So many monsters, so little time.

The adherents of atheism have murdered more people
in the last 100 years than any other group in history, given even 10X the amount of time…

>>Some notable members of that 2% included Stalin,
>>Mao and other like minded individuals…

Them’s fightin’ words on dvorak dot org slash blog. Just wait for the Crusaders of Atheism to track you down and have their evil way with you!

btw, you forgot Pol Pot. He was a very popular Atheist too.

No, there is about 2% who fall outside that category. Some notable members of that 2% included Stalin, Mao and other like minded individuals…

>>Nothing is right for everyone, most certainly
>>not your own minority belief system.

You’re right, Scottie. Nothing is right for everyone. I’m fine pleased to leave Fusion to his beliefs, as long as he leaves me to mine. When he (and the rest of youse) start up with the “misguided”, “sheeple”, “imbecile” stuff, then enough is enough.

btw, my “minority belief system”, generally categorized, encompasses the vast majority of earth’s population. Maybe there’s a reason for that.

Thanks for the transcript. I read it as you did. I think she meant compared to other fossil fuels and just left out the “other”. A missed word sure can make a difference in meaning though. “One small step for man …” comes to mind. I think she flubbed a line. I doubt it indicates a lack of basic understanding of fossil fuels.

#41 – Mark T.

I think the term fossil fuel comes from the assumption that it is organic matter from decomposed plants and animals. Natural gas is typically lumped with that assumption even though there may well be inorganic sources of any or all of the fossil fuels.

I heard a geologist lecture on the subject stating that oil is an inorganic compound. He had predicted that oil could be found drilling at some location that would definitely not have been predicted as a site under the assumption of organic decomposition. He found some small but significant amount of oil there, where there should have been none.

Still though, referring to all of coal, natural gas, and oil as fossil fuels does still reflect current knowledge quite well.

I find it very strange that you should feel the need to feel sorry for anyone who does not believe in spirituality of any form. Has Mr. Fusion ever indicated unhappiness as a result? If he feels no lack, why on Earth would you do so on his behalf?

It’s very condescending and a waste of your effort that could be going toward feeling sorry for people with real problems or for innocent animals that have to deal with the problems thrust upon them by misevolved humans or just on feeling good about yourself.

Save your emotional energy for where and when it makes sense. Nothing is right for everyone, most certainly not your own minority belief system.

Have it your way. If you think every question about the mysteries of the universe can be answered as easily as “Is there a sun in the sky”, so be it.

I continue to feel sorry for you.

>>And yes, M-turd, as long as the C. Dvorak
>>chide continues, that is your new moniker

Oh, OK. You win. I concede defeat to the greater power of the Prodigious Prognosticator of All Things Tech.

I won’t call you Mr. C. Dvorak any longer, so drop the “turd” stuff, huh? I take enough of a pounding from my other nemeses on this blog.

Perhaps the nuances of spirituality go beyond what seems to be your third-grade options of TRUE or FALSE. If you think all of Christianity hinges on God being some guy with white hair and a beard, sitting up in the clouds shooting lightning bolts and thunder at the infidels, I feel sorry for you

Feel all you wish. The point about if there is a god is a fact, not an opinion. The same as is the sun shining or is it raining. When you get to the point of how much the clouds obscure the sun is a matter of opinion, just as how much weight or interpretation may be put on the bible.

Until you can prove that here is a god to the same degree as I can prove the sun is shining then there is no disproving the non existence of a “god”.

I watched the show on tape and didn’t catch the error. In context, I understood her to say Nat Gas should be developed. There are many large NG fields discovered years ago that were simply capped off and entered into our carbon reserves as there was no ready market for it. Hard to believe a gas can be infused into rocks and such.

I’d put it into the category of “misspeaking” and btw if it was a big deal and relevant at all, the interviewer should have asked for clarification on point. But he understood what she was saying too.

Small points for small minds. Better to focus on what a total political game playing sleaze ball she is–not how she might misspeak from time to time.

QB..the Cloris L. one-liner was a gem!

The fact that it isn’t being harvested on an industrial scale yet is borderline criminal, actually. . .

I have a feeling she doesn’t know the difference.