THeBlueCashew

Biggie Smiles

There are several issues with the forum. Between you and me (and anyone else who reads this post), I'm not into the political stuff which is most of the posts here but sometimes I'll read something that I want to reply to such as your Disney World thread. I'm headed back to the US next April and I try to get to a theme park when I'm there although I find them to be a disappointment even though I'm trying to relive my long lost youth and now I feel like I'm going to puke after I hop on a coaster. But I digress. Posting as a guest is as problematic as what I went through trying to register an account:

1- I can't reset my password on my original account, as I don't get the reset email nor do I get any sort of message that the email is isn't valid.
2- I created a "duplicate" user ID using the old trick of replacing a letter with a symbol but I'd rather delete this one and reactive the old one if possible, can you do that and email me a reset link
3- On many screens, regardless of which browser I use, I can't see the letters I just typed unless I highlight them, it just looks like a blank box. It's happened on the "subject" line of this post, and on all the verification questions but not the body of the post that I'm typing now.
4- When I log in I only see 3 few boards, notably none of the most recent posts - see screen shot
5- Your verification questions are wacked. I had to watch an instructional video on Django to know if the D was silent, and its unclear when you spell bacon backwards if "the first letter is to be capitalized" refers to the b in bacon or the n in nacob. 

(https://i.postimg.cc/wvVVpQBb/not-logged-it.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/cCc4T6TV/logged-in-screen.jpg)

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AMBiggie Smiles

There are several issues with the forum. Between you and me (and anyone else who reads this post), I'm not into the political stuff which is most of the posts here but sometimes I'll read something that I want to reply to such as your Disney World thread. I'm headed back to the US next April and I try to get to a theme park when I'm there although I find them to be a disappointment even though I'm trying to relive my long lost youth and now I feel like I'm going to puke after I hop on a coaster. But I digress. Posting as a guest is as problematic as what I went through trying to register an account:

1- I can't reset my password on my original account, as I don't get the reset email nor do I get any sort of message that the email is isn't valid.
2- I created a "duplicate" user ID using the old trick of replacing a letter with a symbol but I'd rather delete this one and reactive the old one if possible, can you do that and email me a reset link
3- On many screens, regardless of which browser I use, I can't see the letters I just typed unless I highlight them, it just looks like a blank box. It's happened on the "subject" line of this post, and on all the verification questions but not the body of the post that I'm typing now.
4- When I log in I only see 3 few boards, notably none of the most recent posts - see screen shot
5- Your verification questions are wacked. I had to watch an instructional video on Django to know if the D was silent, and its unclear when you spell bacon backwards if "the first letter is to be capitalized" refers to the b in bacon or the n in nacob. 

(https://i.postimg.cc/wvVVpQBb/not-logged-it.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/cCc4T6TV/logged-in-screen.jpg)

Good morning Wizer. Thanks for taking the time to register and point out a few of these things.

I pay the bills and I do have admin privileges, but I never took the time to properly learn the admin panel. Biggie can help you with these issues.

I can tell you that question 4 is because we have new posters set to a limited default group. He can put you in a new user group where that will be fixed.

In question 5 the D is silent and it is Nocab.

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AMBiggie Smiles

There are several issues with the forum. Between you and me (and anyone else who reads this post), I'm not into the political stuff which is most of the posts here but sometimes I'll read something that I want to reply to such as your Disney World thread. I'm headed back to the US next April and I try to get to a theme park when I'm there although I find them to be a disappointment even though I'm trying to relive my long lost youth and now I feel like I'm going to puke after I hop on a coaster. But I digress. Posting as a guest is as problematic as what I went through trying to register an account:

1- I can't reset my password on my original account, as I don't get the reset email nor do I get any sort of message that the email is isn't valid.
2- I created a "duplicate" user ID using the old trick of replacing a letter with a symbol but I'd rather delete this one and reactive the old one if possible, can you do that and email me a reset link
3- On many screens, regardless of which browser I use, I can't see the letters I just typed unless I highlight them, it just looks like a blank box. It's happened on the "subject" line of this post, and on all the verification questions but not the body of the post that I'm typing now.
4- When I log in I only see 3 few boards, notably none of the most recent posts - see screen shot
5- Your verification questions are wacked. I had to watch an instructional video on Django to know if the D was silent, and its unclear when you spell bacon backwards if "the first letter is to be capitalized" refers to the b in bacon or the n in nacob. 

(https://i.postimg.cc/wvVVpQBb/not-logged-it.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/cCc4T6TV/logged-in-screen.jpg)

Bumping this to keep it on the most recent posts.

We will get on this before the weekend is finished.

Like DKG there's not a lot I can do except keep this topic active and throw in my 2¢ but here goes:

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AM1- I can't reset my password on my original account, as I don't get the reset email nor do I get any sort of message that the email is isn't valid.
2- I created a "duplicate" user ID using the old trick of replacing a letter with a symbol but I'd rather delete this one and reactive the old one if possible, can you do that and email me a reset link

1 & 2 are well above my pay grade.

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AM3- On many screens, regardless of which browser I use, I can't see the letters I just typed unless I highlight them, it just looks like a blank box. It's happened on the "subject" line of this post, and on all the verification questions but not the body of the post that I'm typing now.

That sounds to me like a stylesheet issue and while not a difficult fix as far as the code goes (changing a font/background value from #fff to #000 or the other way 'round, for example) ...it can be tedious to track down the odd stray element that's having an issue.

The more specifics you can provide about the Theme being used (very super important), the page you're on, and the particular textbox/etc. that's borked the easier it'll be to fix 'em.

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AM4- When I log in I only see 3 few boards, notably none of the most recent posts - see screen shot

Am I missing something?
In the screenshot, under the Info Center banner, it looks like there is a list of recent poasts?

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AM5- Your verification questions are wacked. I had to watch an instructional video on Django to know if the D was silent, and its unclear when you spell bacon backwards if "the first letter is to be capitalized" refers to the b in bacon or the n in nacob.

Hmm.
Only a bot would complain about trying to keep out bots.

Your pals down in Data Storage don't call you "Skynet" by any chance, do they?

:smiley_confused1:

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AM3- On many screens, regardless of which browser I use, I can't see the letters I just typed unless I highlight them, it just looks like a blank box. It's happened on the "subject" line of this post, and on all the verification questions but not the body of the post that I'm typing now.

Hi Wizer, long time no see! Hope you're doing well. I get that same problem If I set my browser to dark mode and then mess around with the text colors. Maybe try a lite setting or a different forum theme, you can change that with the drop-down box in the very upper right hand corner. Looking forward to chatting with you!

Quote from: Garraty_47 on October 31, 2025, 10:54:37 AMAm I missing something?
In the screenshot, under the Info Center banner, it looks like there is a list of recent poasts?

Yes you're missing something. The recent posts that I see when logged on do not include more recent posts including those from most of the subforums.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on October 31, 2025, 10:59:17 AMI get that same problem If I set my browser to dark mode and then mess around with the text colors. Maybe try a lite setting or a different forum theme

Thanks for the suggestions but I didn't change my browser or the forum settings in regard to mode or text colors. I get the issue regarding blank text boxes regardless of which browser I use and whether I'm logged in or not. 

Hi wizer. Do you know Joe. He is dumber.

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 11:11:40 AMYes you're missing something. The recent posts that I see when logged on do not include more recent posts including those from most of the subforums.

Hmm.
That's probably caused by how the forum is configured to identify and display the Recent list and again, sorry, above my pay grade.

I never use Recent lists, preferring to click on individual subs to check out so I never noticed a discrepancy.

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 11:11:40 AMThanks for the suggestions but I didn't change my browser or the forum settings in regard to mode or text colors. I get the issue regarding blank text boxes regardless of which browser I use and whether I'm logged in or not. 

Apologies for being pedantic but the textbox isn't blank as such; the text and background colors are assigned the same values or close enough to blend into each other. Think using a white crayon to mark on a piece of white paper. That's why what you typed shows up when highlighted- highlighting overrides the default color scheme and provides its own contrast. It's a function of the forum Theme's stylesheet (resides on the server, not in your browser cache or elsewhere on the client side) which is why every browser displays the same thing.

Okay, I switched to the Default Theme (Curve2) and was able to replicate the "blank" Subject textbox when starting a new thread.

The text and background colors are both assigned the value of #fff (white) in the stylesheet:

https://thebluecashew.net/Themes/default/css/minified_3b394282f9a0fef96947a23df45778e5.css?smf213_1692571724

input, button, select, textarea {
    color: #fff;
    font: 93.33%/150% "Segoe UI","Helvetica Neue","Nimbus Sans L",Arial,"Liberation Sans",sans-serif;
    background: #fff;
    outline: none;
    border: 1px solid #bbb;
    vertical-align: middle;
    border-radius: 3px;
    box-shadow: 1px 2px 1px rgba(160,187,221,.2) inset;
    padding: .3em .4em;
}
Because of how the forum code is compiled here (if I recall correctly) simply going in and changing the CSS code isn't an easy process; your best bet is using another Theme like Blue_Evolution that's similar to the Default Theme but doesn't have that issue.

That would fix at least one item on your list.

wizer, I sent you a message containing a temporary password for your old account.

I also moved you from the newly registered members group which should take care of problems not seeing boards.

That is about all I can do with my limited knowledge of the admin panel. Anything else falls on Biggie Smiles.

Quote from: Brent on October 31, 2025, 11:26:03 AMHi wizer. Do you know Joe. He is dumber.

That is true, but my Jo Jo has the most adorable little bald spot.

I'm going to look into the email thing now

Okay -- I'm going to need DKG here as the MX records are not set at the root hints

Quote from: Biggie Smiles on October 31, 2025, 01:54:57 PMOkay -- I'm going to need DKG here as the MX records are not set at the root hints

I have no idea what any of that is.

I sent wizer a temporary pw for his original account.

I changed his usergroup so he can receive messages at his new handle.

 Got it thanks

Ok, that's better. I just need to dust off this old profile and do some cleaning up. It appears I left the window open when I left 5 years ago and most of this stuff around here is going to have to be thrown out.

Geez my last post was in September 2020. That was 3 years before retirement, still flipping eyeglass lenses and saying "which is better one or two I hate this fucking job" and living in NY. Seems like another world.

Well anyway, here I am.

Biggie Smiles feel free to delete the other wizer profile with the 2 posts otherwise it may get confusing and then I can update the account email to my usual one which I used on the other one.

Like I said I'm not into politics all that much, I'll just say this much. Trump is an arrogant prick but he's getting the job done and as I tell the whiney democrats, no matter how much they complain about the guy they couldn't come up with anyone the voters liked better so that's why he won.. twice. And he seems to be running the country ok despite there being a lot of crazy stuff going on in the world right now.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 

I had to look up the meaning of the word pedantic.  :popcorn:

Quote from: wizer on October 31, 2025, 03:51:19 PMOk, that's better. I just need to dust off this old profile and do some cleaning up. It appears I left the window open when I left 5 years ago and most of this stuff around here is going to have to be thrown out.

Geez my last post was in September 2020. That was 3 years before retirement, still flipping eyeglass lenses and saying "which is better one or two I hate this fucking job" and living in NY. Seems like another world.

Well anyway, here I am.

Biggie Smiles feel free to delete the other wizer profile with the 2 posts otherwise it may get confusing and then I can update the account email to my usual one which I used on the other one.

Like I said I'm not into politics all that much, I'll just say this much. Trump is an arrogant prick but he's getting the job done and as I tell the whiney democrats, no matter how much they complain about the guy they couldn't come up with anyone the voters liked better so that's why he won.. twice. And he seems to be running the country ok despite there being a lot of crazy stuff going on in the world right now.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 

Welcome aboard old friend.

As I'm sure you can attest having known me for nearly 20 years now (good lord the time flies!) that I was never really political. Until the democrats jumped the shark and literally started tearing apart the very fabric of our society.

Now I am involved, see the light and in some small way wish I could go back into my mental slumber. things were just easier when I existed that way.

Quote from: Biggie Smiles on October 31, 2025, 04:03:17 PMWelcome aboard old friend.

As I'm sure you can attest having known me for nearly 20 years now (good lord the time flies!) that I was never really political. Until the democrats jumped the shark and literally started tearing apart the very fabric of our society.

Now I am involved, see the light and in some small way wish I could go back into my mental slumber. things were just easier when I existed that way.

I totally get it old buddy.

If we don't get to WW3 anytime soon, perhaps things will settle down and we can peacefully enjoy our retirements.

Quote from: wizer on October 31, 2025, 03:51:19 PMLike I said I'm not into politics all that much, I'll just say this much. Trump is an arrogant prick but he's getting the job done and as I tell the whiney democrats, no matter how much they complain about the guy they couldn't come up with anyone the voters liked better so that's why he won.. twice. And he seems to be running the country ok despite there being a lot of crazy stuff going on in the world right now.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 

Right on brother. :drunk2:

Quote from: Biggie Smiles on October 31, 2025, 04:03:17 PMWelcome aboard old friend.

As I'm sure you can attest having known me for nearly 20 years now (good lord the time flies!) that I was never really political. Until the democrats jumped the shark and literally started tearing apart the very fabric of our society.

Now I am involved, see the light and in some small way wish I could go back into my mental slumber. things were just easier when I existed that way.

That is old Herman too. I just wanted to raise canola and cattle and be left the fuck alone. But, the left would not let me. So, now I am involved too.

Quote from: Brent on October 31, 2025, 11:26:03 AMHi wizer. Do you know Joe. He is dumber.

I know "of" Joe from a handful of posts.

He is dumber? Than what? You?

Quote from: Herman on October 31, 2025, 09:30:56 PMI just wanted to raise canola and cattle and be left the fuck alone. But, the left would not let me. So, now I am involved too.

What did the left do to you Herman?

I am different from wizer Biggie and Herman on politics. I was not suddenly forced to take political sides. I have been a fiscal conservative since I was nineteen.

The difference now of course is how extreme the opposing side has become. Compromise is no longer possible with them. They want total control and they have no parameters on how they will achieve it.

Quote from: DKG on November 01, 2025, 05:39:17 AMI am different from wizer Biggie and Herman on politics. I was not suddenly forced to take political sides. I have been a fiscal conservative since I was nineteen.

The difference now of course is how extreme the opposing side has become. Compromise is no longer possible with them. They want total control and they have no parameters on how they will achieve it.

Statements like that seem to me to be sort of like those conspiracy theories. "They are going to control us!". Not saying you're wrong but I'm not seeing it.

I've voted democratic in the past, I don't just automatically stick to one particular political party, however in recent years I find that Republican policies more closely align with my own goals.

The biggest single issue I have with the Republican Party is that they don't give a crap about the environment, they often dismiss global warming and climate change as BS and they promote policies that increase and worsen destruction of the planet in exchange for improving the economy.

The second is that, especially under the current administration, the deficit is skyrocketing.

Both of these issues will be paid for by future generations, but I'm not all that concerned about them to be perfectly honest. As long as things hold together for another 30 years I'm good with it.

Quote from: wizer on October 31, 2025, 03:51:19 PMOk, that's better. I just need to dust off this old profile and do some cleaning up. It appears I left the window open when I left 5 years ago and most of this stuff around here is going to have to be thrown out.

Geez my last post was in September 2020. That was 3 years before retirement, still flipping eyeglass lenses and saying "which is better one or two I hate this fucking job" and living in NY. Seems like another world.

Well anyway, here I am.

Biggie Smiles feel free to delete the other wizer profile with the 2 posts otherwise it may get confusing and then I can update the account email to my usual one which I used on the other one.

Like I said I'm not into politics all that much, I'll just say this much. Trump is an arrogant prick but he's getting the job done and as I tell the whiney democrats, no matter how much they complain about the guy they couldn't come up with anyone the voters liked better so that's why he won.. twice. And he seems to be running the country ok despite there being a lot of crazy stuff going on in the world right now.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 

Trump was never my first choice as president. But, he was elected to make changes and that is what he is doing. And he is so much better than anything on the crazy Democrat side. I would have voted for him against Hillary and Kamala too.

Enough politics this post.

Welcome back to to your original handle. I am glad we got it sorted out.

Quote from: DKG on November 01, 2025, 05:47:39 AMWelcome back to to your original handle. I am glad we got it sorted out.

I'm working my way through the various themes, they've all got some issues. In fact some are completely broken. I'll do a separate post on it after I'm done with my testing. Not that anyone necessarily cares but hey it's a slow retirement.  :wink:

 

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 05:46:18 AMStatements like that seem to me to be sort of like those conspiracy theories. "They are going to control us!". Not saying you're wrong but I'm not seeing it.

I've voted democratic in the past, I don't just automatically stick to one particular political party, however in recent years I find that Republican policies more closely align with my own goals.

The biggest single issue I have with the Republican Party is that they don't give a crap about the environment, they often dismiss global warming and climate change as BS and they promote policies that increase and worsen destruction of the planet in exchange for improving the economy.

The second is that, especially under the current administration, the deficit is skyrocketing.

Both of these issues will be paid for by future generations, but I'm not all that concerned about them to be perfectly honest. As long as things hold together for another 30 years I'm good with it.

I live in Canada, but the control freakishness is part and parcel of their motivation like it is with the US Dems.

It's interesting you mention climate change. Few countries have gone as far as Canada has in punishing it's population into reducing our miniscule emissions. From two carbon taxes, to blocking development of our most lucrative resources to dictating what vehicles we can purchase to farm practices. We have deliberately lowered living standards for most Canadians while rewarding an already rich few and it has not moved the climate needle one centimetre.

Interestingly the US saw it's biggest drop in emissions under the first Trump administration because of the widespread use of fracking.

As for the deficit, the congress not the senate controls spending. Something worth noting though is that tariffs are helping to lower monthly deficits. I was not a fan of tariffs, but any windfall from it must be applied to the deficit first.

Quote from: DKG on November 01, 2025, 05:55:45 AMInterestingly the US saw it's biggest drop in emissions under the first Trump administration because of the widespread use of fracking.

It's been my understanding that Fracking considerably impacts climate change because of the release of large amounts of methane which is a potent greenhouse gas.

Quote from: DKG on November 01, 2025, 05:55:45 AMAs for the deficit, the congress not the senate controls spending. 

I thought the president had more than a little to do with how much money is borrowed to finance government spending. For example, Trump's tax bill is credited with increasing the deficit by 2.8 trillion over the next decade. 

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 06:00:39 AMIt's been my understanding that Fracking considerably impacts climate change because of the release of large amounts of methane which is a potent greenhouse gas.

Fracking has a number of problems, starting with the fact that the components of the fluid injected into the wells are proprietary company "secrets" (nothing ominous there, eh?) but the ones that have been identified are toxic/carcinogenic as fuck. And they're now in deep aquifers where after-the-fact removal is essentially impossible.

The other big one is that it's not a question of if a well's retaining walls will fail, it's a question of when. A certain number fail immediately and over time that number grows to: all of 'em. Hence the methane dumps and methane is more destructive than CO² insofar as environmental impacts.

It's a perfect example of why I detest capitalism... murdering the future for a transitory bump in a quarterly profit report that only enriches a few people at the expense of everyone else is, in my opinion, fucking insane.

Quote from: Garraty_47 on November 01, 2025, 07:28:39 AMIt's a perfect example of why I detest capitalism... murdering the future for a transitory bump in a quarterly profit report that only enriches a few people at the expense of everyone else is, in my opinion, fucking insane.

There are mega rich in every culture. Look at the Russian Oligarchs with the big yachts for example.

Global warning/climate change is an absolute fucking joke as is the idea that anyone in the over regulated USA is destroying the environment. We dont build jackass shit anymore so the type of waterway discharge that existed as late as the 1970's is impossible.

Particulate emissions from diesel engines have been reduced 96% in the last 35 years. A cars gasoline engine has been cleaned up so much so that its become difficult to suicide yourself via carbon monoxide in an enclosed garage! You're as likely to kill yourself from oxygen deprivation. Everything sold en masse thats chromed comes from somewhere else and high end chrome such as getting a bumper re-chromed off an old car is expensive and the waste is completely recovered and processed. The biggest pollution problems we have are some landfills and military sites contaminated 50 years ago! The damned body shop I worked at had to have Safe-T-Kleen haul off the used thinner BY LAW even 30 years ago!!!

Have any of you seen a coal fired power plant built in the last 20 years? Theres one at the corner of I-55 and Stevenson Dr in Springfield, IL. Look at that fucking monstrosity on Google Maps! The building I'm referring to is closest to the highway and what you CANT see is its TWICE as tall as the older buildings to the east and all of that is because of the scrubbers! Street view off Stevenson Dr shows exactly WTF I'm talking about.  It doesnt put out pollution which wasnt even a fucking major problem to begin with. I never even see the old plants running anymore and after all this investment in this new state of the art coal fired powerplant, they want to decommission it in the next 10 years!

For some stupid reason, humans in the west are addicted to fatalism. Its like we cant live unless we feel as if we're on the verge of extinction 24/7. What a bunch of stupid fucking lemmings! You think them assholes in India WHO ACTUALLY GET POISONED 24/7 waste their lives like a bunch of mewling fukin Karens?  :crampe:

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 04:06:01 AMI know "of" Joe from a handful of posts.

He is dumber? Than what? You?

Yes, but I meant a damp sponge.

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 05:46:18 AMThe biggest single issue I have with the Republican Party is that they don't give a crap about the environment, they often dismiss global warming and climate change as BS and they promote policies that increase and worsen destruction of the planet in exchange for improving the economy.

The second is that, especially under the current administration, the deficit is skyrocketing.

I thought the super rich progressives who have been telling us that climate change is an existential threat while they travel the world in private planes and build mansions beside oceans have finally admitted it is not as much of a threat to mankind as they told us. Maybe they have made enough money milking that apocalyptic threat or maybe they see a new opportunity in something else. Maybe it is AI.

I thought the Trump administration has found new savings with DOGE cuts and new revenue from global tariffs.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 01, 2025, 10:56:27 AMGlobal warning/climate change is an absolute fucking joke as is the idea that anyone in the over regulated USA is destroying the environment. We dont build jackass shit anymore so the type of waterway discharge that existed as late as the 1970's is impossible.

Particulate emissions from diesel engines have been reduced 96% in the last 35 years. A cars gasoline engine has been cleaned up so much so that its become difficult to suicide yourself via carbon monoxide in an enclosed garage! You're as likely to kill yourself from oxygen deprivation. Everything sold en masse thats chromed comes from somewhere else and high end chrome such as getting a bumper re-chromed off an old car is expensive and the waste is completely recovered and processed. The biggest pollution problems we have are some landfills and military sites contaminated 50 years ago! The damned body shop I worked at had to have Safe-T-Kleen haul off the used thinner BY LAW even 30 years ago!!!

Have any of you seen a coal fired power plant built in the last 20 years? Theres one at the corner of I-55 and Stevenson Dr in Springfield, IL. Look at that fucking monstrosity on Google Maps! The building I'm referring to is closest to the highway and what you CANT see is its TWICE as tall as the older buildings to the east and all of that is because of the scrubbers! Street view off Stevenson Dr shows exactly WTF I'm talking about.  It doesnt put out pollution which wasnt even a fucking major problem to begin with. I never even see the old plants running anymore and after all this investment in this new state of the art coal fired powerplant, they want to decommission it in the next 10 years!

For some stupid reason, humans in the west are addicted to fatalism. Its like we cant live unless we feel as if we're on the verge of extinction 24/7. What a bunch of stupid fucking lemmings! You think them assholes in India WHO ACTUALLY GET POISONED 24/7 waste their lives like a bunch of mewling fukin Karens?  :crampe:

I do care a lot about actual pollution. Particularly our oceans. But, almost all of the pollution from the oceans comes from rivers in developing countries.

They not we must do something about it. If they don't we close our borders to their people.

Quote from: Brent on November 01, 2025, 12:12:50 PMThey not we must do something about it. If they don't we close our borders to their people.

The US is one of the worst offenders, if not THE worst offender in producing greenhouse gases that are accelerating climate change and global warming.

Quote from: DKG on November 01, 2025, 05:55:45 AMI live in Canada, but the control freakishness is part and parcel of their motivation like it is with the US Dems.

It's interesting you mention climate change. Few countries have gone as far as Canada has in punishing it's population into reducing our miniscule emissions. From two carbon taxes, to blocking development of our most lucrative resources to dictating what vehicles we can purchase to farm practices. We have deliberately lowered living standards for most Canadians while rewarding an already rich few and it has not moved the climate needle one centimetre.

Interestingly the US saw it's biggest drop in emissions under the first Trump administration because of the widespread use of fracking.

As for the deficit, the congress not the senate controls spending. Something worth noting though is that tariffs are helping to lower monthly deficits. I was not a fan of tariffs, but any windfall from it must be applied to the deficit first.

Wasn't it you who posted that the gap in GDP per capita between Canada and the States is now $35,000 per year? I remember about twelve years ago we were almost at par with the States.

That huge gap is caused by climate alarmist baloney and outragelously high levels of unskilled immigrants.

Quote from: Brent on November 01, 2025, 12:08:35 PMI thought the super rich progressives who have been telling us that climate change is an existential threat while they travel the world in private planes and build mansions beside oceans have finally admitted it is not as much of a threat to mankind as they told us. Maybe they have made enough money milking that apocalyptic threat or maybe they see a new opportunity in something else. Maybe it is AI.

I thought the Trump administration has found new savings with DOGE cuts and new revenue from global tariffs.

Yup, it''s now an 'issue' but no longer an existential threat for some reason.

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 12:14:18 PMThe US is one of the worst offenders, if not THE worst offender in producing greenhouse gases that are accelerating climate change and global warming.

The States has also reduced it's greenhouse emissions more than any other developed country. But, that is irrelevant when eighty percent of new emissions are in the developing world.

I am not that concerned about rising C02. We will adapt to that and maybe even thrive because it makes the planet greener.

My main environmental worry is real pollution in the oceans. Canada, the States, Europe, Japan, Australia are not causing the rising pollution in our oceans. It is entirely developing countries.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on November 01, 2025, 12:18:14 PMYup, it''s now an 'issue' but no longer an existential threat for some reason.

I think it always was just a problem and never an existential threat. If it was hypocrites like Obama and Gates would not have such massive carbon footprints.

Quote from: Brent on November 01, 2025, 12:20:24 PMMy main environmental worry is real pollution in the oceans. Canada, the States, Europe, Japan, Australia are not causing the rising pollution in our oceans. It is entirely developing countries.

You're not wrong. It's disgusting what's going on in some of those countries. They dump crap everywhere.

Here's one article that shows the US is a top contributer to climate change and global warming.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/us/countries-climate-change-emissions-cop28/

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 12:14:18 PMThe US is one of the worst offenders, if not THE worst offender in producing greenhouse gases that are accelerating climate change and global warming.

NOT EVEN CLOSE! Your accusation is a Defcon Karen Level 1 propagandist lie.

India is #1 by far followed by China as #2. I shared several data sheets/websites here a few months back.

china has cleaned up its air some but neither country has done what the ENTIRE west has done to eliminate emissions including NOx, particulates, CO2 which isnt even a pollutant ITFP, and sulfur.

The air in L.A. in the 70's would burn my eyes so fucking bad, I literally had tears streaming down my face the entire time I was in the city. The air in L.A. by 2001/2002 was so pristine, it didnt bother me at all.

Quote from: Brent on November 01, 2025, 12:12:50 PMI do care a lot about actual pollution. Particularly our oceans. But, almost all of the pollution from the oceans comes from rivers in developing countries.

They not we must do something about it. If they don't we close our borders to their people.

They will do nothing. We need to dial our regulations back to around 2006/2007 levels on everything. We have completely won the war on pollution.

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 04:06:01 AMI know "of" Joe from a handful of posts.

Jo Jo is my boyfriend. We have sex three times a day.

Quote from: Thiel on November 01, 2025, 01:12:17 PMJo Jo is my boyfriend. We have sex three times a day.

With other people I presume.

Quote from: Brent on November 01, 2025, 12:08:35 PMI thought the super rich progressives who have been telling us that climate change is an existential threat while they travel the world in private planes and build mansions beside oceans have finally admitted it is not as much of a threat to mankind as they told us. Maybe they have made enough money milking that apocalyptic threat or maybe they see a new opportunity in something else. Maybe it is AI.

...or maybe they're aware that people are waking up to the fact that aside from the USA's military (the single worst polluter on the planet) it's the 1% and the industries they control that are wreaking most of the havoc.

Distracting everyday people with lies like it's their own lifestyles that are causing most of the problems and using paper straws etc. is the answer just isn't working anymore. They have to either redirect or diffuse the populace's anger or the figurative "eat the rich" could become a literal "yeet the rich" into the nearest woodchipper.

The so-called societal elites may be monsters but they're not entirely stupid.

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 01:14:01 PMWith other people I presume.

Thiel has a nasty fecal impaction in his prostate from josephine.

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 04:06:01 AMWhat did the left do to you Herman?

They tax the hell out of diesel which makes farms run. They raised the annual intake of immigrants six hundred percent from the previous Conservative government making housing unaffordable for too many young folks starting out. Too many immigrants is destroying our already weak health care system. The free drug program for addicts has made the Liberal party of Canada the country's biggest drug dealer. They block pipeline and oilsands development projects that would have have created billions for governments and hundreds of thousands of good jobs. They give billions to crony green companies. The catch and release justice system combined with providing drugs has made crime skyrocket. They control what we are allowed to read and say online. They run up record deficits while giving bliions to bullshit causes in foreign countries. They raise taxes, the cost of living, and lower living standards.

I am in my late fifties and doing okay. I feel sorry for younger folks. The Liberals have deliberately made Canada less wealthy, less free, less safe and more corrupt.

Quote from: Garraty_47 on November 01, 2025, 01:49:50 PM...or maybe they're aware that people are waking up to the fact that aside from the USA's military (the single worst polluter on the planet) it's the 1% and the industries they control that are wreaking most of the havoc.

That's incorrect. China Shenhua Energy Company Limited is the world's biggest producer of C02 emissions. The state-owned coal production and electricity company accounted for 25.79 percent of global carbon emissions between 2016 and 2022. That is double the entire US emissions.

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 12:14:18 PMThe US is one of the worst offenders, if not THE worst offender in producing greenhouse gases that are accelerating climate change and global warming.

The US is not even close anymore.

I don't get why C02 is driving white people to antidepressants. We see it as a problem and not an imminent armageddon if we don't lower our emissions. However, every problem is a crisis to whites.

Quote from: Garraty_47 on November 01, 2025, 07:28:39 AMFracking has a number of problems, starting with the fact that the components of the fluid injected into the wells are proprietary company "secrets" (nothing ominous there, eh?) but the ones that have been identified are toxic/carcinogenic as fuck. And they're now in deep aquifers where after-the-fact removal is essentially impossible.

The other big one is that it's not a question of if a well's retaining walls will fail, it's a question of when. A certain number fail immediately and over time that number grows to: all of 'em. Hence the methane dumps and methane is more destructive than CO² insofar as environmental impacts.

It's a perfect example of why I detest capitalism... murdering the future for a transitory bump in a quarterly profit report that only enriches a few people at the expense of everyone else is, in my opinion, fucking insane.

That's not true. The biggest oilfield services company in the world Schlumberger has fracking fluid contents on their website.

Waste water is recycled and used in agriculture where freshwater is scarce and drought is persistent.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 01, 2025, 10:19:45 PMThat's incorrect. China Shenhua Energy Company Limited is the world's biggest producer of C02 emissions. The state-owned coal production and electricity company accounted for 25.79 percent of global carbon emissions between 2016 and 2022. That is double the entire US emissions.

There's more to pollution than CO². Even there it's difficult if not impossible to do a comparison because 'Murica exempts the military from environmental impact statements or assessments.

Quote from: Garraty_47 on November 01, 2025, 11:00:49 PMThere's more to pollution than CO². Even there it's difficult if not impossible to do a comparison because 'Murica exempts the military from environmental impact statements or assessments.

Oh hell ya. I have worked in some of the most polluted shitholes on the planet. The least of their worries are their C02 emissions. That is a luxury for rich countries.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 01, 2025, 10:35:07 PMThat's not true. The biggest oilfield services company in the world Schlumberger has fracking fluid contents on their website.

Waste water is recycled and used in agriculture where freshwater is scarce and drought is persistent.

They can land spread it in some places because it is over ninety percent water and about five percent sand. Less than two percent are chemical additives.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 01, 2025, 10:27:22 PMThe US is not even close anymore.

I don't get why C02 is driving white people to antidepressants. We see it as a problem and not an imminent armageddon if we don't lower our emissions. However, every problem is a crisis to whites.

Climate change and the devastating effects of global warming are poised to be a planetary disaster within our lifetimes and becomes more difficult to prevent with each passing day. Under the current administration the US has gone backwards in implementing policy to slow or reverse the trend.

Quote from: wizer on November 02, 2025, 03:56:10 AMClimate change and the devastating effects of global warming are poised to be a planetary disaster within our lifetimes and becomes more difficult to prevent with each passing day. Under the current administration the US has gone backwards in implementing policy to slow or reverse the trend.

What makes you believe higher C02 concetrations are all doom and gloom?

This is from NASA.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

If more plants and trees are carbon sinks and higher C02 levels make the world more green and lush the so called C02 problem solves itself.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 01, 2025, 10:27:22 PMThe US is not even close anymore.

I don't get why C02 is driving white people to antidepressants. We see it as a problem and not an imminent armageddon if we don't lower our emissions. However, every problem is a crisis to whites.

FUKIN AYE!!!!! :good:

Quote from: wizer on November 02, 2025, 03:56:10 AMClimate change and the devastating effects of global warming are poised to be a planetary disaster within our lifetimes and becomes more difficult to prevent with each passing day. Under the current administration the US has gone backwards in implementing policy to slow or reverse the trend.

I thank God for Trump! I'm very hopeful that Lee Zelden rolls standards back to 2006. The terd wurld can catch up to our standards over the next 50 years.

Climate hysteria clowns constantly tell me we need to set the example. Sounds like the same people who said similar things about bringing china into the world economy where we stayed bent over for them while they stayed communist. Speaking of, that caused a LOT of the pollution you people cry about. Good job!

Quote from: Lokmar on November 02, 2025, 11:17:11 AMI thank God for Trump! I'm very hopeful that Lee Zelden rolls standards back to 2006. The terd wurld can catch up to our standards over the next 50 years.

Climate hysteria clowns constantly tell me we need to set the example. Sounds like the same people who said similar things about bringing china into the world economy where we stayed bent over for them while they stayed communist. Speaking of, that caused a LOT of the pollution you people cry about. Good job!

I didn't come back here to argue with idiots. I do enough of that elsewhere. But if I change my mind I'll get back to you.

Quote from: wizer on November 02, 2025, 11:26:04 AMI didn't come back here to argue with idiots. I do enough of that elsewhere. But if I change my mind I'll get back to you.

Thanks for coming back! I actually love hearing from climate retards like you. I hope you live another 20 years so you can tell me the earf is gonna die 2 or 3 more times!

Echo chambers are boring.

Quote from: wizer on November 02, 2025, 03:56:10 AMClimate change and the devastating effects of global warming are poised to be a planetary disaster within our lifetimes and becomes more difficult to prevent with each passing day. Under the current administration the US has gone backwards in implementing policy to slow or reverse the trend.

If you believe a disaster is coming and will be caused by rising C02 emissions how much have you reduced your own emissions?

Quote from: Lokmar on November 02, 2025, 11:17:11 AMI thank God for Trump! I'm very hopeful that Lee Zelden rolls standards back to 2006. The terd wurld can catch up to our standards over the next 50 years.

Climate hysteria clowns constantly tell me we need to set the example. Sounds like the same people who said similar things about bringing china into the world economy where we stayed bent over for them while they stayed communist. Speaking of, that caused a LOT of the pollution you people cry about. Good job!

How did intelligent people let themselves be fooled into believing C02 is a pollutant that will destroy the planet and eight million metric tonnes of plastics annually and chemical runoff from third world rivers into our oceans is not. :crazy:

Quote from: wizer on November 02, 2025, 11:26:04 AMI didn't come back here to argue with idiots. I do enough of that elsewhere. But if I change my mind I'll get back to you.

Okay, see you tomorrow Joe  :crampe:

Quote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:43:16 AMHow did intelligent people let themselves be fooled into believing C02 is a pollutant that will destroy the planet and eight million metric tonnes of plastics annually and chemical runoff from third world rivers into our oceans is not. :crazy:

People cant implement a plan and discontinue it when it reaches its goal. Its really that simple. I like to use gas and diesel emissions systems as examples because I am very very familiar with them and I've personally seen the process go from constructive to destructive.

There was in fact an actual pollution problem from gas and diesel engines that existed for 100 years. We solved it by 2006/2007. The question them became "what do we do now that we've reduced the emissions we worked on by over 90%?". The answer was "Go after the remaining 10% no matter the cost!" We did that too BTW and the tech necessary to do that caused MORE CO2 AND requires MORE fossil fuel be expended.

environMENTALists conveniently ignore this tho.

Quote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:43:16 AMHow did intelligent people let themselves be fooled into believing C02 is a pollutant that will destroy the planet and eight million metric tonnes of plastics annually and chemical runoff from third world rivers into our oceans is not. :crazy:

Here is the situation as I see it. Is there truth to the consequence of such emissions? Maybe, maybe not, but my spin the the matter does not directly attack the truthfulness of the statement. The way I look at is the demand for energy by mankind as a whole is not going to decrease if nations such as the U.S deprive ourselves of the ability to tap into such resources. The demand will simply be met elsewhere, and what does elsewhere actually mean? Does it mean that India closes said gap in energy production at 5 maybe 10 times the negative consequence?

in such a scenario I see us doing more harm then good by reducing our own ability to produce the output the world needs. Sure our way merely delays the inevitable in such a context. I totally get that, but the buying of additional time does bring with it a level of positivity that I cannot help but say we should leverage

Quote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 01:14:01 PMWith other people I presume.

Oh heavens no. Jo Jo and I are in a monogamous relationship.

Quote from: Biggie Smiles on November 02, 2025, 01:29:08 PMif nations such as the U.S deprive ourselves of the ability to tap into such resources. The demand will simply be met elsewhere, and what does elsewhere actually mean? 

The few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.

Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway. 

Quote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:43:16 AMHow did intelligent people let themselves be fooled into believing C02 is a pollutant that will destroy the planet and eight million metric tonnes of plastics annually and chemical runoff from third world rivers into our oceans is not. :crazy:

The two completely unrelated problems do not somehow negative the devastating impact of the other.

C02 is not a pollutant so much as a "heat trapping blanket" which is a layman's term for the heat trapping effect that massive amounts of artificially produced C02 have on the atmosphere.

Quote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:38:20 AMIf you believe a disaster is coming and will be caused by rising C02 emissions how much have you reduced your own emissions?

I don't give a fuck if the earth collapses on itself as long as it lasts until I take my last breath.

Quote from: DKG on November 02, 2025, 10:03:11 AMIf more plants and trees are carbon sinks and higher C02 levels make the world more green and lush the so called C02 problem solves itself.

Tell that to all the dead coral.

Quote from: wizer on November 03, 2025, 02:59:49 AMTell that to all the dead coral.

In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.

Quote from: DKG on November 03, 2025, 07:21:48 AMIn 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported that two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has seen the highest levels of coral cover in over 36 years. This recovery is primarily due to the growth of fast-growing Acropora corals, which have been dominant in the northern and central regions of the reef. However, the southern section has experienced a decline in coral cover due to ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. Despite this, the reef demonstrates resilience and the ability to recover from disturbances, but scientists warn that climate change poses increasing risks to its long-term health

Quote from: DKG on November 03, 2025, 07:21:48 AMIn 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.

They grow they recede. I was reading the Antarctica has gained back 200 tons of ice recently after losing ice for years.

The point here is that we have real environmental problems like the filth and contamination in our oceans coming from third world cesspools. We are wasting too much time and money on C02 emissions.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on November 01, 2025, 12:18:14 PMYup, it''s now an 'issue' but no longer an existential threat for some reason.

Bill Gates needs moar power for the A.I. to construct his afterlife armor suit so when he croaks his brain will transferred over & continue for generations.  Like Windows operating system.

How so many companies have been seduced by this idea of operating vs capital expenditures for resources that you will never truly own defies belief.

I literally know of customers paying upwards of 400K a year to consume Azure resources on a month to month basis in perpetuity for systems that would litterally have a one time cost of 150K and maybe 20% of that per anum in support fees.

With technology and senior business leaders becoming this mind numbingly stupid is it any wonder the elites prefer a world with less than 5% of it's current population?

This is exactly why it is equally baffling when elite puppet masters parade some celebrity like Taylor Swift or Megan the Sasquatch in front of gullible voters to sway their voting preferences. Do these common folks have ANYTHING in common with said elites? Anything at all?

Ever seen one on a cruise? A resort you can afford to stay at? In a seat next to yours at a sporting event?

These people have NOTHING in common with your average plebs yet the average plebs go right on supporting whatever narrative they are fed by these elites to their own detriment.

Quote from: wizer on November 03, 2025, 02:34:09 AMThe few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.

Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway. 

I think big oil played up the nuclear scare and frankly set us the fuck backwards.  We should have pushed nuclear fission until we achieve nuclear fusion full throttle.

And now Bill Gates realizes AI needs power so he's okay with flipping on climate change.

QuoteThe few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.

Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway.

Nuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels come from mines in developing countries. They are very very non renewable.

Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.

Quote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They also have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needs for wind turbines and solar panels come from developing countries. They are non renewable.

Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.

Capturing methane from landfills is a far better use of a land for power tradeoff than wind farms.  And landfills are a necessity... windfarms are not.

Coal is perfectly fine to use as well. Coal fired powerplants built in the last 20 years have catalysts and scrubbers just like cars and trucks. What about the waste? Put it back where you got it from ITFP!

We have such a coal fired power plant right here in Springfield, IL.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 01, 2025, 10:27:22 PMI don't get why C02 is driving white people to antidepressants. We see it as a problem and not an imminent armageddon if we don't lower our emissions. However, every problem is a crisis to whites.

Much of it is out of the left and there are plenty of studies to support this. And the left has much to fear, particularly as their more extreme elements are getting booted out of their Soros-funded safe spaces and on to the street where there isn't anywhere near the amount of access to the 24/7 fear-porn getting pumped out on the regular from CNN, MSN and the like.

I'm not saying the problem is unique to the left, though they did already account for the lions share of mental illness. Now they understand their status as a relatively protected class is under imminent threat and their already overstressed cranial porridge is going into meltdown. And getting pilled up is easier than drinking a bag of cement and hardening the fuck up.

Fuck 'em, they're losers. If they could catch a clue and make an effort to actually better themselves, I might offer a few of them a hand up.

Quote from: DKG on November 03, 2025, 07:21:48 AMIn 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.

The coral has increased, though has on and off been subject to bleaching. The cause of which has been attributed to fertilizer runoff and rising ocean temperatures. That may or may not be the case of course, "experts" have been wrong about shit in the past and the same might be true here.

Practical upshot; Australia's reef is still there and still supporting an abundance of marine ecosystems, much as the Arctic polar icecap has increased 25% in size since its 2012 lull and polar bears are obstinately increasing their population in spite of the gloomy pictures environmental scientists have been banging on about for decades.

I reckon if you're going to go to the mat on a topic, you should at least do some research on it first. Part of the problem with the environmentalists is they prefer FUD to fact. And part of our problem is that we don't make enough fun of them when they get it wrong.

QuoteNatural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

Back in Canada I know people with post grad degrees who don't know oil and natural gas come from marine sediment made of the remains of algae and plankton. They think it comes from dinosaurs. :crazy:

Quote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

It looks very much like it's bacteria-produced. So yeah, anything left undisturbed for long enough under the right conditions would become oil, dinosaurs included.

Nuclear is a lot cleaner and safer than it was. Yay technology. The only problem I see with nuclear is provisioning, it is great at producing power demands for a static load, dynamic not so much. Perhaps storing the excess energy produced at times of low load for later release into the grid is a solution and there are a number of methods by which that can be achieved.

Quote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMSolar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels come from mines in developing countries. They are very very non renewable.

Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.

Correct. But when have you ever seen an environmentalist address the troupe of elephants in the room when it came to just how pollutive the supposed "green solution" is, both in terms of its implementation and its ultimate disposal once it reaches EOL? As far as they are concerned, if the pollution is largely hidden (ie: location, time, etc) then it's not a matter for concern.

Fun fact; it is theoretically possible that we might solve the entire world's energy problems by populating the Sahara desert with solar farms. Only a couple of problems with that, one being financing the build in the first place, it literally costing more money to do than is currently in circulation on the entire planet. Oh, and the difference in albedo in that neck of the woods would create a raft of issues in Amazon basin (including it's eventual drying up, but hey.... green energy for all, right?

Much better to plod along with what you know works until you have a system in place that trumps it. Some people are a little too fucked in the head to recognise that though.

Quote from: . on November 04, 2025, 12:39:27 AMIt looks very much like it's bacteria-produced. So yeah, anything left undisturbed for long enough under the right conditions would become oil, dinosaurs included.

Nuclear is a lot cleaner and safer than it was. Yay technology. The only problem I see with nuclear is provisioning, it is great at producing power demands for a static load, dynamic not so much. Perhaps storing the excess energy produced at times of low load for later release into the grid is a solution and there are a number of methods by which that can be achieved.
Correct. But when have you ever seen an environmentalist address the troupe of elephants in the room when it came to just how pollutive the supposed "green solution" is, both in terms of its implementation and its ultimate disposal once it reaches EOL? As far as they are concerned, if the pollution is largely hidden (ie: location, time, etc) then it's not a matter for concern.

Fun fact; it is theoretically possible that we might solve the entire world's energy problems by populating the Sahara desert with solar farms. Only a couple of problems with that, one being financing the build in the first place, it literally costing more money to do than is currently in circulation on the entire planet. Oh, and the difference in albedo in that neck of the woods would create a raft of issues in Amazon basin (including it's eventual drying up, but hey.... green energy for all, right?

Much better to plod along with what you know works until you have a system in place that trumps it. Some people are a little too fucked in the head to recognise that though.

You raise another good point. Oil and natural gas production can be quickly ramped up or down when demand goes in either direction.

One of the many problems we have had with wind farms in Canada is they produce excess power when it is not needed and not nearly enough when demand is high in extreme cold or heat. When Western Canada(Alberta in particular) falls victim to their annual -30 cold snaps and demand explodes they have to import coal produced electricity from Saskatchewan or Montana.

Quote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNatural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either.

Predictions vary and largely depend on consumption rates, but experts estimate that it will be between 90 and 120 years before we run out of natural gas.

At the rate oil and coal are being consumed and depleted, estimates vary that if usage stays the same or increases, known oil reserves will be depleted within 50 years, coal within 130 years.

Who knows maybe if usage continues to skyrocket and those numbers turn out to be overly optimistic, we will live to see the devasting effects of fossil fuels start to reverse as there's nothing left to burn.

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/

Quote from: wizer on November 04, 2025, 10:14:36 AMPredictions vary and largely depend on consumption rates, but experts estimate that it will be between 90 and 120 years before we run out of natural gas.

At the rate oil and coal are being consumed and depleted, estimates vary that if usage stays the same or increases, known oil reserves will be depleted within 50 years, coal within 130 years.

Who knows maybe if usage continues to skyrocket and those numbers turn out to be overly optimistic, we will live to see the devasting effects of fossil fuels start to reverse as there's nothing left to burn.

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/

That is simply factually dead wrong. Start to finish. Peak oil has been completely debunked. Through technology we are constantly finding new cost effective ways of extracting natural gas which is literally everywhere in Canada. Your article ignored that we are adding to new storage all the time.

Your article was talking about existing reserves. We are finding new reserves all the time that are not in production yet.

I will give you an example. This is from just one province in Canada.

New analysis commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator has increased the province's natural gas reserves by 440 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.
https://energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/alberta-natural-gas-reserves-swell

Here is why the world will never run out of oil and natural gas from an engineer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MOU4MPshCw

What is interesting is that a number of finite resources including land will run if we foolishly try to reengineer the economy to electric vehicles, wind and solar.

A lithium-ion battery pack for a single electric car contains about 8 kilograms (kg) of lithium, according to figures from US Department of Energy science and engineering research centre Argonne National Laboratory.

Global lithium production totalled 100,000 tons (90.7 million kg) last year, while worldwide reserves stand at about 22 million tons (20 billion kg), according to the US Geological Survey.


Lithium is one of the key components in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, but global supplies are under strain because of rising EV demand.

Lithium supply faces challenges not only from surging demand, but because resources are concentrated in a few places and over half of today's production is in areas with high water stress.

Lithium is a non-ferrous metal known as "white gold", and is one of the key components in EV batteries, alongside nickel and cobalt. But rising demand for Electric Vehicles is straining global lithium supplies.

A lithium-ion battery pack for a single electric car contains about 8 kilograms (kg) of lithium, according to figures from US Department of Energy science and engineering research centre Argonne National Laboratory.

Global lithium production totalled 100,000 tons (90.7 million kg) last year, while worldwide reserves stand at about 22 million tons (20 billion kg), according to the US Geological Survey.

Lithium demand could soon exceed supply.

"There simply isn't going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won't be there," Lake Resources Chairman Stuart Crow told the Financial Times. "Car makers are starting to sense that maybe the battery makers aren't going to be able to deliver."

Lithium extraction requires very high volumes of water, and this is leading to problems around water stress – a situation where a region's water resources are not enough to meet its needs.

This is particularly concerning given that a lot of lithium is found in drought-prone regions – such as South America and Australia. Bolivia's San Cristóbal mine reportedly uses 50,000 litres of water a day, and lithium mining companies in Chile have been accused of depleting vital water supplies.

More than half of today's lithium production is in areas with high water stress, the IEA says. "Several major producing regions such as Australia, China, and Africa are also subject to extreme heat or flooding, which pose greater challenges in ensuring reliable and sustainable supplies," it adds.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/07/electric-vehicles-world-enough-lithium-resources/

Oil and natural gas use up fewer finite resources and disturb smaller amounts of land. Hence, they are more sustainable than wind, solar and ev's.

I worked in the upstream oil and gas industry all my working life off of the farm. Environmental standards for drilling rigs in developing countries aint what they are here but it is still a hell of a lot better than any cobalt copper or lithium mine in Africa. They are needed for wind solar and evs's but they are really finite.

Quote from: DKG on November 04, 2025, 10:52:37 AMThat is simply factually dead wrong. Start to finish. Peak oil has been completely debunked. Through technology we are constantly finding new cost effective ways of extracting natural gas which is literally everywhere in Canada. Your article ignored that we are adding to new storage all the time.

Your article was talking about existing reserves. We are finding new reserves all the time that are not in production yet.

I provided a link to one article. When you do a search on "when will oil run out", thousands of pages are displayed, the vast majority from reputable sources explaining when and why it's going to happen and they are in strikingly similar agreement "about 50 years".

Sure, the numbers are based on what is known now about the current supply of oil, where it's found, how much of it is available and how often new locations are discovered. There could be an ocean of oil somewhere under the ground that would skew those number but based on what is known, it's not looking too good. Some sources halve that 50 year number.

Same for natural gas.

The sources that contradict those that are in agreement are few and far between and sound rather questionable.

This sums it up rather nicely:

Predicting the exact moment oil reserves run dry is impossible. The "oil clock" isn't a simple countdown; it's a complex calculation influenced by a multitude of interconnected factors. Focusing solely on proven reserves provides a misleadingly pessimistic view. The real question isn't just about how much oil we know is in the ground, but also about how efficiently we can extract it, what alternatives we develop, and how drastically we can reduce our reliance on it.

wizer my friend, the stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of rocks.

I hate the term fossil fuels because it is so misleading. However, they are renewable just not at the current rate of consumption. Actually natural gas is. That we have an inexhaustible supply that can be scaled up or down and requires nothing close to the land disturbance that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar do.

Peak demand is a possibility. Particularly since Western countries have become so efficient in their use of oil derivatives.

Peak oil on the other hand dates all the way back to the 1880s. Repeated predictions of peak oil supply have repeatedly been moved further into the future. Soviet oil exploration adopted the abiotic oil theory—the idea that hydrocarbons are generated by inorganic processes in the Earth's mantle, not from decomposed biological material.

The Soviets didn't just theorise, they acted. They developed deep-drilling programs that tapped into oil fields far below what traditional fossil theories considered viable. The results?

Dnieper-Donets Basin: Considered geologically "sterile," this Ukrainian site was one of the Soviet Union's most productive oil regions, reaching depths of 6–8 km.

White Tiger Field, Vietnam: Discovered by Soviet engineers, this offshore field also defied fossil logic by producing oil from granite basement rock, far below sedimentary layers typically associated with fossil fuels.

The strongest challenge to peak oil comes not from theory, but from the earth itself.

Eugene Island 330: Replenishing rates were so bizarre that the U.S. Department of Energy funded multiple studies. MIT's Jean Laherrère remarked that the field "appeared to be refilling from somewhere below."

LaBarge Field, Wyoming: Produces oil, gas, and helium—another deep-earth marker. The gases are geochemically traced to mantle origins.
Kola Superdeep Borehole: Although no oil was struck directly, the borehole encountered unexpected water and hydrocarbons at depths where life should not have existed. It confirmed that deep Earth chemistry is far more complex—and fertile—than fossil logic suggests.

If oil is being formed in the mantle and slowly migrating upward, then the question isn't whether oil is running out—it's how much is being created and how fast.

Petroleum products have provided for so many advances besides energy. From agriculture to medicine to engineering to even music. They even play a role in mitigating any potential climate change impacts. It is so essential to an advanced way of life. Nobody seriously thinks we can find an organic resource or create one that could match it's many uses.

What I don't get is if you are concerned about supplies going forward why would you want to replace an energy source you think is running out with something that is more finite than oil and natural gas. You do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?

LOL! I almost forgot about the idiocy of peak oil! Thats been a long fucking time ago since that hysteria!  :crampe:

Quote from: Shen Li on November 05, 2025, 01:07:23 AMYou do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?

The technology needs further improvement but it's one or more steps in the right direcition. Oil and natural gas are certainly replenished but not at a rate that is even close to what is necessary based on consumption rates that are only climbing but it's very reassuring to think that oil will last forever. No different than people believing there's another life after this one so it doesn't matter if you fuck it up because some bearded clown in the sky loves you even though innocent people are killed on a regular basis no matter how much they pray.

Oil is not replenished from the Earth. It is formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals that lived millions of years ago and is not available for regeneration. The process of oil formation takes millions of years, and it cannot be replenished faster than it is extracted

Claims that oil is being replenished faster than it's being used have been proven false by numerous well regarded scientific studies.

Quote from: wizer on November 05, 2025, 02:09:51 AMThe technology needs further improvement but it's one or more steps in the right direcition. Oil and natural gas are certainly replenished but not at a rate that is even close to what is necessary based on consumption rates that are only climbing but it's very reassuring to think that oil will last forever. No different than people believing there's another life after this one so it doesn't matter if you fuck it up because some bearded clown in the sky loves you even though innocent people are killed on a regular basis no matter how much they pray.

Oil is not replenished from the Earth. It is formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals that lived millions of years ago and is not available for regeneration. The process of oil formation takes millions of years, and it cannot be replenished faster than it is extracted

Claims that oil is being replenished faster than it's being used have been proven false by numerous well regarded scientific studies.

The formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years. Hydrothermal vents in The Gulf of California interact with kelp producing light sweet crude. This oil floats to the surface continuously. Sure, a lot of the oil we pump from the ground may have been trapped for millions of years but it was produced in a very short time.

What this means for humans is we can produce oil from biomass easily. Ethanol from grass and corn has been in production for more than 20 years. I use E-85 in my cars and cut the cats off them because they're no longer needed.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMThe formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years. Hydrothermal vents in The Gulf of California interact with kelp producing light sweet crude. This oil floats to the surface continuously. Sure, a lot of the oil we pump from the ground may have been trapped for millions of years but it was produced in a very short time.

What this means for humans is we can produce oil from biomass easily. Ethanol from grass and corn has been in production for more than 20 years. I use E-85 in my cars and cut the cats off them because they're no longer needed.

We will never run out of hydrocarbons. Technology has debunked that myth.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 05, 2025, 01:07:23 AMwizer my friend, the stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of rocks.

I hate the term fossil fuels because it is so misleading. However, they are renewable just not at the current rate of consumption. Actually natural gas is. That we have an inexhaustible supply that can be scaled up or down and requires nothing close to the land disturbance that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar do.

Peak demand is a possibility. Particularly since Western countries have become so efficient in their use of oil derivatives.

Peak oil on the other hand dates all the way back to the 1880s. Repeated predictions of peak oil supply have repeatedly been moved further into the future. Soviet oil exploration adopted the abiotic oil theory—the idea that hydrocarbons are generated by inorganic processes in the Earth's mantle, not from decomposed biological material.

The Soviets didn't just theorise, they acted. They developed deep-drilling programs that tapped into oil fields far below what traditional fossil theories considered viable. The results?

Dnieper-Donets Basin: Considered geologically "sterile," this Ukrainian site was one of the Soviet Union's most productive oil regions, reaching depths of 6–8 km.

White Tiger Field, Vietnam: Discovered by Soviet engineers, this offshore field also defied fossil logic by producing oil from granite basement rock, far below sedimentary layers typically associated with fossil fuels.

The strongest challenge to peak oil comes not from theory, but from the earth itself.

Eugene Island 330: Replenishing rates were so bizarre that the U.S. Department of Energy funded multiple studies. MIT's Jean Laherrère remarked that the field "appeared to be refilling from somewhere below."

LaBarge Field, Wyoming: Produces oil, gas, and helium—another deep-earth marker. The gases are geochemically traced to mantle origins.
Kola Superdeep Borehole: Although no oil was struck directly, the borehole encountered unexpected water and hydrocarbons at depths where life should not have existed. It confirmed that deep Earth chemistry is far more complex—and fertile—than fossil logic suggests.

If oil is being formed in the mantle and slowly migrating upward, then the question isn't whether oil is running out—it's how much is being created and how fast.

Petroleum products have provided for so many advances besides energy. From agriculture to medicine to engineering to even music. They even play a role in mitigating any potential climate change impacts. It is so essential to an advanced way of life. Nobody seriously thinks we can find an organic resource or create one that could match it's many uses.

What I don't get is if you are concerned about supplies going forward why would you want to replace an energy source you think is running out with something that is more finite than oil and natural gas. You do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?

That is true. And their are hydrocarbons on other planets where there was no marine sediment. But, the easily accessed hydrocarbons come from algae and plankton.

It is true that wind solar and electric vehicles are the least sustainable energy and transportation sources.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMThe formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years. Hydrothermal vents in The Gulf of California interact with kelp producing light sweet crude. This oil floats to the surface continuously. Sure, a lot of the oil we pump from the ground may have been trapped for millions of years but it was produced in a very short time.

What this means for humans is we can produce oil from biomass easily. Ethanol from grass and corn has been in production for more than 20 years. I use E-85 in my cars and cut the cats off them because they're no longer needed.

Engineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."


A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared."

Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.

This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 05, 2025, 11:24:52 PMEngineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."


A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful.

Suggestion: Rather than mindlessly believing something to be true just because an executive of an oil company says it is, because doing so clearly is of benefit to the stockholders of that company, due some research before blindly regurgitating questionable statements that can easily be disputed by the facts.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMThe formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years.

No clue where you live but here on earth it sure does.

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 01:45:36 AMSuggestion: Rather than mindlessly believing something to be true just because an executive of an oil company says it is, because doing so clearly is of benefit to the stockholders of that company, due some research before blindly regurgitating questionable statements that can easily be disputed by the facts.

No clue where you live but here on earth it sure does.

Meanwhile, light sweet crude is forming and bubbling up in the Gulf of California daily.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 06, 2025, 11:13:11 AMMeanwhile, light sweet crude is forming and bubbling up in the Gulf of California daily.

I'm sure that's true.

That doesn't mean the oil that's bubbling was formed that same day or even in the past week as you seem to imply.

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 11:21:35 AMI'm sure that's true.

That doesn't mean the oil that's bubbling was formed that same day or even in the past week as you seem to imply.

Its impossible to prove one way or the other as nobody can take measurements from 1 million BC. However, its a fact that oil forms in much less than a year under the conditions mentioned at the bottom of the Gulf of California.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 06, 2025, 11:23:47 AMIts impossible to prove one way or the other as nobody can take measurements from 1 million BC. However, its a fact that oil forms in much less than a year under the conditions mentioned at the bottom of the Gulf of California.

If it's impossible to prove that oil is created in a day from the bottom of the Gulf of California then why do you keep saying oil is created in a day at the bottom of the Gulf of California?

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 11:25:16 AMIf it's impossible to prove that oil is created in a day from the bottom of the Gulf of California then why do you keep saying oil is created in a day at the bottom of the Gulf of California?

WUT?

Oil is created continuously at the bottom of the Gulf of California.

It is impossible to say how long it took for the oil we pump out of the ground in Texas to form.

It is very possible that it took a very short time for old oil deposits to form because we can see that oil is produced quickly at the bottom of the Gulf of California.

Millions of years are not required for oil to be created.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 06, 2025, 12:38:26 PMWUT?

Oil is created continuously at the bottom of the Gulf of California.

It is impossible to say how long it took for the oil we pump out of the ground in Texas to form. 

You wrote "Meanwhile, light sweet crude is forming and bubbling up in the Gulf of California daily."

So what exactly did you intend to write? It's forming but not daily but it's bubbling daily"?

And now it's Texas and not California?

Why didn't you write that in the first place?

Do you see what I mean about your posts being unclear?

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 12:43:23 PMYou wrote "Meanwhile, light sweet crude is forming and bubbling up in the Gulf of California daily."

So what exactly did you intend to write? It's forming but not daily but it's bubbling daily"?

And now it's Texas and not California?

Why didn't you write that in the first place?

Do you see what I mean about your posts being unclear?

All YOU need worry about is it doesnt take millions of years for oil to form.

If you're still tore up about it, rent a diving bell and release some colored veggie oil at the bottom of the Gulf, then time its ascent.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 06, 2025, 01:12:43 PMrent a diving bell and release some colored veggie oil at the bottom of the Gulf, then time its ascent.

Compared to everything else you post, that makes the most sense.

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 01:14:02 PMCompared to everything else you post, that makes the most sense.

Get to it then! Lemme know how it works out.

BTW, A.I. sez:
Steam vent temperatures in the Gulf of California can reach up to 287°C (\(549\degree F\)) or potentially higher, though they vary depending on the specific vent field. For example, vents in the Pescadero Basin have been measured at up to \(291\degree C\) (\(556\degree F\)). These temperatures are high, but the water does not boil due to the extreme pressure at the seafloor depth

Quote from: Lokmar on November 06, 2025, 01:16:24 PMGet to it then! Lemme know how it works out.

BTW, A.I. sez:
Steam vent temperatures in the Gulf of California can reach up to 287°C (\(549\degree F\)) or potentially higher, though they vary depending on the specific vent field. For example, vents in the Pescadero Basin have been measured at up to \(291\degree C\) (\(556\degree F\)). These temperatures are high, but the water does not boil due to the extreme pressure at the seafloor depth

I'm sure it's true. AI does a great job of debunking every single one of your posts.

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 01:24:36 PMI'm sure it's true. AI does a great job of debunking every single one of your posts.

Best get to testing the travel time of oil from the bottom of the ocean!

Quote from: Lokmar on November 06, 2025, 01:12:43 PMAll YOU need worry about is it doesnt take millions of years for oil to form.

If you're still tore up about it, rent a diving bell and release some colored veggie oil at the bottom of the Gulf, then time its ascent.

He don't seem like a fella interested in facts. He decides something despite science and works backwards.

And then there are the obvious contradictions. Even if he actually believes we will exhaust all oil and gas reserves both proven and as yet unexploited at current rates of production and consumption why would he want to transition to energy sources that are a lot more finite. :crazy:

I aint picking on him because that is the NDP and Liberal parties of Canada. Oil and natural gas are running out so we should transition to wind solar and batteries that come from real finite resources. It makes no sense. But, that is North America's prog parties for ya.

This is a meme that apparently circulated on FB. The term fossil fuels was created not because hydrocarbons come from dinosaurs but to create the illusion of scarcity. 

Sinclair Oil helped popularize the term.
(https://archive.org/download/screenshot-8-2-22-facebook-karl-taylor-7-5-22/Screenshot_8_2_22_Facebook_KarlTaylor_7_5_22.png)

Lok we have the technology right now to produce crude oil from algae in about an hour.

The entire process is surprisingly straightforward. A mixture of wet algae, water, and other materials is subjected to a temperature of 350°C and a pressure of 20 MPa for nearly 60 minutes, resulting in the production of combustible hydrocarbons.

This process mimics some of the conditions that originally transformed prehistoric plant material into fossil fuels deep underground – high pressure and temperatures.

But, with the world awash in hydrocarbons it will not happen on any industrial scale.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 06, 2025, 11:12:37 PMLok we have the technology right now to produce crude oil from algae in about an hour.

We have the technology to travel right now to Mars.

Safe travels.

Quote from: wizer on November 06, 2025, 11:55:43 PMWe have the technology to travel right now to Mars.

Safe travels.

Not analogous. We don't already have Mars here on earth.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 06, 2025, 11:12:37 PMLok we have the technology right now to produce crude oil from algae in about an hour.

The entire process is surprisingly straightforward. A mixture of wet algae, water, and other materials is subjected to a temperature of 350°C and a pressure of 20 MPa for nearly 60 minutes, resulting in the production of combustible hydrocarbons.

This process mimics some of the conditions that originally transformed prehistoric plant material into fossil fuels deep underground – high pressure and temperatures.

But, with the world awash in hydrocarbons it will not happen on any industrial scale.

Yep. Its not much more complicated than pressing out olive oil. Some people are hyper invested loons tho.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 07, 2025, 02:14:17 AMIts not much more complicated than pressing out olive oil.   

I just can't. I'm saying the rest of this post to myself, no one else needs to read it, just scroll right on past.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 07, 2025, 02:14:17 AMYep. Its not much more complicated than pressing out olive oil. Some people are hyper invested loons tho.

Some people are angry that we will never exhaust hydrocarbon supplies. It is responsible for our modern advanced way of life more than all other natural resources combined. It makes no sense unless you have an agenda.

Quote from: DKG on November 07, 2025, 07:43:53 AMSome people are angry that we will never exhaust hydrocarbon supplies.

What an odd statement.

Quote from: wizer on November 07, 2025, 07:47:14 AMWhat an odd statement.

It is odd that people are not excited that the global supply of hydrocarbons is increasing. But, they have an agenda and apparently it does not include a stable cheap supply of energy.

Quote from: DKG on November 07, 2025, 07:50:57 AMIt is odd that people are not excited that the global supply of hydrocarbons is increasing. But, they have an agenda and apparently it does not include a stable cheap supply of energy.

It's odd that you confuse the terms "increased global supply of hydrocarbons" with "increased atmospheric levels of hydrocarbons".

Quote from: wizer on November 07, 2025, 04:16:35 AMI just can't. I'm saying the rest of this post to myself, no one else needs to read it, just scroll right on past.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

I'm not here to argue with idiots.

U apparently arent about looking in the mirror.

Quote from: wizer on November 07, 2025, 07:53:09 AMIt's odd that you confuse the terms "increased global supply of hydrocarbons" with "increased atmospheric levels of hydrocarbons".

Did he? I thought he was referring to accessing new reserves.

I think you are confusing who posted what.

I got a buddy that runs his diesel vehicles off french fry oil. He can only use french fry oil thats millions of years old tho!  :crampe:  :crampe:  :crampe:

Sorry, couldnt resist!

Quote from: Brent on November 07, 2025, 12:01:17 PMDid he? I thought he was referring to accessing new reserves.

I think you are confusing who posted what.

I checked. I quoted the correct member.

Quote from: Lokmar on November 07, 2025, 12:05:09 PMI got a buddy that runs his diesel vehicles off french fry oil. He can only use french fry oil thats millions of years old tho!  :crampe:  :crampe:  :crampe:

Sorry, couldnt resist!

Isn't most french fry oil millions of years old.

Jo Jo and I are very happy that we will never exhaust oil supplies. That means there will be no rationing of lube for future generations.

Quote from: wizer on November 07, 2025, 12:05:32 PMI checked. I quoted the correct member.

If you mean the one on the previous page he never mentioned "increased levels of atmospheric hydrocarbons."

Are you dumb white fux still on this it's running out/it's not running out horseshit.

Transitions don't happen because we are gaslit into believing a resource is disappearing. Oil will continiue being used for 6000+ applications as long as it is economical to do so.

Quote from: Brent on November 07, 2025, 02:50:29 PMIf you mean the one on the previous page he never mentioned "increased levels of atmospheric hydrocarbons."

Correct. I did.

Quote from: Brent on November 07, 2025, 02:50:29 PMIf you mean the one on the previous page he never mentioned "increased levels of atmospheric hydrocarbons."

Like wizer, like most people I don't enough about it to comment.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 07, 2025, 10:33:55 PMAre you dumb white fux still on this it's running out/it's not running out horseshit.

Transitions don't happen because we are gaslit into believing a resource is disappearing. Oil will continiue being used for 6000+ applications as long as it is economical to do so.

Even when you are making a valid point you add a bit of trolling.

Quote from: DKG on November 08, 2025, 05:50:56 AMEven when you are making a valid point you add a bit of trolling.

One of her more redeeming qualities  :t2723:

Quote from: Oliver the Second on November 08, 2025, 10:05:27 AMOne of her more redeeming qualities  :t2723:

About as redeeming as a tactical nuke strike.   :s_laugh:

Quote from: Prof Emeritus at Fawk U on November 08, 2025, 11:55:07 AMAbout as redeeming as a tactical nuke strike.   :s_laugh:

Takes one to know one. You are just as much of a smartass as Shen Li is.

Quote from: Brent on November 08, 2025, 12:01:55 PMTakes one to know one. You are just as much of a smartass as Shen Li is.

Guilty as charged, your honor.   :drunk2:

Quote from: Prof Emeritus at Fawk U on November 08, 2025, 11:55:07 AMAbout as redeeming as a tactical nuke strike.   :s_laugh:

You shut your filthy mouth or I'll sit on ur face.

Quote from: Shen Li on November 08, 2025, 08:52:18 PMYou shut your filthy mouth or I'll sit on ur face.

 :drunk2:

Quote from: Shen Li on November 08, 2025, 08:52:18 PMYou shut your filthy mouth or I'll sit on ur face.

Will you two get a room.

Quote from: DKG on November 09, 2025, 10:46:18 AMWill you two get a room.

They can use the honeymoon suite.
It already has camera<cough>... I meant to say fresh linen.

*ahem*

I just want to know how we got from this:

Quote from: wizeг on October 31, 2025, 03:46:03 AMThere are several issues with the forum.

To this:

Quote from: Shen Li on November 08, 2025, 08:52:18 PMYou shut your filthy mouth or I'll sit on ur face.

Quote from: wizer on November 09, 2025, 12:04:11 PMI just want to know how we got from this:

To this:

On a quantum level everything is entangled.
Occasional slippage along the lines of the forum's probability matrix ought to be expected.

Also:
Sitting on faces is just what Shen does.
It should always be expected. Always.

Quote from: Garraty_47 on November 09, 2025, 12:10:51 PMOn a quantum level everything is entangled.
Occasional slippage along the lines of the forum's probability matrix ought to be expected.

Also:
Sitting on faces is just what Shen does.
It should always be expected. Always.

Preach!   :s_laugh:

Quote from: Garraty_47 on November 09, 2025, 12:10:51 PMOn a quantum level everything is entangled.

Oil is an excellent detangler, one billion acne ridden teenagers can't be wrong.




"Peak Oil" my ass!