The Daily Sermon

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.

You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel

Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?

LOL what percentage of your info did not come from the net?

Dorky

Says the resident Google Verification Speculation Specialist. Sorry, I totally overlooked you would be offended by my Google bashing.

Stick to pulling weeds in the garden kid. Have you hugged your eggplant today?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.
[quote]

Google has not created the definition.

[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?

Roj475 wrote:America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:There is no data for the age of the Earth. There is no data for the temperature of the Earth. There is no data for the global atmospheric content of CO2. There is no data for sea level. There is no data for the amount of snow on ice on Earth. What 'data' are your referring to?

If we are unable to measure CO2, does that mean we are unable to measure O2?

Roj475 wrote:On the assumption CO2 was increasing globally, then it would be safe to assume that something was decreasing globally...

Roj475 wrote:I guess it comes down to a person's own perspective... I don't see an extra 5c/ gallon for fuel an issue... Even 10c is loose change but people get overly excited about such a small amount.

Roj475 wrote:Why do other posters on here say CO2 rising is good for plants?

Roj475 wrote:Are you saying America is not educated using the English language.

Roj475 wrote:WHich American education institute/ body's reference for the English language would you like?

Roj475 wrote:Alternatively, does America not have a system for education?

duncan61 wrote:
Roj475 wrote:Why do other posters on here say CO2 rising is good for plants?

.All the reports I have seen show improved plant growth in elevated CO2 scenarios on land and in the water
.Alarmists claim the plants will suffer later and do all sorts of crazy stuff.The coral reefs are all fine right now but later it will all crash.
.You have to have extreme warming for this and it has not occurred.Its 20.C. in London

IBdaMann wrote:

You didn't get very far in school, did you?

IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group.

Did you just associate Swan with the entirety of America?

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group.

Did you just associate Swan with the entirety of America?

Swan comes across as your typical American.

Why wouldn't they?

Roj475 wrote:Swan comes across as your typical American.

Roj475 wrote:Why wouldn't they?

Roj475 wrote:I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

Roj475 wrote:Seemingly not but far enough to be employed here.

Roj475 wrote:Do you associate success with how far you get in school?

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:Seemingly not but far enough to be employed here.

That's the very low bar I was expecting. I presume you'll be asking customers if they'd like to supersize their orders.

Roj475 wrote:Do you associate success with how far you get in school?

I associate a certain level of success to the extent one learns to think for himself, as opposed to being totally dependent upon others to do his thinking for him.

If one is unsuccessful at learning to think for himself then it will be incidental, but highly anticipated, that he will become proficient at asking customers if they would like to supersize their orders.

Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?

My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?

My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.

Only until someone takes the time to count

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?

My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.

Only until someone takes the time to count

Swan, "non-denumerable" means "not countable." No one can take infinite time to count the uncountable.

Tomatoes, on the other hand, are countable, and you have counted them. Well done. What do you plan to make with your tomato harvest?

[Question: are any of your tomatoes destined to become slices atop barbequed double cheeseburgers with grilled onions and bacon, perhaps some grilled mushrooms as well? Just wondering]

Swan wrote:Actually I do not count tomatoes as this would be a waste of time,

Swan wrote:As for my garden me and the wife picked about 300 tomatoes this morning ...

Swan wrote:actually I estimate especially with grape and cherry tomatoes that grow in strings of ten to thirty.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I do not count tomatoes as this would be a waste of time,

Swan wrote:As for my garden me and the wife picked about 300 tomatoes this morning ...

Swan wrote:actually I estimate especially with grape and cherry tomatoes that grow in strings of ten to thirty.

Estimating is still counting, it's just not an exact count.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.

I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

Roj475 wrote:
Do you pick,

a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.

Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.

I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:
Do you pick,

a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.

Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.

No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word.

Roj475 wrote: Putting a fossil on a fire would be strange

Roj475 wrote:, putting a fossil fuel would not be.

Roj475 wrote:What is the purpose of a dictionary?

Roj475 wrote:What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

IBdaMann wrote:Roj475 wrote:, putting a fossil fuel would not be.
What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

I would ask the person using the word for clarification on the intended meaning. I would never rely on a dictionary for a definition because no dictionary owns the English language and no dictionary is the person using the word for which I seek clarification.

Did the UK stop teaching Brits what a dictionary is?

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.

Roj475 wrote:
Fossils and Fossil Fuels are different... Putting a fossil on a fire would be strange, putting a fossil fuel would not be.

Roj475 wrote:
What is the purpose of a dictionary?

Roj475 wrote:
What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Roj475 wrote:, putting a fossil fuel would not be.
What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) as well as the britannica encyclopedia.

Roj475 wrote:
I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries or encyclopedias
but I would hope others reading this thread or lurking do accept these knowledge basis.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

I would ask the person using the word for clarification on the intended meaning. I would never rely on a dictionary for a definition because no dictionary owns the English language and no dictionary is the person using the word for which I seek clarification.

Did the UK stop teaching Brits what a dictionary is?

Sounds a little like 'Bobby Boucher : My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.'

Roj475 wrote:
The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Roj475 wrote:
You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.

Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.

Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.

Not without the right fuels to fuel the process

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.

HarveyH55 wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility,

HarveyH55 wrote: so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.

Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.

Not without the right fuels to fuel the process

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.

Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility, so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.

duncan61 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.

Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility, so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.

Nice shot Harvey. Right in the face. The engineer I am working with said to me {my geo buddies are good at finding oil but do not know how it formed}The decaying lifeforms is just a theory.

duncan61 wrote:
Coal is easy to identify and the different types but not so much oil and gas