Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by McFarland
there is nothing wrong with any of us.  

Holy ****! It's Dr. Phil.

-Sik

[Angus]

Lazs:
"What I got a problem with is the same buffoons who gave us public school and social security asking for money to run any program."

There are quite many countries that almost exclusively have a public school system as well as a public health care system.
If you draw the Europeans out, they are there, and the output is a higher level of education and better health care than the USA. Unless you are stone rich.

"What I got a problem with is phony science used to create a doomsday scenario so that I have to give money and power to scumbags like algore."

Well, what would be a doomsday scenario for mankind today has already occured by itself many times on the planet after there was advanced life. It has not occured since there was some intelligent life to speak of, - beginning with homo cromagnon.
As for the phoney science that are your words against facts.

Then on to fuels. Charon. You have well considered inputs.

Europe will not grow the energy it needs. But it can reduce imports of it by a lot. It can grow a lot that is not being grown. With less than 10% of the area used for agriculture, which is the main food source for mankind, on that densely populated "YOU-rope", the whole food is produced with a complete emissional balance. That's better than nothing.
As for performance and figures about the crops used, check out food rape. (raps). A good hectar (acre is 0.45) will give 3 tonnes of rape seed. Out of that you get oil and material for "cake", - high protein and mineral cattle feed. Then you have a huge amount of biomass as well. (carbon fiber. CARBON. The thing burns easily if dry, - just like straw). But anyway Charon, good to have an educated input

Then back to Lasz:
"Guy said he could stick his head in the holes in the block when the almost new motors blew. He said they looked like they had been running without oil. This was with the 80% stuff and lowering the amount has pretty much solved the problem."

This is a technical issue. It has not much to do with "bio" at all. You can technically make the finest fuel in the world from "bio".
As well as that what I've read, even on the websited from the oil companies, - that the biodiesel is actually considered better.
As for the winter temperatures, - that is a technical issue as well. Let me know, - after all, I live in Iceland  

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by McFarland
Didn't realize someone else on this board was enlightened to Thunder Road. In fact, that happened right around here.  

LOL It happened damned near everywhere. Around these neck of the woods it went on far past the repeal of prohibition. Even though alcohol was legaly available, it was not available to a lot unless long distances were driven to buy it. There was always someone willing to br9ng in the shine and make it real handy to obtain. Others bootlegged legaly produced booze into dry counties and places where it was not readily had. Still do.

Engines will run on shine, and very well.

Nope. A waste of time.

And I also know the old moonshiners ran their cars on their own shine. It was how they got it through the road blocks. It was the one place the police wouldn't think to check. And the cars ran fine on i

Nope. I think where you may be getting your spurs tangled up in your bloomers is on the tank issue. There usualy was a tank full of shine, sometimes even a regular gas tank, but it did not run the engine , nor was it connected to the fuel line. It ran the shiner`s pocket book instead.
Hint....never run a partialy full shine or booze tank........................o r so I`ve been told.

[lazs2]

mcfarland...  I have owned 2 47 chevies, a 48 and a couple of 40 and 41's

These cars come equipped with a 216 cubic inch six with a one barrel carb and a dipper system for oiling the rods and  with partial oil pressure system  at about 15 lbs... they use babbit bearings....not even inserts.

There... now you know more about your car than you did when "pawpaw" built it for you and told you it was running on moonshine.

lazs

[john9001]

Originally posted by RetroVirus
So I don’t know where this “starve a child, feed a saab” claptrap came from. Must be the latest redneck mantra…

he was referring to the 4th world countries, we have to feed the children so they can grow up and produce more starving children for us to feed.

[lazs2]

retro and angus...  I really think that it would be good if you looked at this site....

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It pretty much explains how I feel about the whole thing...  It is well written and footnoted and their are layers of links to go to.

It is every bit as "opptomistic" as I am and explains that we are in a natural and... so far as climate goes... benign and benificial warm period...

It explains some of the real causes for global climate and its changes and some of the shoddy and dishonest things the alarmists do to make their case.   It has interesting quotes from top people in the field like...

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."


Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)


 





"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."


former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations


 


 

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."


Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)



 


 

 "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."


Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)


 


 

"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."


Dr. David L. Lewis
(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)
(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)


 


 

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."


Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)


 


 

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."


Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"


 


 

 "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."


Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

lazs

[Angus]

Just a little question and then some info:

Is there anyone on this BB AGAINST the concept of the western world growing as much biofuel as they can?

And FYI, engines can run just fine on ethanol, methanol, as well as rapeseed oil. Engines as well as carburettors etc can also be built especially for running on those fuels. After all, a diesel will run nicely on rapeseed oil, - straight and crude, ust filtered.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lazs2

 "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."


Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

lazs

That says it all right there doesn't it?

[TwentyFo]

With the billions and billions of people on earth, there is no way we have had an impact on the environment. Even if we humans have doomed the earth, we will not be a live to see the end...So who cares, right? I'm only concerned about me and my life, I don't care about the polar ice caps melting away. I hope they do melt so I can be closer to the beach. I'm going to continue driving my 9 mpg SUV as much as I can to spite those scientists who think the world is in danger....ha.

[lazs2]

retro... but the facts remain that co2 is a minor little player in greenhouse gas... It is still water vapor and other gasees that is about 99.72% of greenhouse gas even when adjusted for contribution strength and... we can do nothing...yep total nada zp nothing about that... the rest.... methane and such..our contribution is small.   we can't do much so... we (the alarmists) are left with co2..

be it the 6 billion tons or 29 billion tons...it is still a tiny little fraction of the amount that nature produces... the total contribution of  co2 to greenhouse gas  is what?  2-3% or so... and then... only about 0.1-0-2% of all the co2 contribution is mans..

We are talking about reducing with the most draconian measures of kyoto about 30% of that tiny little fraction...    no sane person would even feel like it was worth it.   even if you use the most alarmist figures of 42 billion tons by 2050 or whatever... say they are not exaggerating this time (LOL).. it is still in the tenths of a percent of total greenhouse gas... an algore fart to the planet.

The satalite data for the last 2 decades is indeed for the US... it is, after all our program.  It shows that the data that many of the "scientists" are using for ground stations is flawed...  if it is flawed here... and the alarmists are using it anyway... why not elsewhere?   there is an ethical problem pointed out at least.

as for being written by an American for Americans... you might want to follow a few of  the links... the real meat of the thing.. look at the footnotes..  they are international in scope.

lazs

[lazs2]

So what are we left with?   the sun is doing the heating and cooling... we are fortunate to be in a warming cycle on a planet that is known for being in an ice age most of the time... life is good.

despite the dire warnings... we are better off now than almost any time in history...more food production... better standard of living... tied to warm climate.

even if the alarmists models are not that far off...we heat a degree or two... degrees...the effect will be good not bad... most of the planet will notice the increase in milder winters and maybe warmer nights.. most of the effect will not be on making the warmer times warmer so much as making the freezing times fraction warmer.

So what are the alarmist left with?   Nothing bad will happen... we can't do anything much about it (a tenth or two of a percent is nothing) without crippling whole economies.... so..

They simply get shrill....  yep... It is the fault of selfish Americans...  we are against radical change because we are "antienvironmentalists"

Or... sink to the pitiful... lazs hates us because we want his hot rod to run on ethanol...


The last is typical... I have said... bring it on..  I will go from 500 hp to 600 hp with a weekend of tuning... more hp more octane... oh yeah... hurt me some more!

I am the anti environment?   I bet I use less of everything than retro.   I use a hundredth of what his god algore does.


The planet heated and cooled without us for eons...more than it has now... it has had more c02   5 times more and it was a very good time for the planet.. the entire universe heats and cools just like us... why do you suppose that is?

lazs

[lazs2]

retro... we have nothing against making ethanol so long as it does not tax us or starve anyone or destroy economies.

Can you tell me what would happen tho if we made the best sustainable effort and produced say...  5-10% of our fuel as ethanol?   there would still be co2 production from this percent remember but... how much would that reduce the 0.1 or so % of mans contribution to greenhouse gas?  could it even be measured?  

would it change the temperature of the planet (using the most wild computer models) a hundreth of a degree in 5 decades?

it hurts nothing tho to try... so long as...well... so long as it hurts nothing...  so long as it is not forced.   Why pay more for nothing?  If oil prices go up then it makes sense... for instance... if the true cost of ethanol is $5  a gallon and another buck or so for taxes... well... when gasoline gets to be over $6 a gallon at the pump... ethanol will replace it

That is the way it should work.

No one here including your high priests of doom knows what we will have for tools 20-100 years from now or what the sun will do (although indications and history call for cooling)... to tell me I have to "do something" even tho it is a pimple on a hippos butt to make you feel better is insulting to me.

I can see that normal climate change affects tiny little islands and all but unpopulated frozen north countries more than us and that the fever to "do something" about the forces of nature would be stonger to a people who recall in the not too far past their river through london freezing over... normal swings affect you more.

the fact remains that for most of us...there has been no change in the last two decades to speak of and we aren't convinced that we have more than a negligible affect... for almost everyone.. this normal heating cycle has been a boon...  and will only get better till the suns activity slows or the earth tilts or whatever changes the weather again to a cooler cycle.. that is what is to be feared... the ice... not the palm tree.

lazs

[Angus]

Any recyclable form of energy, - basically using the sun in some practical way, - is IMHO opinion good.
You did not, as far as I can see, answer the question about it though.
As for the economical side, there are strong forces at work. It's short time profit, with no goal on a long scale. Strong forces that want to keep things as they are while possible. Forces that will use all means and a lot of propoganda. Unlike the scattered scientists that tend to spend a lot of time debating each others.
However, established science cannot been rattled, and I'll give you two facts.
1. The mass of the water in the glacial caps is more than the mass of earth's atmosphere.
2. Since we are warming so fast, that the melting ice doesn't even chill down the seawater a bit, there is NO reason to worry about cooling.

And a bonus. The planet has frozen quite a bit, but none of the major catastrophies on the planet occured from cooling. It was the opposite. However, an overwarming planet like Venus is....dead. Without greenhouse effect, Venus would actually be inhabitable. And there is no "SUN-STUPID" answer to that one, since Venus is much closer than we are.

[FBBone]

Retro, just wanted to point out that your little diagram fails to illustrate all of the coal and natural gas that your ethanol plant would consume.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by McFarland
If you're referring to Jesse James, he was no thief.  

Step away from the crack pipe.