Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Quote: MauiSunsetOh come on, the question that needs to be answered is simple:
Is the Earth too hot, too cold, or just right?
Just right, too hot or too cold for who or what?
Quote: thecesspitJust right, too hot or too cold for who or what?
If you believe that man is warming the Earth then you must assume that's a bad thing - right?
If Earth is really too cold now, since it's recovering from the last ice age 10,000 years ago then man warming up Earth is a good thing - right? (Maybe Mother Earth should give us a medal?)
This is a very important question that Global Warming fanatics never seem to answer - too hot or too cold or just right.
Then there is the matter of that sun - GW fanatics believe man is more powerful than the sun.
Personally I believe the sun causes the Earth to heat up and cool down - and the orbit of Earth around the sun and the inclination of our axis - it cycles too.
Man is the least of our worries.........
Quote: MauiSunset
So, is the Earth too warm, too cold, or just right?????
Well, this morning it was kind of chilly, but now its in
the 80's and kind of hot. I think I should be worried..
I've never seen anyone propose whether the average temperature of Earth is too hot or too cold or just right - we don't have a clue.
Fear of a warming earth is at the center of the GW nuts and the only way to save mother Earth is to raise my taxes and punish me - like taking away my lawn mower.
GW is just rubbish and is losing their struggle to control me, my neighbors, my city, my state, my country - they just can't stand it.
That's why I'm smiling every time I read about these wackos - watching them fail is priceless - well it really means I get to keep my money and standard of living and so do my kids and their kids....
Quote: MauiSunsetIf you believe that man is warming the Earth then you must assume that's a bad thing - right?
If Earth is really too cold now, since it's recovering from the last ice age 10,000 years ago then man warming up Earth is a good thing - right? (Maybe Mother Earth should give us a medal?)
False dichotomy. => Cold = bad; warm = good. Doesn't work that way.
One of the problems is not the temperature itself, but the rate of overall change. A fast change into "cold" would be as bad as a fast change into "warm". As would a fast change to "dry" or "wet" for many parts of the world.
Quote:
This is a very important question that Global Warming fanatics never seem to answer - too hot or too cold or just right.
Then there is the matter of that sun - GW fanatics believe man is more powerful than the sun.
Personally I believe the sun causes the Earth to heat up and cool down - and the orbit of Earth around the sun and the inclination of our axis - it cycles too.
Man is the least of our worries.........
You can believe what you like, but I think the climatologists have taken into account the energy input from the sun varying over time. The ability of the earth to radiate heat (or absorb it) varies dependent on the amount of CO2 in the atomosphere (this is one factor, of many).
Quote: thecesspitFalse dichotomy. => Cold = bad; warm = good. Doesn't work that way.
One of the problems is not the temperature itself, but the rate of overall change. A fast change into "cold" would be as bad as a fast change into "warm". As would a fast change to "dry" or "wet" for many parts of the world.
You can believe what you like, but I think the climatologists have taken into account the energy input from the sun varying over time. The ability of the earth to radiate heat (or absorb it) varies dependent on the amount of CO2 in the atomosphere (this is one factor, of many).
Like I said where are the "scientific studies" that follow the Scientific Method where data is freely given and peer scientists can verify the data and reproduce the experiments?
If man-made GW actually existed there would be hundreds of studies going on and backed by the finest minds and universities - all inviting sever scrutiny and refuting every challenge that was posed.
Instead we have a dumpy little college in England as the vortex of a totally phony "scientific study".....
This is NO different than all the phony Roulette gurus who make billions of dollars each year and haunt freebie websites dropping hints to their glory.....
Quote: MauiSunsetLike I said where are the "scientific studies" that follow the Scientific Method where data is freely given and peer scientists can verify the data and reproduce the experiments?
Subject change, much? I guess if you care to look you could read the following journals :
Nature
Science
Journal of Geophysics research (5 sub categories)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Journal of Climate
Just for starters. The New Scientist back in the 90's had a series of good articles on climate change, CO2 increases and Sulphur Dioxide levels. One study suggested what others have said here : Methane emissions are largely spiking upwards from cow farts, rather than car usage.
There's plenty of analysis and research in the area. Not all of it agrees on the precise mechanisms. Most seem to posit the thesis that increased human population makes has made a change in the composition of the atomosphere and water on earth, and that will have effects on the environment.
I agree, the hard part of sciences like climatology, geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology is that you can't do a "direct experiment". But making a model, and then assigning it with new data is how you can do such research.
Quote:If man-made GW actually existed there would be hundreds of studies going on and backed by the finest minds and universities - all inviting sever scrutiny and refuting every challenge that was posed.
Instead we have a dumpy little college in England as the vortex of a totally phony "scientific study".....
This is NO different than all the phony Roulette gurus who make billions of dollars each year and haunt freebie websites dropping hints to their glory.....
You know the data used at "the dumpy little college in England" is widely available and used at many other centres across the world, right? That it's be verified that the data used is the SAME as the data used in other studies?
So let's recap:
* Believe the ~98% of the world's climate scientists who say that climate change is real and people are causing it? --> FANATIC
* Agree that climate change seems likely given that every single national and international scientific body on the face of the planet which has taken a position on climate change says that it's happening? --> WACKO
* Think that the substantial evidence of global warming should give one pause? --> SOCIALIST
* Decide that, even with no training, you know more about climate science than the world scientific community, and that anyone who believes the world's scientists is a fanatic, wacko, socialist: --> THE ONLY REASONABLE POSITION
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhat's interesting to me is all the insults hurled at those who think it's reasonable to trust that scientists understand the science better than the general public does. I've lost count of how many times I've seen the words "fanatics" and "Socialists" in this thread alone.
So let's recap:
* Believe the ~98% of the world's climate scientists who say that climate change is real and people are causing it? --> FANATIC
* Agree that climate change seems likely given that every single national and international scientific body on the face of the planet which has taken a position on climate change says that it's happening? --> WACKO
* Think that the substantial evidence of global warming should give one pause? --> SOCIALIST
* Decide that, even with no training, you know more about climate science than the world scientific community, and that anyone who believes the world's scientists is a fanatic, wacko, socialist: --> THE ONLY REASONABLE POSITION
And there are dealers who believe Basic Strategy was written by the casinos, and thus players should abandon all reason while playing the game...
1 out of every 4... Good thing you're not that 1...
But there's all kinds of things, in every aspect of life there's some sort of small government control and somebody trying to make money. Don't oil companies get federal subsidies, even though they make Billions in profits every year. I don't like that I have to actually pay twice for that gallon of gas.
The truth is, climate change doesn't worry me so much, but paying $3.50 or more for a gallon of gas does. I want super cheap or free energy. There's a few things I think should be available to everyone in a free society, but they're not. Here's a start to my list:
Food
Shelter
Energy
Education
Medical care
Food can get pretty expensive. Some people really do need food stamps to survive. But oh wait, that's a government "hand-out". Why the hell should I pay for that. Let em starve.
People can get assistence to help pay for a home, but wait, that's another handout. Let em live on the street. Not my fault they didn't have the same advantages as me.
Well I guess very few people need a whole lot of energy.
Education is free up until high school, but it's sh*tty as hell. But if someone wants to go to college, and doesn't have the money, they might be SOL. Yeah, $30-$50,000 seems about right for a year of education. All going to a for profit institution.
And damn it to hell if my tax dollars go to help someone with a sh*tty job that can't get good health care. Let their sickness take em out, it's not MY fault they were born with crappy DNA.
Quote: ewjones080But oh wait, that's a government "hand-out". Why the hell should I pay for that. Let em starve.
Let em live on the street. Not my fault they didn't have the same advantages as me.
But if someone wants to go to college, and doesn't have the money, they might be SOL.
And damn it to hell if my tax dollars go to help someone with a sh*tty job that can't get good health care. Let their sickness take em out, it's not MY fault they were born with crappy DNA.
Glad to see somebody here 'gets it'. Survival of the fittest,
not survival of every species reject that just drags the
rest of us down with him. Like meth addicts. They too
are god's 'children'..
Quote: ewjones080I really don't get the government control argument. The only climate change control that I've heard is that in some states you gotta pay $20 a year to get your car looked at.
And you think that's not proof enough? Think again! $20 a year, times 100 million cars, times for how many centuries will this hoax last? That's 2 billion a year going straight into the Illuminati coffers! You can buy 745,000 assault rifles for that money, and each holds 30 bullets, so every year that cars have their emissions checked is another 22 million 350 thousand people who will be killed when they finally take over the Earth. And four million of them will be children. Think of the children!
It's not that I have a problem with what you believe, it's more the inconsistency of it.
Okay, you can take a shot at liberals for something similiar, but in general i see no reason to retract that statement. And perhaps none of it applies to anyone here.
Yeah, I edited it, but that has been your thrust since you started the debate.
No ideas of your own; not even just some commonsense thoughts. Note that all of us on the skeptic side have given strong reasons why we believe it is bunk. But all the supporters ever say is "shut up and listent to the scientists!"
"Why should we believe a trendline of < 100 years of good measurements in a timeline of 4.5MMM years, it is like................"
"FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD, FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD........................................................"
Each and every time.
Time will tell - hopefully in November things will change and the Climate Change/Global Warming folks will be sent to the basement to cook up the next catastrophic thing man is doing and how more taxes and less freedom will solve the problem.
So all you Global Warming true-believers out there mark November 7th on your calendar and vote back in your fellow kooks and get ready to take over the world....
Quote: AZDuffmanScientific consensus is not proof. There was once consensus that the world was flat. There is no basis saying we are causing it as there is no real baseline of measurement nor can variables such as sun heat intensity changes be removed. Furthermore we do not know if stability is normal.
The word "proof" is bandied about too easily with regard to scientific theory. Proof applied to mathematics. The concept of a spherical earth was established 2300 years ago by Greek astronomers. Before that there was not really a "scientific consensus" as there was a world view based on very limited data. One can say that the "theory of a spherical earth" was "proven" in early 16th century when some of Magellan's crew sailed around the earth. But the concept was almost universally accepted before that.
BTW, the story that the scientific advisers to Ferdinand and Isabella believed that Christopher Columbus should not be funded since they believed the world to be flat is a myth invented in the 19th century to make Columbus seem smart. In reality, all educated people believed the world was a sphere, but the educated people knew the size of the globe. They said that Columbus and his crew would starve long before reaching Asia. It was Columbus who mistakenly believed that the planet was considerably smaller than it's true dimensions. Chris was actually very fortunate that there was a continent that no one knew about in between Europe and Asia, or he would have starved and been lost to history.
Quote: pacomartinChris was actually very fortunate that there was a continent that no one knew about in between Europe and Asia, or he would have starved and been lost to history.
In which case you'd have been spared the trouble of distinguishing between Colombia and Columbia, as neither name would exist at all. ;)
Quote: MauiSunsetIf you believe that man is warming the Earth then you must assume that's a bad thing - right?
If Earth is really too cold now, since it's recovering from the last ice age 10,000 years ago then man warming up Earth is a good thing - right? (Maybe Mother Earth should give us a medal?)
Historically, the Earth is way too cold right now. It actually did not have ice caps around the poles for most of its history.
Technically, we are still in an ice age, that is nearing its end.
This does not necessarily mean, that it would be better if it got warmer. We don't care about what Earth looked like when it was roamed by the dinosaurs, we care about what kind of a climate would be best for humans. Even from this perspective, a few degrees warmer would be a good thing - more habitable territory, more space for agriculture, several harvests per year in most latitudes, etc.
What isn't such a good thing though is the change itself. A the Earth warms up, we are going to have to face a lot of problems caused by the change in the climate, perhaps, the most severe one being the rising of the ocean level. Also, while the poles are warming, the temperature in the lower latitudes will actually go down, making for harsh, unpleasant winters, and cold, rainy, unfruitful summers. There are other troubles waiting us on that route too.
What we need to realize though is that the Earth will warm up, as it has done many times in the past, and there is nothing humans can do to stop it or to slow it down significantly. Even if we all get rid of our cars, and start riding bikes, it won't make a dent in the amount of C02 emitted into the atmosphere by the ocean (that's where it is really coming from, not the cow farts).
So instead of feeling good about buying the tiniest, ugliest car on the block, people should really focus on preparing for the changes. They won't be pleasant, but it does not have to be an extinction event as some GW fans predict.
Quote: pacomartin
BTW, the story that the scientific advisers to Ferdinand and Isabella believed that Christopher Columbus should not be funded since they believed the world to be flat is a myth invented in the 19th century to make Columbus seem smart. In reality, all educated people believed the world was a sphere, but the educated people knew the size of the globe. They said that Columbus and his crew would starve long before reaching Asia. It was Columbus who mistakenly believed that the planet was considerably smaller than it's true dimensions. Chris was actually very fortunate that there was a continent that no one knew about in between Europe and Asia, or he would have starved and been lost to history.
I have heard this about Mr Columbus before, that the "flat earth" thing was mostly in the past. The Middle Ages were always defined as about 500-1500, or from the fall of the Roman Empire to the opening of the New World. But it didn't just start and end. It faded out. Columbus just was the final slam of the door. But it was almost not to be, I have read or seen that he was just days from turning around due to declining provisions. As with so many things, just holdong on for a little longer made the difference.
My understanding was that not even educated people knew the size, but they overestimanted it, thinking as you say there would not be enough provisions to survive. If you think about it, without North and South America in the way a ship could not take enough provisions to make it to India and the Orient at the time. Even today it is hard to fuel an airplane for such a trip.
Quote: TiltpoulAnd there are dealers who believe Basic Strategy was written by the casinos, and thus players should abandon all reason while playing the game...1 out of every 4... Good thing you're not that 1...
Not just dealers. That is the central thrust of John Patrick's blackjack books -- that the basic strategy is flawed and defies common sense. He seems to believe it is a casino-driven conspiracy, of which I must be a part of, to keep players in the dark that it is wrong. If you don't believe me, just visit his forum.
I'm not trying to change the topic, but it seems to me the climate change deniers follow the same kind of strategy of winning a debate by shouting the loudest. Same could also be said of those who deny Obama was born in the U.S., and his birth certificate is a fake.
For those interested in the correlation between CO2 levels and average global surface temperature, please visit the NASA web site. Or are they in on the conspiracy too?
By the way, playing the "common sense" card is not very convincing.
Quote: Wizard
I'm not trying to change the topic, but it seems to me the climate change deniers follow the same kind of strategy of winning a debate by shouting the loudest.
Not on this board. The deniers are giving reason for skepticism while the pro-AGW group keeps saying, "WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS?"
I'd rather believe people who are not getting all of the government grants to keep stating that we need to raise taxes and give up freedom to avoid disaster to those that are.
XOM pays billions in taxes, CO2 scientists get millions to billions in subsidies. Tells me something about vested interest.
has 10 cents left to give to the GW extortionists.
The whole point of GW was to extort guilt money
out of the West and send it to the 3rd world crap
holes who's lives we supposedly made worse by
our wascally greedy ways.
Quote: WizardNot just dealers. That is the central thrust of John Patrick's blackjack books -- that the basic strategy is flawed and defies common sense. He seems to believe it is a casino-driven conspiracy, of which I must be a part of, to keep players in the dark that it is wrong. If you don't believe me, just visit his forum.
I wonder what he will say now that you're working for a casino :)
Quote:I'm not trying to change the topic, but it seems to me the climate change deniers follow the same kind of strategy of winning a debate by shouting the loudest.
Oh, no. The tactic is used on both sides. Simply by coining the term "climate change deniers," which is a clear link to that other well-known group of deniers, should give anyone a clue. Or the oft-repeated assertion that anyone who disagrees with the AGW model must be in the pay of the oil companies. Not to mention fudged data. Oh, and not to mention the oodles of government grant money institutions can receive for that kind of research, nor the tons of money wasted on "green" energy projects. Oh, and the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." The climate's always changing.
There are a great many serious scientists have objections and doubts concerning the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the determining factor. See this letter NASA received: http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html Or look up Henrik Svensmark's work on the triple relationship between solar activity, cosmic ray levels and cloud formation. And there are other like Bjorn Lomborg, who question whether warming would be bad at all.
And finally, consensus does not equal evidence. Read up on phlogiston and Cavendish.
Quote: NareedThere are a great many serious scientists have objections and doubts concerning the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the determining factor.
That's fine. However, there should be no intelligent debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing significantly due to human consumption of fossil fuels, as well as meat consumption (which tends to get overlooked in the debate). I don't deny that there are other elements at play and that correlation alone does not mean causation.
What I am saying is there is sufficient evidence to be very alarmed and to incentivize consuming less of what causes the problem. Even if the scientists are wrong, would it be such a bad thing to leave some carbon-based fuels for future generations, or should we consume it all now like drunken sailors on shore leave?
Quote: NareedThere are a great many serious scientists have objections and doubts concerning the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the determining factor.
Which is a red herring, because the overwhelming majority of scientists say that humans are the *principal* cause of GW*, not that we're the *exclusive* cause. Which is the whole point.
But it's telling that climate deniers never mention the numbers when they talk about how many scientists oppose AGW. They want us to think that there is this significantly large community of scientific skeptics, which is why they always use words like "a great many" and "a large number" etc. They never mention that whatever scientific skeptics exist, they're a piddling number (~2%) compared to all scientists.
Which makes me ask, why are the deniers trying to brag about the "great many" scientists who deny climate change? They're always so quick to tell us that "Consensus is not science!" and that it doesn't matter how many scientists say something is true. So why does it matter to them how many scientists are on their side? Wouldn't they be just as happy with 0.2% as 2.0% agreeing with them? Why are we supposed to sit up and take notice about "the [supposedly] great many scientists" opposing AGW when they've already gone to great lengths to tell us that the number of scientists who believe something doesn't matter?
* Typo corrected
Quote: WizardWhat I am saying is there is sufficient evidence to be very alarmed and to incentivize consuming less of what causes the problem. Even if the scientists are wrong, would it be such a bad thing to leave some carbon-based fuels for future generations, or should we consume it all now like drunken sailors on shore leave?
Year 2025, the point of no return argues that the world is 13 years away from a point that "there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest productions, and clean water," according to Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley and the lead author of the paper. At that point "it really will be a new world, biologically."
I have read quite extensively about the idea that mankind will logically stop exploiting the ecosystem when it becomes clear that the resource will dry up and put them out of business. Unfortunately there are dozens of cases where people didn't stop. The empty canneries in San Francisco attest to a time when overfishing meant that at one point the ships left the docks and "suddenly" there were no more fish. There is a story in the 1920's of two sport fisherman catching the last "right whale" seen in decades. A "right whale" has been killed for decades because it was the "right" whale to kill, since it was docile and curious. Plus it had so much much blubber that it floated after being killed.
There is evidence from the middle ages that a population of the grey whale (familiar to Californians) lived in Europe, but was driven to extinction in medieval times. The "polar bear" was originally called the "white bear" because it's habitat came as far south as Pennsylvania. It's just that after hunting, the only white bears in existence were in the polar regions, which eventually generated a new name for the beast.
It used to be that people riding in ships would complain about their inability to sleep. The reason was that there were so many mammals in the water, that they would continually bump against the sides of the boats, keeping the occupants awake. It's hard to imagine that kind of crowd in Boston harbor.
Quote: Wizardshould we consume it all now like drunken sailors on shore leave?
We will have discovered and invented alternative energy
sources long before fossil fuel runs out. We have the
capability now, but the incentive isn't there.
Petitions and chain letters have replaced scientific studies. Facts and figures are usurped by lynch mob "consensus" mentality. Hot potato political topics now drive science - if you are a climatologist and want to get a grant from Porky Pig Government you had better have signed a chain letter supporting the Administration's view that man is bad and killing Mother Earth and ask for money supporting Global Warming - to do the opposite is career suicide.
But the majority of scientists have jumped on the political band wagon pulled by Liberal politicians and we opposed to this junk science will remember this when we are in control of the government again.
Sad; but payback is so sweet in politics........
Quote: WizardThat's fine. However, there should be no intelligent debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing significantly due to human consumption of fossil fuels, as well as meat consumption (which tends to get overlooked in the debate).
Now, there's a big misconception right there. Cows don't produce excess carbon dioxide. The thinking is that they produce methane, which is also supposed to be a greenhouse gas. But there's much controversy on that issue as well.
Quote:What I am saying is there is sufficient evidence to be very alarmed and to incentivize consuming less of what causes the problem.
And I disagree.
Quote:Even if the scientists are wrong, would it be such a bad thing to leave some carbon-based fuels for future generations, or should we consume it all now like drunken sailors on shore leave?
Let's just say the harm brought on by restricting the use of oil and other fossil fuels would be vastly superior to anything "climate change" could possibly do.
BTW if you want an energy source that produces no CO2, works in an industrial scale, and does not depend on the vagaries of clouds and wind, try nuclear fission. but for some reason the people pushing for "green" energy don't like to talk about it.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhich is a red herring, because the overwhelming majority of scientists say that humans are the *principal* cause of AGW, not that we're the *exclusive* cause. Which is the whole point.
It doesn't matter how many scientist believe in something. Some solid evidence would be nice. BTW, computer models are not evidence.
Quote:Which makes me ask, why are the deniers trying to brag about the "great many" scientists who deny climate change?
Some civility would be nice, too.
Quote: NareedAnd finally, consensus does not equal evidence.
For a moment, pretend you are in the position of what statement to issue on climate change. Whether it's an issue we need to take action on or not? You have the current consensus information with whatever opposing arguments to consider. Now you need to make an informed decision to guide public policy.
Everyone's counting on you to make the right decision.
What are the critical elements to consider?
Where do you end up logically?
For me, whatever doubts I may have, I find it difficult not to end up where we are now. Is it an issue where I can continue to collect research data and sit on it and we'll let everyone know later when we're more sure one way or the other? Is it time critical. Do I feel I have the best information that is available at the moment, whether imperfect or not? That sort of thing.
Quote: rxwineEveryone's counting on you to make the right decision.
Ah, if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't waste it on climate change...
Quote: NareedBTW if you want an energy source that produces no CO2, works in an industrial scale, and does not depend on the vagaries of clouds and wind, try nuclear fission.
At least we agree on that.
If methane from farts is a problem what about the 3.5 billion men in the world (we all agree women don't fart?).
Quote: kenarmanI am a little confused about the major impact that cow farts are having on the climate. While methane is a greenhouse gas and is expelled by cows (side question: are bovines the opposite of humans where it is the female of the species that does most of the farting? but I digress) isn't much of the increase in the domesticated animals offset by the species we have driven to/or over the edge of extinction. The 60 million buffalo which once roamed North America, the untold millions of animals no longer on the savannahs of africa, the millions of mammals keeping Paco's sailors of olde awake?
If methane from farts is a problem what about the 3.5 billion men in the world (we all agree women don't fart?).
Women fard - it's much worse - look it up.
Quote: kenarman(we all agree women don't fart?).
At least we can all agree on something important.
and for the same reasons.
1. GW can't proved or disproved. So people just discuss their opinions.
2. Everybody made up their minds which side they're on years ago.
3. Nobody ever changes their mind on their position.
4. Both sides think they're right and the other side is insane.
Quote: MichaelBluejayQuote: NareedThere are a great many serious scientists have objections and doubts concerning the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the determining factor.
Which is a red herring, because the overwhelming majority of scientists say that humans are the *principal* cause of AGW, not that we're the *exclusive* cause. Which is the whole point.
Actually, humans are and must be, by definition, the sole cause of AGW. Regular ole GW is another matter.
I see "AGW" as typical liberal arrogance. They are the end-all-be-all solution to every perceived problem on the planet. But they can't be satisfied just making changes themselves. They have to force anyone and everyone into their worldview and stick guns in everyone's faces to pay for their every whim and boondoggle, regardless of merit. We've got to DOOOO SOMETHING!
Then in the next legislative session or two they try to fix what DOOING SOMETHING buggered up the last time. ad nauseam. barf.
Stopping the Can-Oil pipeline is a step towards Canada being responsible to produce cheaper fossil-fuel than market pricing. Barge it down the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri river-systems instead. Same goes for ND/SD Oil Shales. Main point... do not justify the high-price... its cheap to actually produce/refine/deliver. Commoditizing, sets a piece of paper as the value, not the fossil-fuel's intrinsic cost or worth. The only other commodities with similar behavior are the Base-Metals (Copper, Nickel, Zinc, Aluminum).
Didn't Mazda(?) announce a feature that uses a very scaled down version to power just the chassis electrical, eliminating the need for the drag of an alternator most/all of the time?
Yeah, here it is: http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/26/mazdas-i-eloop-does-regenerative-braking-with-capacitors-instea/
Maybe super capacitors will save mankind.
Quote: NareedLet's just say the harm brought on by restricting the use of oil and other fossil fuels would be vastly superior to anything "climate change" could possibly do.
Quantify please.
An example of the harm I see now is that instead of just releasing a new model that puts out 420 hp, the car makers now release a new model that does 620 bhp and 27 mpg. It's hard to deal with this extra information, but can't we manage?
about out air quality and the poisoning of our drinking water
by industrial waste.
don't these tree hugging wackos realize
that corporations can't make a profit
if they have to follow every whim
of these granola munching hippie freaks?
Quote: WongBo
don't these tree hugging wackos realize
that corporations can't make a profit
if they have to follow every whim
of these granola munching hippie freaks?
To them profit is some kind of theft, so they do not care.
The liberal mindset is amazing.
"GET RID OF COAL POWER PLANTS, GET RID OF COAL POWER PLANTS. GET RID OF COAL POWER PLANTS!"
some time later.....
"Hey, why did we have a blackout yesterday?"
Quote: QuadDeuces
Didn't Mazda(?) announce a feature that uses a very scaled down version to power just the chassis electrical, eliminating the need for the drag of an alternator most/all of the time?
Might make sense. A few yeas back I saw at howstuffworks.com where they calculated that if the USA were to follow Canada's lead and require daytime headlight use the resulting drag would add 1-2 days of oil use to the country every year due to the extra alternator drag.
OTOH, I wonder if the cost will pay for itself to the avareage owner? Most people do not want to pay $2 to save $.80 of gasoline.
Quote: kenarmanI am a little confused about the major impact that cow farts are having on the climate. While methane is a greenhouse gas and is expelled by cows (side question: are bovines the opposite of humans where it is the female of the species that does most of the farting? but I digress) isn't much of the increase in the domesticated animals offset by the species we have driven to/or over the edge of extinction. The 60 million buffalo which once roamed North America, the untold millions of animals no longer on the savannahs of africa, the millions of mammals keeping Paco's sailors of olde awake?
If methane from farts is a problem what about the 3.5 billion men in the world (we all agree women don't fart?).
You'd have to go read the article. I'm not sure if the report is still current thinking, or what the net effect of methane from cow's farts is over a baseline.
My point was more that open discussion of Climate effects has been in mainstream scientific press for over two decades by my experience. And that article stuck in my head (even if the conclusions didn't).
The increase from cattle is significant (multiple percent over the baseline). But methane is a short-term greenhouse gas (a decade), CO2 long-term (over 100 years). So the decrease in CO2 emissions remains a priority, as they are cumulative, while decrease in CH4 has to be sustained to have effect.
