radial tires have millions of BTU"s just waiting to be put to good use...like warming up your house.

 

[shortbus=]

LG, welcome to tcmtech world. The only good is what is good for him. If death isn't immediate, things won't hurt you.

<Mod edit: Please do not use someone's personal name without their permission. They may value their privacy.>

 

[tcmtech]

You did exactly what i said you would, you picked a few cases that showed your view your way. Its called denial, so one guy lies about the problems and because you want all environmental scientists burnt at the stake with as much oil as you can muster, you then label all scientist in that field as wrong or liars.

When did I do that? I felt no need to carpet bomb this subject with every possible vettable piece of supporting evidence there is given hitting a few primary ones was enough.

Al gores movies are bad science and everyone knows it, Same with the precious all defined hockey stick graph that blew up in the end and was shown to be bad science as well. Same with the now in progress climate trial that's starting out on a very bad note for the believers side,
and a gain with the irrefutable proof of just how far those who went before you and me have came on tackling the real and extremely bad environmental disasters of the past.

Fact is the the once ever irrefutable hockey stick graph and its creator got caught in a fib same and way too many others on the believers side have now.

Add 97% of scientist agree claim form james cook to the list of busted claims proven to be lies too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#

Of some 12,000 supposedly reviewed papers the reality was that less than 100 had anything to say for or against AGW and ~41 had any claims whatsoever claiming its legitimate. ~.03% agree seems a tiny bit off form 97%, don't you think?

That's just one more example of the problem and why so many like myself are skeptical and the numbers of us are growing not shrinking because of it.

The reality is, we are doing nothing by being the ones who are putting the much needed active and as unbiased as possible efforts into looking at all data and info from all sides and sciences and vetting the legitimacy of said data and info and who created and confirmed it, so we can find and who provided it yet get still called deniers by those who deny there is a whole second side with a ton of relevant unbiased fact based data on a multitude of other related Earth and solar science fronts to the problem.

So, if people like me willingly putting an active effort into making sure the claims of your side actually add up (since too of then they have been proven not too and for the most shamefully embarrassing of reasons) makes me the terrible person who has no interests in our planet's existence and how we fit into and affect it at any level, so be it. That seems like some pretty deep level BS based to say that's what we are and where we stand in the denial soup mix.

BTW, where's your supporting links to refute any of mine I have given so far? If you are in fact right then disproving that al gores videos are not AGW agendist propaganda films,
and that manns hockey stick data did not get wrecked in legal courts for being bad and very fake agenda driven science,
or that none of the high level ecological cleanup work done before you ever existed is real.
or that cook didn't get caught cooking his - 97% of scientists agree- claims.

It shouldn't be hard to factually refute my views if you really truly do know your sides stuff as well as you hold onto it. (unless you're just flat-earth sciencing here. )

If your really truly into environmental protection then you have to be all the wayin it and know both sides views and reasonings otherwise you're either just a blind faith follower of a very dangerous cult religion or in it for the possibility of how much money you yourself can scam off gullible blind faith beliviers who support those agendas as well.

 

[tcmtech]

Its like Mr T's fake news, if you dont like the story call the book fake. Chops and butchers? Strawman argument and purely used to plump up a post with no evidence. Yes nice pics of bad things, things have got better but you didnt read the bit where i noted that things are changing because those that except we have a problem is growing.

And yet here you are suing the same logic.

Try and find a paper from a non oil company paid source, in any of the top 100 journals, that backs fracking as environmentally friendly. Does that make me anti oil?

I never said either claim you are implying. But if you think I did then prove it and show me.

Unlike you I actually worked in the fracking industry and went through the 100+ hours of class and follow up work to be qualified and certified (~30 oil industry certifications to be on a single site in some situations.) to be able to know that work and know it inside and out so I know full well how dangerous and full of potential it is for a multitude of bad thing to happen but that in itself does not make it factually universally bad for the environment unless done wrong. Potential for is not proof of in every case.

Nuclear power has a huge potential for horrific environmental disaster yet we have how many huge nuclear power plants running world wide and of the few that did have disasters had them for what reasons? (Poor human planning and actions.) Which we have learned from and are working on coming up with solution to so that they never happen again.

That's the reality of the fracking industry. It's a relatively new technology, as its being applied now, and thusly mistakes and oversights will happen. However that in itself does not mean that all cases of its use everywhere every time are bad any more than one or two bad vehicular accidents since the begining of the automotive age means all vehicles are band and nothing has ever improved or will improve since.

As a kid yourself, the one thing you should know far better than anyone else is how learning from your mistakes and becoming better at something has to involve a lot of mistakes of every size. Industrial practice development is no different. It has it's own failure based learning curve too.

 

[tcmtech]

those old radial tires have millions of BTU"s just waiting to be put to good use...like warming up your house.

Surprisingly tires do burn clean if handled right and are used as fuel for a lot of industrial processes that need huge volumes of high temperature heating capacity for very cheap.

Surprising it's considered a greener fuel tech too since it uses a largely useless man made waste products as a fuel rather than coal!

FQW, Fuel Quality Waste management is a growing industry that puts unwanted waste products to better use by burning them for fuel rather than just stockpiling them.

Much like my burning unwanted used oil to heat my house and work shed.

(I'm very 'green' that way.)

 

[Fredski]

When did I do that? I felt no need to carpet bomb this subject with every possible vettable piece of supporting evidence there is given hitting a few primary ones was enough.

Al gores movies are bad science and everyone knows it, Same with the precious all defined hockey stick graph that blew up in the end and was shown to be bad science as well. Same with the now in progress climate trial that's starting out on a very bad note for the believers side,
and a gain with the irrefutable proof of just how far those who went before you and me have came on tackling the real and extremely bad environmental disasters of the past.

Fact is the the once ever irrefutable hockey stick graph and its creator got caught in a fib same and way too many others on the believers side have now.

Add 97% of scientist agree claim form james cook to the list of busted claims proven to be lies too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#

Of some 12,000 supposedly reviewed papers the reality was that less than 100 had anything to say for or against AGW and ~41 had any claims whatsoever claiming its legitimate. ~.03% agree seems a tiny bit off form 97%, don't you think?

That's just one more example of the problem and why so many like myself are skeptical and the numbers of us are growing not shrinking because of it.

The reality is, we are doing nothing by being the ones who are putting the much needed active and as unbiased as possible efforts into looking at all data and info from all sides and sciences and vetting the legitimacy of said data and info and who created and confirmed it, so we can find and who provided it yet get still called deniers by those who deny there is a whole second side with a ton of relevant unbiased fact based data on a multitude of other related Earth and solar science fronts to the problem.

So, if people like me willingly putting an active effort into making sure the claims of your side actually add up (since too of then they have been proven not too and for the most shamefully embarrassing of reasons) makes me the terrible person who has no interests in our planet's existence and how we fit into and affect it at any level, so be it. That seems like some pretty deep level BS based to say that's what we are and where we stand in the denial soup mix.

BTW, where's your supporting links to refute any of mine I have given so far? If you are in fact right then disproving that al gores videos are not AGW agendist propaganda films,
and that manns hockey stick data did not get wrecked in legal courts for being bad and very fake agenda driven science,
or that none of the high level ecological cleanup work done before you ever existed is real.
or that cook didn't get caught cooking his - 97% of scientists agree- claims.

It shouldn't be hard to factually refute my views if you really truly do know your sides stuff as well as you hold onto it. (unless you're just flat-earth sciencing here. )

If your really truly into environmental protection then you have to be all the wayin it and know both sides views and reasonings otherwise you're either just a blind faith follower of a very dangerous cult religion or in it for the possibility of how much money you yourself can scam off gullible blind faith beliviers who support those agendas as well.

 

[Fredski]

hows that, "Arctic Ice disappearing" and "no more snow" thing working out? I see records for both being totally smashed!
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ssing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-in