On the Origins of Methane Hydrates In Marine Troughs Off the Coast of Japan.

[NNadir]

As a kind of shorthand, I like to say that I favor the banning of dangerous fossil fuels on the grounds that there is no solution to the problem of dangerous fossil fuel waste which is rapidly in geological terms doing extreme damage to the existing biosphere.

Specifically, I don't buy into the Amory Lovins/Gerhard Schroeder/Joschka Fisher meme that any of dangerous fossil fuels can be regarded acceptable, including the ones that pay their salaries, specifically, dangerous natural gas. It is pure bull shit - and not bull shit from a giant factory farm feedlot poop to methane scheme either - to claim that dangerous natural gas is a "clean" fuel. It is only slightly, very slightly, more ridiculous than appealing to so called "clean coal."

(The more that I think about it, the more I think that the anti-nuke fundamentalism of the aforementioned men is a deliberate function of their overt corruption by dangerous fossil fuel interests.)

I personally regard the phase out - the fast phase out - of dangerous fossil fuels as something that should be one of humanity's highest priorities, higher than health care, higher than the wars, higher than a host of other problems. This is because however great our problems with these issues may be, they will inevitably be made wildly uncontrollable by an unstable climate, particularly the risk of war as the number of refugees grows larger.

I am sometimes criticized for my rhetoric and although I generally couldn't care less, there is a technical problem with my rhetoric, inasmuch as I rail against methane as a dangerous fossil fuel, whereas the fossil part is assumed. There is a theory - to which I personally give little credence - involving abiotic methane, methane that has remained in rocks and subterranean formations from the time of the accretion of the earth. Advocates of this theory - including some who have drilled very deep holes at great expense to attempt, thus far with no success to "prove" it - point to the existence of huge quantities of methane that are known to be in interstellar clouds and, for that matter, in the atmospheres of the gas giant planets and some of their moons, like the moon of Saturn, Titan, that was recently visited by a European space probe as part of the Cassini mission. There is a form of methane however that is not strictly either abiotic nor fossil: This form is the famous methane hydrates in the deep ocean that have been viewed alternately as a source of both optimism and terror.

Personally I come down on the terror side, since I regard this methane not as a hopeful source of energy with which to keep Viking Stoves fired up in stupid car CULTure suburban McMansions, but as a (potentially) unstable sink for holding a dangerous risk to the atmosphere in place for as long as is possible. I am concerned that warming oceans will cause some of this gas to be released, contributing a huge positive feedback loop.

Earlier this year in connection with another subject in which I am interested, I collected a paper on the origins of these hydrate formations.

Here is the abstract of the paper to which I refer:

Journal of Geochemical Exploration 95 (2007) 88–100

The title of the article is: "Terrestrial organic matter controlling gas hydrate formation in the
Nankai Trough accretionary prism, offshore Shikoku, Japan"

If the first paragraph of the article doesn't scare the pants off of you, it should:

The presence of marine gas hydrate throughout the world has been inferred from geophysical, geochemical, and geological evidence mainly by bottom simulating reflectors (BSRs), chemistry of sediment pore water, and direct sampling of gas hydrate (Shipley et al., 1979; Gornitz and Fung, 1994; Kvenvolden, 1995). This potentially large reservoir of methane in gas hydrate is of great interest as potential energy resource. The total amount of methane carbon in gas hydrate is postulated to be about twice as large as the carbon present in all known fossil-fuel resources (Kvenvolden, 1988a; Satoh et al., 1996).

Imagine someone trying to dump twice as much dangerous fossil fuel waste as is already known...

There I go again, saying "fossil." What I should say, at least strictly, if this paper is correct is that I favor banning the burning of deposited methane, since it is not clear that the origin of methane hydrates involves ancient formations. To wit, some other excerpts of the paper:

Many investigations have been carried out to understand the formation of marine gas hydrate around the Japanese Islands, especially offshore Tokai and offshore Shikoku (e.g. Matsumoto et al., 2004; Waseda and Uchida, 2004). It is, on the other hand, suggested that methane from dissociated gas hydrate can be a factor in global warming (Kvenvolden, 1988b; Nisbet, 1990; Paull et al., 1991; Harvey and Huang, 1995), and that dissociation of gas hydrate can induce a submarine geohazard such as surficial slides and slumps (McIver, 1982; Kvenvolden, 1999). Most of methane in gas hydrates is characterized by significantly light stable carbon isotope ratios, strongly suggesting a microbial origin. Microbiologists, however, still have not obtained any direct evidence of substantial active methanogenesis in methane hydrate bearing sediments (Parkes et al., 2000). The mechanisms of gas hydrate formation still remain unclear, and understanding gas hydrate formation and decomposition processes is now one of the current topics in geology, geochemistry, and biogeochemistry.

In other words, the stuff may have formed relatively recently from biological action. Some may accrete into the crust by being dragged along by subduction plates.

The authors do extensive analysis in their paper - wonderful analytical chemistry - and find lots of interesting and exciting things, like unusually long chained alkanes and primary alkanols, some with chain lengths up to 32.

The authors discuss at some length the difference between biogenic methane formed by decarboxylation of acetate and that formed by the biogenic reduction of carbon dioxide either from carbonate rocks or carbon dioxide formations, many of which are known and some of which - as amazing at it might seem in these times - are mined.

If one is interested, one may refer to the original paper at a subscribing institution's library.

A little from the conclusion:

Widely distributed BSR in accretionary prisms of Nankai Trough suggests distribution of enormous amount of gas hydrate. The presence and absence of BSRs are not only controlled by temperature–pressure condition for gas hydrate stability, but also by heterogeneity of geophysical, geochemical and geological characteristics of subsurface sediments. All three Sites 1175, 1176, and 1178 of ODP Leg 190 in Nankai Trough commonly have gas hydrate stability zones. However, only Site 1178 has substantial concentrations of gas hydrate. Sediments in Subunit IIA just beneath the major gas hydrate zone of Site 1178 are characterized by higher TOC contents, abundant terrestrial organic matter, and higher organic maturity compared to subsurface sediments at Sites 1175 and 1176. Terrestrial organic matter can produce much CO2 via the transformations of fulvic acids and humic acids to kerogen during the early diagenesis compared to marine organic matter.

I really don't trust human beings to discover huge reserves of methane, since I expect that they will do something stupid and dangerous with them, embracing short term and possibly suicidal thinking when they approach it. The idea of enormous reserves makes me shiver to think what may happen in that still shivering cold water.

[kbman]

1. Nice to find your writings here

I've missed reading your diaries at DK. You might wish to lurk in my most recent entry there ... I think you'd appreciate it.

This particular story is indeed frightening. If they are dumb greedy enough to do "fracking" to extract gas they're probably both dumb and greedy enough to stir up the hydrates as well.

[NNadir]

2. Why Thanks.

I've been year for many years before, during and after my years over there.

I strolled over there for a look at your writing there.

Nice.

On a personal note, while I was over there and checked around, I realized that you seem to be under a kind of misapprehension about why I don't write there any more.

I received a personal note from Tim Lange after I wrote a diary that he knew, and I intended, to make an oblique point about him and his anti-nuke fundamentalism, although the full diary was not about him at all, but about radium induced cancers in Sweden over a 90 year period. (It's still there.)

Around the same time Tim was given powers to make up and suddenly enforce "rules" in a place that formerly functioned quite well without them. One of the very first places that he sought to exercise that power was to "warn" me. I have refused to acknowledge that warning, after consideration of one of David Brewster's writings from the 19th century - written about 17th century events.

The ardor of (his) mind, the keenness of his temper, his clear perception of the truth and his indistinguishable love of it, combined to exasperate and prolong the hostility of his enemies. When argument failed to enlighten their judgment and reason to dispel their prejudices, he wielded against them his powerful weapons of ridicule and sarcasm; and in his unrelenting warfare, he seems to have forgotten that Providence had withheld from his enemies those very gifts which had so liberally received.

Brewster found the attitude of his subject unfortunate, but on consideration, I believe that Brewster was wrong about this, and happily so, since the events discussed proved to be a nearly fatal blow to clericalism.

On reflection, I determined that I could not ethically agree to the terms that Tim proposed for my writing, one of which seemed to demand that I become a Christan - I'm only slightly inflating this - and another being that I avoid tautologies.

To Tim's credit, he did state somewhere what the real state of affairs was:

Eh ... it's probably best (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:New Deal Dem
to just ignore Harvey's diaries. They're nothing but babbling streams of incoherent nonsense. Even some of the regulars here who normally would be supportive of an anti-nuclear diary (e.g., Plutonium Page) have dismissed this diary as a collection of unsubstantiated "untruths."

No, it's better to ignore him. Harvey the invisible white rabbit. Well ... at least he is invisible in the comments section of his own diaries. Nobody can dispute that. ;-)
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
-- H. L. Mencken

by bryfry on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 02:57:54 PM PST

< Parent >
nope... (0+ / 0-)
I trust NNadir will be here soon.

won't be.
by kalmoth on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 03:38:41 PM PST

< Parent >
Not banned. Refused to acknowledge ... (0+ / 0-)
...a warning.

Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:47:29 PM PST

< Parent >

I once gave Tim the benefit of the doubt: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/10/171654/268">The Nuclear Shill Apologizes.

This was a mistake on my part, I now think.

I have read over there a few times, as I realize that there are some good people still writing there, although my self imposed exile has left less and less interested in the place over all.

I have been a little curious about what's happening to Tim, I confess, since one is always curious about a person for whom one once had respect and then lost all of it.

It pains me to watch Tim work out issues from his childhood while playing auxiliary cop. (He actually phrased his warning to me with the words "Cease and Desist!" I thought maybe he was getting Don Knotts/Barney Fife to write for him but it turns out Don Knotts is dead.)

He wrote this diary - and I egotistically believe he may have written some of it for my benefit - that was called: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/24/771661/-Stopping-the-Name-Calling">Stopping the Name-Calling

The diary ends up with two sentences of doublespeak.

In the worst cases, we will suspend or terminate posting privileges. I have already made some moves in this direction. But moderation by community users is now and will continue in the future to be the main way commentary here is regulated.

Tim is one of at least three front-pagers at DK who is a fundamentalist anti-nuke and now he is demonstrating that he has and will use his power arbitrarily in a formerly self moderated site to shout down people who disagree with him.

In all of the Democratic Websites on which I've participated, I have always had little patience for people who come to them to complain about what Rush Limbaugh said, or what Bill O'Reilly said. I have never seen the O'Reilly Factor but what I gather from osmosis is that he uses his control of the microphone to shut off any views that conflict with his own.

I have always dismissed people who go to watch Fox News or worse agree to be guests on Fox. We all know what they are there for.

Kos was a great place to go in the dark Bush years, but now it seems to have chosen the Fox path from the other side.

I cannot ethically agree to the proposed terms and have declined to acknowledge them just as I would decline to be guided by what I could and could not say on television by Bill O'Reilly or Roger Ailes.

[bananas]

3. I'm glad they stopped tolerating your bullshit.

:applause:

[HamdenRice]

4. Reading between the lines of your semi-mea-culpa, its great to see DK had the good sense to ban you

or threaten to ban you which you refused to acknowledge.

On reflection, I determined that I could not ethically agree to the terms that Tim proposed for my writing, one of which seemed to demand that I become a Christan - I'm only slightly inflating this - and another being that I avoid tautologies.
...
He wrote this diary - and I egotistically believe he may have written some of it for my benefit - that was called: Stopping the Name-Calling

Obviously DK recognized what everyone recognizes here. You constantly insult people for little or no reason, and your rhetoric relies on non-sense tautologies (eg, everyone who questions nuclear power loves coal).

I'm assuming the Christian part was simply telling you that if you don't want to be insulted stop insulting people -- an insight of Christianity that many non-Christians adopt.

From your own mea culpa at DK:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/10/345103/-The-Nuclear-Shill-Apologizes.

often get me in delicious trouble, the kind of trouble that leads to troll ratings and the like.
...
Here is the problem with my tone: I am extremely arrogant, extremely conceited, dismissive, insulting, fierce and rude.
...
In my most recent diary someone speculated in the comments section that I was "sick," and that I "needed" help, i.e. that I was crazy.
...
Why did the nuclear industry buy me lunch? Because they like what I write.

Horray for DK!

[NNadir]

10. Thank you for offering the simple...simple...

...simpleton perspective.

I can always count on you among the dumb fundie anti-nukes to have the issue go right over your tiny little bourgeois head.

[kbman]

11. Thanks for the update!

I was well aware of his anti-nuke fundamentalism and had always assumed that was part of the story. Your account confirms that and more. My last diary was intended to address that in an oblique manner, raising the question of why the TMI CT crowd are the only ones who need not defend their claims with actual evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. The last go 'round I had with one was typical. At every request for evidence he would ignore the question and start babbling about other things. Ex navy sub dude just following his training - when under pursuit and unable to defend yourself directly, blow chaff in the water and hope your adversary is distracted.

I'll be checking in on your posts here from time to time as I've always appreciated the topics and perspective which you bring.

BTW - shame there are no polls here :)

[NNadir]

12. Thanks. I'll drop you a PM here. There are, by the way, polls available here

but I'll leave that special feature to my work at Kos, of which I am still very proud in spite of what the wardens have done to the place. There were times at Kos that I have felt I actually wrote things that I could not have written better, and that's been a rare experience for me for most of my life.

Getting the polls... Writing the polls over there was often, almost always in fact, the most difficult part of the work, the one that required the most art. I certainly don't miss the responsibility of doing it. It was hard. It was very difficult to repeat the same thing over and over and over - a literary device about with a certain meaning conveyed not by the words themselves but by the style - still be amusing and still refer not only to the topic of the diaries themselves, but also the absurdity of the fact that some of these things even needed to be discussed at all. The polls worked, but a lot of times that I went to write one, I'd get a knot in my stomach. (Sometimes I'd get a knot feeling that "I shoulda said..." about a poll.) I always felt great when someone would comment in the diary - and there were more than one such occasions - remarking, "Best. Poll. Ever."

That was second only to someone telling me that they read my diaries and changed their minds about nuclear energy because of my writings. If that happened just once, it would have made it worth it, but it happened many times.

For the record, Tim certainly isn't the worst of the dumb fundie anti-nukes, but he is one who, rightly or wrongly, has been awarded nonetheless a certain level of autocratic power and is handling it badly. On some level that's not surprising if you come to understand certain features of his life.

There are some things he did in the past that I thought quite noble. Most fundamentalist anti-nukes are consumerist simpletons who are notably devoid of an ability to look beyond their own provincial realities. Tim was not that kind of guy in his better days.

He and I corresponded off line briefly and he was often gracious, even as I am almost never gracious. He is one of those guys who almost makes one want to weep, someone who definitely struggles to do good, but gets so swept by his illusions that he ends up, wholly unintentionally, being a force for doing the great wrongs without ever even being able to realize the depth and tragedy and nature of the illusions themselves.

Anyone who can't relate to that most human of predicaments is probably suffering from a short supply of self-cognition.

That said, ignorance is ignorance, of course, as I used to say over there, "Ignorance kills." Ignorance is not neutral. Ignorance is not acceptable. Ignorance must be confronted.

Although I am angry at Tim for giving reign to his ignorance, it's not like it's active ignorance, the kind of ignorance that insists on its right to assert itself as glory. I think on some level he is able to question himself. Better than 95% of the anti-nukes around, from the stupid and evil Amory Lovins to some of the more prosaic dunderheads here, revel in ignorance of the latter type. They positively glory in not knowing what they're talking about. They are actually proud of displaying with force how little they know. Again, Tim was generally not that kind of guy.

But these concerns are pedestrian. The real problem is our country and our planet and what we must do about them with the fuse burning ever closer to the bomb. We get so swept away that we forget that there is not much time left.

Over all these bitter years, I worried myself knowing that it is far more difficult to act than to criticize actions, and I've often cited Theodore Roosevelt's famous speech at the Sorbonne, the one about "being marred with sweat and dust", - which Roosevelt made in a typically triumphant manner by the way - as evidence of that difficulty and its risks. My goal in seeing the Democrats elected was not to triumph over the Republicans as an end in itself, but to hope that we would govern wisely, to give humanity its best hope at overcoming the vast challenge of a collapsing planet, something of which the Republicans were clearly temperamentally incapable.

If anyone seems equal to avoiding those risks of being swept away by power itself, the current President would seem to be the best we can hope for, because he has a thick skin, grace, intellect and most importantly a sense of humor. In this way the President may manage to achieve what the great Presidents achieve, a sense of limits that, at their most beautiful and evocative present themselves not as failure but as the success accomplishing the maximum for what those limits allow. Of all the qualities that a President must have, a sense of humor is the most important requirement for achieving those goals.

The great Presidents were all good at being self deprecating.

Compared to the challenges in Washington, DailyKos, and all other blogs are, in fact, provinces of small import, however big they think themselves, however humorless they are becoming. I am grateful however for many things I learned at Kos that I didn't know before. I certainly got to know about the President there - he was certainly not initially my ideal candidate but what I learned at Kos changed my mind - and knowing about the President has given me - still - something that doesn't come easy to me: Some hope. This is the first time in a very long time that I have wanted to hear what a President has to say on a subject, any subject. That's something and let me show some gratitude: Daily Kos was a beacon - as this place was - in some very dark times when I used to dread having to listen to what was advertised as "Our President."

But with the incredible load of work before us and the needs so crucial, who really cares about Kos and Democratic Underground and whether small obnoxious insulting bloggers who write silly polls are happy with them? Does it matter?

No.

All that said, the management at Kos is a little starstruck with itself and is probably not avoiding what Fox News was unable to avoid at the peak of its (dubious) credibility. Kos himself seems to think he's a cross between Madonna and Rupert Murdoch. I never paid much heed to him and actually have no real sense of his ideas but from what little I do know, I think he's laying the seeds of his own demise. (He certainly has a corps of anti-science types around on his front page appealing, um, to "science," and hypocrisy has a way of eroding one's credibility.) I could be wrong about the future of DailyKos, but, again, who cares?

Still Tim... Tim... Tim...there was a part of me that really liked him as dumb as his anti-nuke ideas were because I really felt he wanted to learn something and he really wanted to be a Mensch, a man. Still, somewhat more tragically than is the case with Kos himself, Tim has always been limited by being the opposite of what our much strained President is: Tim has too thin a skin, is not much of an original thinker and he sorely lacks both creativity and a sense of humor.

That's too bad. He would have been better off without any kind of authority, and he wouldn't have ended up looking like that kid you knew in elementary school whose personality was destroyed by being appointed hall monitor by the Vice Principal. Tim could have been more, because, maybe unlike me, I really suspect that he sorely needs to feel that he is a good man. In the right place and time that need alone can lead one to do great things.

But this little post ended up something like an old NNadir diary, and I'm rambling insufferably. Thanks for coming by and, oh yeah, even if we don't use our polls much, we have smileys here in case you ever find yourself too lazy to use words: ;) :hi:

[kbman]

13. Thank you

I appreciate the personal insight into your creative process. That knot in the stomach anxiety reminds my of preparing to perform, especially when doing jam/improvisation play. That annoying little voice that wonders if the notes will flow, even though they usually do. And then there's also what I've heard called, "Little Gold Box Syndrome." It's when you have a really good experience, the type can vary, but it's just so damn good that you put that memory in a little gold box. And then every time you are in a similar circumstance, instead of being present to the experience you're busy checking your little gold box to compare it with the present happenings. "Nope, not as fulfilling as YOU were my pretty." It can be so damn difficult to get out of our own way at times ...

Sorry that things are the way they are between you and Tim. But I also understand that there are times when you need to stand on principle. Be Well ...:hippie:

[philly_bob]

5. UNREC because this OP is very confusing.

I gather that someone named NNADIR was chased from another progressive board because he was accused of being "a nuclear shill." And now he's here.

I think there are arguments to be made for the use of nuclear power, but the organization of information in this OP is confusing, mixed in as it is with personal score-settling.

On the other hand, OP writer seems very knowledgeable, and I'd like to see him start from the beginning, comparing cost of nuclear v. other forms of energy, and explaining what he'd do with radioactive waste -- without the rancor. And what does he think the world community should do in Copenhagen?

[bananas]

6. He "seems" knowledgeable - but he really isn't.

He has a smattering of technical information mixed in with lots of misinformation.
His posts are full of disgusting personal attacks, bad math, and severely flawed reasoning (to be polite).
He chases away people who disagree with him by making disgusting personal attacks on them.

[bananas]

7. Here's an example

On DU, as part of a longer personal attack on madokie, NNadir wrote:

when I imagine some of the dumb fundie anti-nukes here, I tend to imagine fat guys laying around the edge of the pool

(and madokie responded: "None of that is true")

Yet on DK, NNadir wrote:

For the record, I have struggled with obesity much of my adult life.

Why would an obese person attack others for being fat?
He is confused.

For some reason, he does this a lot - he projects his own problems onto other people, and attacks them for it - even when it doesn't apply to them.
This is a tactic Karl Rove is famous for.

Another example, in that same DK thread,
NRG Guy points out some of NNadir's errors,
NNadir replies with a bizarre rambling personal attack on NRG Guy,
to which NRG Guy responds:

You are a math idiot who attacks others for their so called failure to understand math. You are off by a factor of 1000 in your calculation. It's not the fact of the error (although your arrogance means you should meet a higher standard), but it's the fact that it was so obviously an error because of the comparison to gasoline energy content. Anyone with any grasp of energy numbers should have noticed the mistake, but you are apparently not in that camp.

NNadir is an obese person who attacks others for being fat (even when they're not),
and he's a math idiot who attacks others for their so called failure to understand math.

He is very confused.

[NNadir]

8. I've been um, here, since 2002, dealing with the highly personal issue

of nuclear energy for nearly 8 years.

I've been here longer than you. Therefore your claim that I have come here after being "run off" is made up. I didn't "run off." I walked away.

Why are these issues personal? Because nuclear energy, which is not perfect but is simply better than everything else, is a moral issue, involving people's lives, including those of my two sons, not just their health and wealth, but actually their survival.

I have made it clear, over years, that like fundamentalists everywhere, the anti-nukes want, in any argument, everyone to assume that they, and not their opponents, are forces of good will working for a better world. This is pure bull. Pat Robertson should not be awarded a bye on his ethical standing simply because he says "Jesus" every two seconds. Neither should anti-nukes be accorded their claim of good and pure intentions. Several major anti-nukes are openly funded by dangerous fossil fuel companies. And even as a class if some are only acting out of stupidity, ignorance, and selective attention, on a seriously threatened planet, these failings should not be allowed to dominate a conversation.

Likewise, anti-nukes should not be accorded respect because they raise the issue of so called "waste" only in the nuclear case, and don't give a rat's ass about the waste that is inevitable, because of the laws of thermodynamics, for every form of energy.

At Kos, I wrote close to 300 diaries, and many of them involved considerable research and preparation. I have reached there the point of diminishing returns and, in fact, it was very clear because of their policy changes and their ex post facto application of rules that I was going to inevitably be banned on grounds that, in typical anti-nuke fashion, were being applied to only one case using selective attention.

That's fine by the way. Kos owns his site just as Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp. Each of them has a right to control the opinions expressed on their site, although I don't have to buy into how they do it. I note that for many years Fox News railed about having respect for the President and now suddenly they advance the opposite case on the Presidency. My feeling is - and my willingness to participate under the rubric of their rules - that Kos's Boyar, Tim, is doing something very similar. I'm a Democrat, and I don't do well with autocrats.

As for my energy ideas: Often, over the years, people suddenly ask all over the same questions that I have been discussing, at great length, for years. I discussed in some detail, if with a sardonic and sometimes very bitter style, the chemistry and physics of many components of so called "nuclear waste" and many other details.

I have discussed in detail, for instance, the chemistry, physics and history of many elements (and their potential for value) in used nuclear fuel. The diaries are still there. If you want to know my ideas on say, cesium, neptunium, plutonium, thorium, iodine, tritium, etc, etc, etc, etc, I have already explained my views on them at length.

Why did I do it?

According to the cultists, because I am evil and paid off. You may either accept or reject my claim to the contrary, but I claim that my motivations had something to do with my ethics, and the fact that I am turning over a damaged world to my sons. Should I die - and of course I will die - on the last day I want to be able to look in the mirror to say I did something.

[HamdenRice]

9. The person you are referring to is **cough, cough** "eccentric" in the extreme

You can get a better understanding by reading his posts in the Energy/Environment Forum.

Basically, he has weird tautological, paranoid views about everyone who is not as enthusiastic as him about nuclear power, and claims every single one of them is some sort of fundamentalist who loves fossil fuel. Trying to explain his views is impossible because it would be like explaining the views of that guy on the subway who claims to be channeling CIA instructions through his dental fillings. In other words, it's just non sequitur crazy rambling.

No amount of asking him to explain himself or converse rationally or civilly has any effect whatsoever.

DK finally banned his ass, but he still hangs out here.

I would just add this to what bananas said: in the same way that he tends to be wildly defensive about his own "issues" and project them, I find it interesting that in the same DK post, in which he sets out to wildly attack anyone who doesn't understand his obesity, he says he was about to wildly attack anyone who doesn't understand schizophrenia.

Now that's interesting, isn't it?

I had in preparation here a diary - not to be published ultimately - called "A Snarling Pack of Uneducated Malcontent Dogmatists Mocking A Disease" which was about schizophrenia, but could have been about the disease obesity, which is now an international epidemic.
...
While that web page is just me complaining about being extremely ugly - also a genetic condition...

Explains a lot.