Remember me
▼ Content

Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?


Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?28-01-2024 15:21
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­



Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?


Take a look at this:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Every time one terawatt-hour of electricity is produced by a coal-fired power plant, 24 people will be killed.



Brown coal --> 32.72

Coal --> 24.62

Oil --> 18.43

Biomass --> 4.63

Gas --> 2.82

Hydropower --> 1.3

Wind --> 0.04

Nuclear --> 0.03

Solar --> 0.02




The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

And if we also take the climate into consideration using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.


­
28-01-2024 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?

Fossils aren't used as fuel.
Jakob wrote:
­Take a look at this:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

So...mindlessly parroting and not thinking for yourself again.
Jakob wrote:
­Every time one terawatt-hour of electricity is produced by a coal-fired power plant, 24 people will be killed.

Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, Jakob.
Jakob wrote:
­Brown coal --> 32.72

Coal --> 24.62

Coal is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­Oil --> 18.43

Oil is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­Biomass --> 4.63

Biomass is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­Gas --> 2.82

Gas is not a fossil. Neither is gasoline.
Jakob wrote:
­Hydropower --> 1.3

Hydropower is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­Wind --> 0.04

Wind is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­Nuclear --> 0.03

Nuclear fuel is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­Solar --> 0.02

The Sun is not a fossil.
Jakob wrote:
­The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Russia is not attacking Ukraine for oil or natural gas. Russia already has plenty.
Jakob wrote:
­And if we also take the climate into consideration using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Fossils have nothing to do with any climate.
Jakob wrote:
­I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Apparently the only 'fossil fuel lover' is YOU. Are you saying you aren't innocent? What are you guilty of (besides being an idiot)?
Jakob wrote:
­but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel,

Taxpayers aren't paying for fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
Jakob wrote:
­and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create,

Fossils don't burn. They are not being 'drained'. Fossils aren't a liquid.
Jakob wrote:
­rather than use cheaper renewable energy,

The cheapest fuels that are renewable are oil and natural gas.
Jakob wrote:
­then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

Who is 'they'? Who are you talking about? Idiots that think fossils can burn, like you?
Jakob wrote:
­There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.

No need. Cheap, reliable, and stable renewable energy is already here. Oil and natural gas.
Coal is even cheaper. Whether it's renewable or not (it probably is, but that is unknown) is immaterial. Coal is cheap. That means there is plenty of it to go around.


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
28-01-2024 23:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14633)
Jakob wrote: Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?

Nope. It is not mass murder to use any fuel. However, installing a Marxist government is guaranteed to result in mass murder.

Let's continue using fuels and let's avoid all Marxism.

Jakob wrote: Take a look at this:

I read it. Did you call BOOOOOLSCH'T like I did?


Jakob wrote: The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Well, that's good. I think we all know that every casualty in the war between Russia and Ukraine is a result of the socialist governments that were installed in the past.

Jakob wrote: And if we also take the climate into consideration ...

... we necessarily begin with a formal, unambiguous, definition of the global climate that does not inherently violate science, math, logic, economics laws or the language in which it is expressed.

I eagerly await the definition.

Jakob wrote: ... using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

Great news! Fossils don't use any fuel! Whew, we dodged that bullet.

Jakob wrote: I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

Hydrocarbons, i.e. petroleum and natural gas, are the world's cheapest, most abundant, safest and most reliable renewable energy sources. Only Marxists claim otherwise.

Hydrocarbons take hours to minutes to form under the Fischer-Tropsh process. We can drill all we wish; the earth will make more.

Jakob wrote: There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.

I agree. Hydrocarbons are the best.

... although I'm a fan of nuclear as well.
29-01-2024 03:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote: Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?

Nope. It is not mass murder to use any fuel. However, installing a Marxist government is guaranteed to result in mass murder.

Let's continue using fuels and let's avoid all Marxism.

Jakob wrote: Take a look at this:

I read it. Did you call BOOOOOLSCH'T like I did?


Jakob wrote: The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Well, that's good. I think we all know that every casualty in the war between Russia and Ukraine is a result of the socialist governments that were installed in the past.

Jakob wrote: And if we also take the climate into consideration ...

... we necessarily begin with a formal, unambiguous, definition of the global climate that does not inherently violate science, math, logic, economics laws or the language in which it is expressed.

I eagerly await the definition.

Jakob wrote: ... using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

Great news! Fossils don't use any fuel! Whew, we dodged that bullet.

Jakob wrote: I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

Hydrocarbons, i.e. petroleum and natural gas, are the world's cheapest, most abundant, safest and most reliable renewable energy sources. Only Marxists claim otherwise.

Hydrocarbons take hours to minutes to form under the Fischer-Tropsh process. We can drill all we wish; the earth will make more.

Jakob wrote: There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.

I agree. Hydrocarbons are the best.

... although I'm a fan of nuclear as well.

Nuclear fuel is not renewable. So little of it is used to produce power, however, it's still a lot cheaper than wind or solar.


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
29-01-2024 03:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
Jakob wrote:
­



Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?


Take a look at this:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Every time one terawatt-hour of electricity is produced by a coal-fired power plant, 24 people will be killed.



Brown coal --> 32.72

Coal --> 24.62

Oil --> 18.43

Biomass --> 4.63

Gas --> 2.82

Hydropower --> 1.3

Wind --> 0.04

Nuclear --> 0.03

Solar --> 0.02




The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

And if we also take the climate into consideration using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.
­


In case it did not translate well to Danish, IBdaMann suggested you should have called BULLSHIT. Seriously, who's ass were these numbers plucked from? Yours? Was it painful?

Nowhere did the article describe how a death was determined be from pollution. Nowhere did the article show the medical history and personal lifestyle habits of the deceased. Nowhere did the article describe in detail how a life essential gas can be labeled pollution. Nowhere did the article show any calculations with margin of error.

And you, Jakob, continue to talk about fossils and then randomly change the subject to fuels. For the respect of the site owner, can we please stay on topic? Thanks.

The article did, however, ask me to just be gullible and believe what the author calls "estimations". I'm calling bullshit.

Just for something to think about....

How many lives are saved because of gas and oil? How big is the list of emergency equipment that depends on reliable fuels? Just a few off the top and then I have to scoot.

Ambulance-road, ambulance-air, fire trucks, police, hospitals...all saving lives every damn day, performing at a level that could not be matched relying on cool breeze.

Jakob, I asked you to stick around and attempt to do some of your own thinking. This was an epic fail. You plucked some propaganda off the internet and posted it up for all to see your gullibility. Please, you can do better.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 29-01-2024 03:40
29-01-2024 05:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14633)
GasGuzzler wrote: Nowhere did the article describe how a death was determined be from pollution. Nowhere did the article show the medical history and personal lifestyle habits of the deceased. Nowhere did the article describe in detail how a life essential gas can be labeled pollution. Nowhere did the article show any calculations with margin of error.

Maybe Jakob merely calculated the average death rate for humans to be 24 people every second or so, and then simply reworded it to read "24 people die every time hydrocarbons are used somewhere."

GasGuzzler wrote: And you, Jakob, continue to talk about fossils and then randomly change the subject to fuels. For the respect of the site owner, can we please stay on topic? Thanks.

Bonus points for you.

GasGuzzler wrote: Just for something to think about....

How many lives are saved because of gas and oil? How big is the list of emergency equipment that depends on reliable fuels? Just a few off the top and then I have to scoot.

Ambulance-road, ambulance-air, fire trucks, police, hospitals...all saving lives every damn day, performing at a level that could not be matched relying on cool breeze.

Great point. How many solar-powered Search-and-Rescue helicopters are there?

GasGuzzler wrote: Please, [Jakob] you can do better.

What makes you so sure? He's a Marxist. I don't know where you get your rose-colored optimism.
29-01-2024 05:59
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote: Please, [Jakob] you can do better.

What makes you so sure? He's a Marxist. I don't know where you get your rose-colored optimism.


I'm just a glass half full of gas kind of guy.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
29-01-2024 13:52
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­


Before we go any further, I have a question for you:

How much more will you pay per KWh to save 24 people from dying every year.?




­
29-01-2024 20:42
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
Jakob wrote:
­


Before we go any further, I have a question for you:

How much more will you pay per KWh to save 24 people from dying every year.?
­


Wait!.....I would pay MORE for wind and solar?!

How much more? I thought this stuff was almost free!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
29-01-2024 22:10
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­

That's not the question, I just want to see how you value human life per KWh.

No matter what new power plant you buy it will cost money.
Depending on how much you will pay maybe you can even afford a nuclear plant, at least for a while.
­
­
30-01-2024 03:38
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
How many lives are saved by burning fossil-fuels? Specially in the winter... Electricity is great, but not for everything. Grid power fails...
30-01-2024 05:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
Jakob wrote:
That's not the question, I just want to see how you value human life per KWh.
­­

I don't measure the value of human life per kw/h, you loser piece of shit.

How bout I ask you the same? How many kw/hrs were these young technicians worth?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Attached image:

30-01-2024 12:48
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­


HarveyH55 wrote:
How many lives are saved by burning fossil-fuels? Specially in the winter... Electricity is great, but not for everything. Grid power fails...


Yes, you need a better grid to save more lives but the number of lives you can save with the grid you already have will on the output side not be changed if the electricity comes from a windmill instead of a coal power plant.
If the heart starter needs 1 kWh to bring a person back to life it won't matter what power plant the 1 KWh comes from. All that matters is that it is there, when it is needed.
So far so good.

However on the input side it makes a big difference, and that is my point.
So how much more will you pay per KWh if it can save 24 lives every year.?


Is 0,1 $ too much.?




­
30-01-2024 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­Before we go any further, I have a question for you:

How much more will you pay per KWh to save 24 people from dying every year.?
­


Loaded questions are not a question, Jakob.


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
30-01-2024 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­

That's not the question, I just want to see how you value human life per KWh.

No matter what new power plant you buy it will cost money.
Depending on how much you will pay maybe you can even afford a nuclear plant, at least for a while.
­
­

Loaded questions are not a question, Jakob.

Assumption fallacy.


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
30-01-2024 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many lives are saved by burning fossil-fuels? Specially in the winter... Electricity is great, but not for everything. Grid power fails...


Yes, you need a better grid to save more lives but the number of lives you can save with the grid you already have will on the output side not be changed if the electricity comes from a windmill instead of a coal power plant.
If the heart starter needs 1 kWh to bring a person back to life it won't matter what power plant the 1 KWh comes from. All that matters is that it is there, when it is needed.
So far so good.

However on the input side it makes a big difference, and that is my point.
So how much more will you pay per KWh if it can save 24 lives every year.?


Is 0,1 $ too much.?

­

The grid generates no power. Power plants do. The grid DISTRIBUTES power.
They will buy their power from the cheapest stable sources. Wind is not a stable source nor cheap.

Loaded questions are not a question. Assumption fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).


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
Edited on 30-01-2024 21:01
31-01-2024 00:33
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­




Already in 2009 the windmills in Texas saved 480 lives.



Well done Texas.!




That is if coal plants had been the alternative.
Think about it.
And check the math if you want to. (it might be a good idea. lol)
https://www.eia.gov/renewable/state/archive/srp2009.pdf
Wind 2009: 20.026.000 MWh
20 x 24 = 480



­
31-01-2024 00:48
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
Jakob wrote:
­




Already in 2009 the windmills in Texas saved 480 lives.



Well done Texas.!




That is if coal plants had been the alternative.
Think about it.

­

I am thinking about it. I still have the same questions.
How is a death by coal confirmed?
What is the average age of a death by coal deceased?
What is the lifestyle of the death by coal deceased?
What is the average health assessment year by year for the previous 40 years of a death by coal deceased?
What is the actual amount of lost life in a premature death by coal deceased?
I love grilling venison on my charcoal grill. Is this dangerous? Should I switch to natural gas?... Or should I get a wind power grill?

Please Jakob, save my life.

I want to sincerely thank you for taking leadership in this matter. If it weren't for you I would have NEVER believed everything I read on the internet and I was afraid of almost nothing. Now I am terrified of all that surrounds me and I am a Google believer ! You have rocked my world! Thank you


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 31-01-2024 00:49
31-01-2024 05:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­Already in 2009 the windmills in Texas saved 480 lives.

Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' doesn't work.
Jakob wrote:
­Well done Texas.!


That is if coal plants had been the alternative.
Think about it.
And check the math if you want to. (it might be a good idea. lol)
https://www.eia.gov/renewable/state/archive/srp2009.pdf
Wind 2009: 20.026.000 MWh
20 x 24 = 480
­

Math errors: Unit error. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to use published raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to publish both numbers in analysis.
Logic errors: Non-sequitur fallacy. Assumption fallacy. Attempted pivot as equivalency. False authority fallacy. Attempted proof by Holy Link. Argument from randU fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. Repetition fallacy (chanting).
Illiteracy: Failure to begin a sentence with a capital letter.

Making up shit and making random statements won't work, Jakob.


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
31-01-2024 13:19
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­


I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.

It only sounds like you want to take on a similar role as the tobacco industry's lawyers.
What the motivation is for this, I don't know, but in any case their role was not to save human life.

And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.



­
31-01-2024 22:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.

Jakob wrote:
And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.

Are you speaking of all the wind turbines that failed in the cold weather during the cold period in the winter of 2021?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
31-01-2024 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.

You are hallucinating. I just listed them!
Jakob wrote:
­It only sounds like you want to take on a similar role as the tobacco industry's lawyers.

Tobacco makes an expensive and lousy burning fuel.
Jakob wrote:
­What the motivation is for this, I don't know, but in any case their role was not to save human life.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Math errors are same as before. Logic errors are same as before. Pivot fallacy.
Jakob wrote:
­And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.
­

I do. For example:
* Oil production and processing and distribution.
* Natural gas production and distribution.
* Import/export.
* Automotive, marine, and aviation maintenance and support.
* Ranching and farming.
* Construction trades including roads, buildings, natural gas power plants, and expansion of the power grid facilities.
* Police, fire, and Texas Guard personnel.
* Software and hardware engineering.
* Manufacturing.

Yes...there is plenty of good work being done in Texas. This isn't even a complete list.


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
31-01-2024 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Jakob wrote:
And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.

Are you speaking of all the wind turbines that failed in the cold weather during the cold period in the winter of 2021?

Probably. I don't consider this communism a 'good work'.


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
Edited on 31-01-2024 23:16
01-02-2024 13:19
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­



GasGuzzler wrote:
Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.


As with climate, I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data. It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.
But if you want to because you don't trust the science, there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.
I rather think that the numbers are too low, precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.
I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?



Into the Night wrote:
I do.


No, you're just derailing the topic.




­
01-02-2024 18:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
Jakob wrote:
­



GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.

Jakob wrote:
As with climate,

Which climate are you speaking of? Is this the global climate again which you have not defined?
Jakob wrote:
I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data.

So you are too damn lazy to do some legwork on a subject you are passionate about. You will post up anything and swear it to be truth as long as it fits your agenda. You are still letting others do your thinking for you.
Jakob wrote:
It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.

No. It is your job to call bullshit.
Jakob wrote:
But if you want to

I don't. No need.

Jakob wrote:
because you don't trust the science,

There is no science here. None. I suspect you don't know what science is. If you still think there is science here, then what theory of science is being discussed?
Jakob wrote:
there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.

We don't do link wars here. We describe our position in our own words. Your position appears to be bent over the living room furniture.
Jakob wrote:
I rather think that the numbers are too low
,
I rather think the number is closer to zero.
Jakob wrote:
precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility

Science doesn't have feelings.
Jakob wrote:
if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.

Lawyers must support their claim. If they can do that, wouldn't a higher number make a better case?
Jakob wrote:
I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it

I do. They pluck number from their ass, rearrange them into pretty charts and graphs, and order you to believe them. You are a tool.
Jakob wrote:
using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

If the study was done with a shred of honesty, this data would have been included in the report.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
01-02-2024 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­
GasGuzzler wrote:
Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.


As with climate, I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data.

You have no data.
Jakob wrote:
­It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.

You deny science. It is NOT a scientist's job to check each other.
Jakob wrote:
­But if you want to because you don't trust the science,

Science doesn't require trust. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Since you want to deny them, you are just denying science.
Jakob wrote:
­there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.

Random numbers are not data.
Jakob wrote:
­I rather think that the numbers are too low, precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility

No science here. Science is not random numbers.
Jakob wrote:
­if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.

Tobacco is a lousy fuel. Fossils aren't used as fuel. There is no 'fossil fuel industry'.
Jakob wrote:
­I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

You have no data.
Jakob wrote:
­
Into the Night wrote:
I do.

No, you're just derailing the topic.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems on anyone else.


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
02-02-2024 00:16
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­


Into the Night wrote:
You deny science. It is NOT a scientist's job to check each other.


­https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
The death rates from coal, oil, and gas used in these comparisons are sourced from the paper of Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson (2007) in the medical journal, The Lancet. To date, these are the best peer-reviewed references I could find on the death rates from these sources. These rates are based on electricity production in Europe.


What "peer-reviewed" means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review



­­
02-02-2024 01:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­
Into the Night wrote:
You deny science. It is NOT a scientist's job to check each other.


­https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
The death rates from coal, oil, and gas used in these comparisons are sourced from the paper of Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson (2007) in the medical journal, The Lancet. To date, these are the best peer-reviewed references I could find on the death rates from these sources. These rates are based on electricity production in Europe.


What "peer-reviewed" means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

­­

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
The same is true with mathematics.
The same is true with logic.

Random numbers are random numbers, regardless of their source. You have no data.
Attempted proof by association. Articles are not raw data.

Math errors: Attempted use of circular as raw data. Failure to use published unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value.

Logic errors: Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Non-sequitur fallacy. False authority fallacy. Ad populum fallacy.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a proof. You will find it's use as a reference of any kind here is going to get summarily dismissed.

I suggest you read the Data Mine thread (1st two posts).


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
Edited on 02-02-2024 02:02
02-02-2024 02:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14633)
Jakob wrote: As with climate, I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data.

Jakob, did you just say that you won't go anywhere near an ocean of information?

Jakob wrote: It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.

Nope. It is each and every person's job to independently verify anything he plans to regurgitate.

Jakob wrote: But if you want to because you don't trust the science,

You haven't mentioned any science, owing to the fact that you are scientifically illiterate.

Jakob wrote: there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.

Pointing to other scientifically illiterate morons who are just as mistaken as you doesn't support your argument.

Jakob wrote: ... precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility

Who told you that science is a person with human emotions, e.g. fear? This is the price you pay for insisting on remaining scientifically illiterate, i.e. you post really stupid crap.

Jakob wrote: ... if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.

Why do you feel the need to flee from the topic on which you are getting trounced, and racing to the refuge of topics such as lawyers, tobacco and the fuel used by fossils?

Jakob wrote: I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Who are "they"? What is being calculated?

Jakob wrote: No, you're just derailing the topic

You did that by abandoning this discussion and fleeing to fossils and tobacco. What fossils do you believe hire lawyers?

In other news ...
The Netherlands has unveiled its plans for a 100% wind-powered naval fleet by 2048. Vice-Admiral Rene Tas lauded his country's intention to leverage exclusively wind power to inflict "mass murder" on those who dare oppose his royal fleet. The plan also calls for 23,440 hydrocarbon-powered tugboats to keep the fleet powering ahead into the future.


02-02-2024 20:38
Jakob
★★☆☆☆
(218)
­


IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote: I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Who are "they"? What is being calculated?


It is probably mostly doctors and statisticians who have access to work scientifically with data from medical records.
They can compare professional groups and see life expectancy and diseases among people who work with coal and compare them to others. They can also see measures of coal air pollution in local areas and compare it with disease and death in other areas.
Finding reliable estimates of coal kills is a complicated and difficult calculation, and it will likely be impossible to completely avoid mistakes, but basically it is simple logic that it is a relevant and possible social scientific calculation to do.



­
02-02-2024 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
Jakob wrote:
­
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote: I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Who are "they"? What is being calculated?


It is probably mostly doctors and statisticians who have access to work scientifically with data from medical records.

Science is not data. You have no data. Medical records do not list cause of death. A death certificate is not a medical record. Death certificates do not list cause of death by energy type.
Jakob wrote:
­They can compare professional groups and see life expectancy and diseases among people who work with coal and compare them to others. They can also see measures of coal air pollution in local areas and compare it with disease and death in other areas.
Finding reliable estimates of coal kills is a complicated and difficult calculation, and it will likely be impossible to completely avoid mistakes, but basically it is simple logic that it is a relevant and possible social scientific calculation to do.
­

Science is not 'calculations'. Guessing is not mathematics. Define 'coal air pollution'.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.
Logic errors: Non-sequitur fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Redefinition fallacies. Appeal to complexity fallacy. Buzzword fallacies.

You deny logic.
You deny mathematics.
You deny science.


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
Edited on 02-02-2024 21:00
03-02-2024 07:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14633)
Jakob wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Who are "they"? What is being calculated?
It is probably mostly doctors and statisticians who have access to work scientifically with data from medical records.

What do you mean "probably"? Specify what is being calculated and who is performing the calculation. Otherwise, you are pulling this out of your azz.

Jakob wrote: They can compare professional groups and see life expectancy and diseases among people who work with coal and compare them to others. They can also see measures of coal air pollution in local areas and compare it with disease and death in other areas.

Not without an equation they can't. Post that equation. Otherwise, you are pulling this out of your azz.

Jakob wrote:Finding reliable estimates of coal kills is a complicated and difficult calculation, and it will likely be impossible to completely avoid mistakes,

That's what everyone says who is simply pulling crap out of their azzes.

Jakob wrote: ... but basically it is simple logic that it is a relevant and possible social scientific calculation to do.

So now you are simply speculating that it might be possible for someone to make this calculation, but that you aren't aware of anyone ever having done it, and you have no idea whether any such equation(s) exist, correct?

Hint: This isn't what you wrote previously.
04-02-2024 04:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
IBdaMann wrote:
The Netherlands has unveiled its plans for a 100% wind-powered naval fleet by 2048. Vice-Admiral Rene Tas lauded his country's intention to leverage exclusively wind power to inflict "mass murder" on those who dare oppose his royal fleet. The plan also calls for 23,440 hydrocarbon-powered tugboats to keep the fleet powering ahead into the future.




I'm going to need you to square this up a bit. Are you actually saying wind cannot sustain our every energy need? Jakob seems to think we can have oil and gas in museum by next week! One of you is really stupid. I'll leave it at that.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
04-02-2024 08:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14633)
GasGuzzler wrote: I'm going to need you to square this up a bit. Are you actually saying wind cannot sustain our every energy need?

Wind can sustain every single one of our needs, as long as all of our needs are to enjoy burning hydrocarbons. It's all in our lifestyle choices. With just a few simple changes to our everyday lives, we can get by on the wind that blows around us every day. All we need to do is to replace all other energy sources with hydrocarbons, coal and hydroelectric power, and then we can all just sit back and let wind and solar do their things.

GasGuzzler wrote: Jakob seems to think we can have oil and gas in museum by next week! One of you is really stupid.

Ralph calls me stupid a lot. Sven at least waits until I'm gone to talk about me behind my back.

Frank tells me that your HOA is putting up crew serve wind turbines as a community defense measure ... and to kill pesky birds more effectively. Does that mean they'll be hiking up your HOA fees?





Join the debate Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..43216-06-2024 01:19
There is "No such thing" as "Fossil fuel"?631-05-2024 21:10
Using Wind Turbines is Mass Murder301-02-2024 03:00
Ai was used to MURDER a child..............!012-07-2023 21:29
Thou shalt not murder a tomato, this law has me in trouble213-05-2023 23:41
▲ 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