Remember me
▼ Content

coke


coke12-05-2024 03:36
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
google - Coke is a highly processed product coming from coal or oil. The result of the processing is the removal of impurities leaving very pure carbon. It is used in the production of steel from iron ore.
12-05-2024 03:59
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
keepit wrote:
google - Coke is a highly processed product coming from coal or oil. The result of the processing is the removal of impurities leaving very pure carbon. It is used in the production of steel from iron ore.




I'm not feeling you on this one, keepit.

There is already discussion of this topic on the "Fossil Fuel Substitution.." thread.

There is already entrenched denial that the information you posted from a Google search is correct.

It is already an absurd word game.

"Petroleum" must refer to "refined petroleum" unless you specify crude?

But you can't really call it "petroleum" once it is refined. At that point you call it "gasoline" or "diesel" or "jet fuel", but nobody calls it "refined petroleum".

Okay, then. If it isn't called "coke" until after you refine it out of the petroleum, then petroleum does not contain any coke.

But then, "petroleum" must refer to "unrefined petroleum"

And on and on in an absurd convoluted word game.

Entrenched in denial of the basic facts.

There is a material that can be extracted from petroleum during refining which is called "coke", "petroleum coke", "pet coke", or "petcoke"

That material was present in the petroleum prior to refining.

And the beauty of word games is that one can justify calling it whatever suits the needs of the moment.

Insurance against the risk that some kind of rational discussion of science related to climate change will ever get past the "define your terms" gatekeeper.
12-05-2024 04:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
keepit wrote:
google - Coke is a highly processed product coming from coal or oil. The result of the processing is the removal of impurities leaving very pure carbon. It is used in the production of steel from iron ore.




I'm not feeling you on this one, keepit.

There is already discussion of this topic on the "Fossil Fuel Substitution.." thread.

There is already entrenched denial that the information you posted from a Google search is correct.

It is already an absurd word game.

"Petroleum" must refer to "refined petroleum" unless you specify crude?

But you can't really call it "petroleum" once it is refined. At that point you call it "gasoline" or "diesel" or "jet fuel", but nobody calls it "refined petroleum".

Okay, then. If it isn't called "coke" until after you refine it out of the petroleum, then petroleum does not contain any coke.

But then, "petroleum" must refer to "unrefined petroleum"

And on and on in an absurd convoluted word game.

Entrenched in denial of the basic facts.

There is a material that can be extracted from petroleum during refining which is called "coke", "petroleum coke", "pet coke", or "petcoke"

That material was present in the petroleum prior to refining.

And the beauty of word games is that one can justify calling it whatever suits the needs of the moment.

Insurance against the risk that some kind of rational discussion of science related to climate change will ever get past the "define your terms" gatekeeper.
12-05-2024 04:56
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
im a bm,
I don't know anything about the coke issue. I just posted what google says about it.
To me, google has been highly reliable.
The reason i say this is because i have read and watched videos of cosmology and related subjects (4000 hours) and have found google to be almost totally in unison with the professors that wrote these books and published these videos.
12-05-2024 05:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
keepit wrote:
im a bm,
I don't know anything about the coke issue. I just posted what google says about it.
To me, google has been highly reliable.
The reason i say this is because i have read and watched videos of cosmology and related subjects (4000 hours) and have found google to be almost totally in unison with the professors that wrote these books and published these videos.




I quite agree with you that Google is highly reliable.

For example, it directed you to a valid and accurate description of petroleum coke.

One does not have to have a PhD to be able to get useful information about scholarly topics from a Google search.

Google is a good resource, even in the search for peer-reviewed scientific papers.

But Google knows its own limitations.

So they also offer Google Scholar scholar.google.com

Here, the only search results you can find are scholarly papers from peer-reviewed journals or textbooks.

See the "Google Scholar so you can do your own homework thread"
13-05-2024 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
There is already discussion of this topic on the "Fossil Fuel Substitution.." thread.

Stop spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
There is already entrenched denial that the information you posted from a Google search is correct.

Google is not God.
Im a BM wrote:
It is already an absurd word game.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU playing word games.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan




Join the debate coke:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact