pstarr wrote:Do you really take yourself seriously Oily?
Yes, in fact I take myself quite seriously, thank you. It is
you who I do not take seriously.
pstarr wrote:Do you recollect cold fusion? Some one claimed a successful test there also. There have been successful tests of clean coal, hydrogen fuel cells, cellulosic and algae ethanol, green river shale, tidal energy systems, etc etc. But none have scaled up to replace more than a tiny fraction of our quickly declining fossil fuel base. Hydrate are the same.
It shares characteristic with all the above 'alternatives'. They are difficult to procure, expensive to scale up, return much less net energy than conventional fossil fuels, are not convenient, do not return as much money on investment, and are difficult to collect and distribute.
What utter, complete denialist garbage! Here we have an article(s) explaining in clear detail how these hydrates were easily extracted, with a EROEI of 10:1, they extracted methane gas (nothing new about that), and you are so desperate to wish it away you're comparing it to cold fusion!
And that IS what you are doing: Wishing it away.
pstarr wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:But then, you're one of those people who would have said the Wright Brother's airplane did not prove the viability of commercial air flight.
You don't know me Oily. From squat.
How many solar panels do you have on your roof? How many walkable communities have you developed?
Oily you are stuck on the sidelines, making waves at internet forum. Big freaking deal.
This was non-responsive.
But as I've explained to you before, I have a Master's degree in urban planning. I did my Master's thesis on growth management. Among other things I spent 2-1/2 years doing watershed planning for King County. If you think I know nothing about all this stuff, you are dead wrong.
I've even got an autographed copy of Al Gore's
Earth in the Balance.
I'm so sorry to hear your co-housing project was a failure. Hopefully it should have taught you something, but obviously it did not.
pstarr wrote:Define environmental Armageddon. Do collapsing salmon fisheries count? Ocean dead zones? Do these fit you definition? How about mass extinction? What do you say regarding declining human sperm counts? What kind of environmental declines would you categorize as 'Armageddon'? What counts as Armageddon?
You have got to me the most selfish, self-obsessed pointy-headed little twit I've yet to trounce on in these boards. Failing arable land and overpopulation is threatening human populations across the world. Yet Oily is happy in his little weenie internet world.
Blah blah blah. You sound just like Paul Erlich in 1968. And I'm still waiting for
his environmental doomsday. There was already supposed to be a Malthusian catastrophe by now - heck I've even got another book from 1980 predicting yet another one. So we've supposedly were supposed to have
multiple of these things by now.
Still waiting!
The problem with people like you is
you don't learn. You keep predicting the same crap over and over and over again, and it continually fails to come to pass over and over and over again. But does this teach you a lesson? No. You just keep pushing back your prediction by another 10 or 20 years, and then another 10 or 20 years after that, and so on and so forth,
ad nauseum.
But hey, I don't mind, keep repeating it. I'm having a lot of fun pointing out to you when you're wrong!