the global warming swindle

[scubadoo]

Let me know when you spot the inventor of the internet riding a bike to his "gigs' or riding a horse. Maybe then I'll take his position seriously.
Last time I heard him on TV as a candidate he was claiming everything that is down should be up..and everything that is up should be down.
Al the Science Guy is nothing more than a dog and pony show.
I forgot...it wasn't until he was smoked out of his energy guzzlin house that he had it retrofitted to use less energy.
I heard he now claims to have invented the theory of global warming....go figger
Perhaps if he reduced the hot air coming form his mouth over the years the globe would have cooled down a degree or two.
I guess that places me with the folks that beleive we never made it to the moon...it was filmed in an AZ parking lot. That's what Al said on TV...if you're not down with brother Al you're living in a fantasy land. ...as stated by the inventor of the internet

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2578249
Perhaps if he reduced the hot air coming form his mouth over the years the globe would have cooled down a degree or two.

I think we're onto something here. All in favor of Al Gore shutting up say AYE.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2578249
From reading the information in the many posts contained in this thread I have come to the grand conclusion that if Al Gore would SHUT UP the world would be a cooler place to live.

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2579570
Perhaps if he reduced the hot air coming form his mouth over the years the globe would have cooled down a degree or two.

I think we're onto something here. All in favor of Al Gore shutting up say AYE.

 

[the egregious]

Everytime Al gore says somthing about the "Global warming catastrophe"
I burn 2,800 lbs of coal in my lawn.
but in all seriousness, I was watching something rather and basically they were saying how when Mt. Saint Hellens blew, she created more C02 emissions than all of man kind has ever done or ever will do. Maybe it wasn't C02 but it was some sort of chemical that global warming advocates say we create that destroys the world lol (sorry I teach history not chemistry )

 

[bang guy]

Aye

 

[stdreb27]

The hypothesis when you really think about is just preposterous. Just like the idea that somehow the earth's climate will never change. Or even that this climate we have now is the best climate for the earth. Maybe it would be better if the world was a little bit warmer or cooler. Just the whole idea doesn't make any sense. Then you get to the "solutions" like hybrid cars filled with batteries that are toxic, to madating pc bulbs with mercury in every house and light fixture.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2579910
The hypothesis when you really think about is just preposterous. Just like the idea that somehow the earth's climate will never change. Or even that this climate we have now is the best climate for the earth. Maybe it would be better if the world was a little bit warmer or cooler. Just the whole idea doesn't make any sense. Then you get to the "solutions" like hybrid cars filled with batteries that are toxic, to madating pc bulbs with mercury in every house and light fixture.
Preposterous might be a little strong but I respect your opinion.
I would REALLY like to become less dependent on foreign nations for energy though.

 

[reefraff]

I have no problem with alternative fuels and all that. It's this idiotic mantra that we must eliminate CO2 emissions that irritates me. The dufus governor of Colorado just signed a order requiring the state environmental quality to create regulation slashing CO2 emissions.
CO2 levels have increased around 30% since pre industrial revolution levels. Methane has increased by 150% and has about 25 times the potency of CO2 when it comes to warming. Why no push to decrease Methane emissions? Simple answer is the United States or Corporations and the deep pockets associated with both aren't responsable for methane emissions.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2580031
Preposterous might be a little strong but I respect your opinion.
I would REALLY like to become less dependent on foreign nations for energy though.
Sure but as far as I know we don't import "energy" persay. (I know that you are refering to oil but it should be clarified) We import oil. And very little oil is actually used to produce energy. (turbines, and generators sure but those are mainly used in emergency type situations)
But the real question since that is your motivation is how. Is it by lowing usage or increasing domestic output?In my mind lowering usage is like getting the federal government to lower its budget. Just not going to happen.
We can increase production domestically, and with stable countries in the Americas. heck Brazil just found another 33 billion barrels of oil they found 9 billion barrels in another field to top off the polvo field. As long as they don't join opec this would rival the Middle East's production and could significantly diminish opec's control on prices. Domestically they had the biggest find in the USA (besides in alaska) in north dakota a few months ago. It is very possible to be totally independent from Middle east oil in the next 10-20 years if we are able to develope these fields. But who is standing in our way. The evironmentalists.
They think that by changing light bulbs to power compacts, driving hybrids, using less toilet paper (thanks Cheryl Crow) that magically we'll save the world. It just doesn't add up.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2580064
I have no problem with alternative fuels and all that. It's this idiotic mantra that we must eliminate CO2 emissions that irritates me. The dufus governor of Colorado just signed a order requiring the state environmental quality to create regulation slashing CO2 emissions.
CO2 levels have increased around 30% since pre industrial revolution levels. Methane has increased by 150% and has about 25 times the potency of CO2 when it comes to warming. Why no push to decrease Methane emissions? Simple answer is the United States or Corporations and the deep pockets associated with both aren't responsable for methane emissions.
For all you conspiracy theorists out there. Maybe it is a money grab. We have these companies popping up. That Al Gore is invested in. Selling "carbon credits" What better way to make money than convince people they need to buy something then to tell them, buy this and save the world!

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2580989
Sure but as far as I know we don't import "energy" persay. (I know that you are refering to oil but it should be clarified) We import oil. And very little oil is actually used to produce energy. (turbines, and generators sure but those are mainly used in emergency type situations)
42 gallon barrel produces the following:
19.6 Gallons of Gas
10 Gallons of Diesel Fuel/Heating Oil
4 Gallons of Jet Fuel
1.7 Gallons of Heavy Fuel Oil
1.7 Gallons LPG
7.6 Gallons Other Products (Crayons, Ink, Bubble Gum, Dishwashing Liquids, Deodorant, Glasses, Tires, Ammonia, heart valves etc...)
It appears to me that most of what we import in the form of oil is used for energy. Therefore we are importing energy.
But the real question since that is your motivation is how. Is it by lowing usage or increasing domestic output?In my mind lowering usage is like getting the federal government to lower its budget. Just not going to happen.
Nuclear Power primarily in addition to other alternative energy sources until we invent a better solution.
We can increase production domestically, and with stable countries in the Americas. heck Brazil just found another 33 billion barrels of oil they found 9 billion barrels in another field to top off the polvo field. As long as they don't join opec this would rival the Middle East's production and could significantly diminish opec's control on prices. Domestically they had the biggest find in the USA (besides in alaska) in north dakota a few months ago. It is very possible to be totally independent from Middle east oil in the next 10-20 years if we are able to develope these fields. But who is standing in our way. The evironmentalists.
Last year we imported 3.7 Billion barrels of oil. Being reliant on Canada is't so terrible in my mind but for national security reasons we should be a LOT more self sufficient in terms of energy and manufacturing. I see no difference between importing from Brazil, Venesuela, or Saudi Arabia. It's still hundreds of billions of dollars leaving this country, never to return. Just my opinion.
think that by changing light bulbs to power compacts, driving hybrids, using less toilet paper (thanks Cheryl Crow) that magically we'll save the world. It just doesn't add up.
I agree with you.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581166
42 gallon barrel produces the following:
19.6 Gallons of Gas
10 Gallons of Diesel Fuel/Heating Oil
4 Gallons of Jet Fuel
1.7 Gallons of Heavy Fuel Oil
1.7 Gallons LPG
7.6 Gallons Other Products (Crayons, Ink, Bubble Gum, Dishwashing Liquids, Deodorant, Glasses, Tires, Ammonia, heart valves etc...)
It appears to me that most of what we import in the form of oil is used for energy. Therefore we are importing energy.
Nuclear Power primarily in addition to other alternative energy sources until we invent a better solution.
We are talking apples and oranges.
We aren't going to have a nuclear powered car any times soon.
We don't use oil to light up our house or run our AC. It is a crossover in the meanings of the word.
Oil production and Energy production are two separate issues with separate solutions, that are being attacked by the same groups.
If we generated all our power by nuclear means, it still wouldn't address where we import our oil from.
Likewise if we can import all our oil from this side of the world, it still change how we produce electricity.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2581286
We aren't going to have a nuclear powered car any times soon.
Nuclear power generates electricity which charges the batteries of all-electric cars or use the electricity to produce Hydrogen for fuel cells. There are Nuclear powered cars on the road today.
We don't use oil to light up our house or run our AC.
I'll agree that we don't use much oil to power our houses. We use mostly use Natural Gas and Coal.
If we generated all our power by nuclear means, it still wouldn't address where we import our oil from.
Sure it would. If we had electric cars, trains, and trucks we would have no need to import any oil.
Likewise if we can import all our oil from this side of the world, it still change how we produce electricity.
The idea is to find a way to avoid importing any oil and become self sufficient for our energy needs.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581442
Nuclear power generates electricity which charges the batteries of all-electric cars or use the electricity to produce Hydrogen for fuel cells. There are Nuclear powered cars on the road today.
I'll agree that we don't use much oil to power our houses. We use mostly use Natural Gas and Coal.
Sure it would. If we had electric cars, trains, and trucks we would have no need to import any oil.
The idea is to find a way to avoid importing any oil and become self sufficient for our energy needs.
Personally I'd rather burn gas and feed a few trees then have 250 million cars with nickel-metal hydride batteries. Just like I'd rather burn a little coal vs having 20 bulbs with tons of mercury in them.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2581469
Personally I'd rather burn gas and feed a few trees then have 250 million cars with nickel-metal hydride batteries. Just like I'd rather burn a little coal vs having 20 bulbs with tons of mercury in them.
Why not Lithium-Ion batteries?
So it's ok to burn the mercury along with the coal and send it up into the air but it's not ok to use a light bulb containing a spot of mercury? I'd rather use nuclear power than add mercury to every light bulb and I'd rather walk than import oil from Venesuela.

 

[1journeyman]

Nuclear, nuclear nuclear.....
It makes me ill that France has been smart enough to do this and we aren't.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581481
Why not Lithium-Ion batteries?
So it's ok to burn the mercury along with the coal and send it up into the air but it's not ok to use a light bulb containing a spot of mercury? I'd rather use nuclear power than add mercury to every light bulb and I'd rather walk than import oil from Venesuela.
Because the technology isn't there yet. (crap I can see the headline now, lithium batteries being stolen to make drugs.) lol.
I would too rather use nuclear power, it is clean, efficient, it works.
Finally the crazy greenpeace guys are comming around.
-Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.-
link
What is more amazing is that he just said there isn't any proof of manmade global warming. The silly thing is that he says we should "act" anyway. If there isn't any proof then why should we?
But congress mandating using pc bulbs. Which has alot of mercury. One of SCSInet's friends who runs a water treament plant, says there is more mercury in a 1 PC bulb than can pass through his plant in a year.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2581500
Because the technology isn't there yet. (crap I can see the headline now, lithium batteries being stolen to make drugs.) lol.

I have the utmost faith that the technology will be there before we have the electric capacity to use them.
I think Ethanol is a dead end until the technology exists to harvest microalgae. Corn Ethanol is a dead end IMO. Electric is the way to go, at least for the next 100 years.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581511

I have the utmost faith that the technology will be there before we have the electric capacity to use them.
I think Ethanol is a dead end until the technology exists to harvest microalgae. Corn Ethanol is a dead end IMO. Electric is the way to go, at least for the next 100 years.
With the finds on this side of the world, I'll be able to drive my 200 hp car for a loong time.

And I'll be able to watch NASCAR and have to wear ear protection!

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2581523
With the finds on this side of the world, I'll be able to drive my 200 hp car for a loong time.

And I'll be able to watch NASCAR and have to wear ear protection!

I admit, that's a huge downfall of electric. My cousin works with a Fuel Cell design team and showed me a 200 kilowatt car that was really really fast but had nothing close to the throaty rumble you get from gas. If anything it sounded whiney as it went from 0 to 60 is less than 4 seconds. The stupid onboard computer won't even let the tires spin so you can't even get a good chirp out of the rubber.

Electric NASCAR would be like watching TV with the sound off.