Debunking fuel conservation myths...

[nmgolfer]

personally i think the prius is the most backward P.O.S. ever (not that build quality is bad after all it is a toyota) but they mine the nickle for the batteries in canada then ship it the the UK where they treat it and make it into a foamy type of consistancy and then ship it again to toyota city, japan and then import them all over creation. hows that for a carbon foot print.

The Prius/hybrids will come into their own when people can plug them in at night and drive the first 60 on DC or better yet... have an all electric 200 mile capable city car and rent a long distance FE Yaris when necessary. Of course this future is predicated on electricity costs not being jacked up to match liquid fuel due to newly renamed/rebranded tax and cap money grabbing schemes.

[bkrownd]

Future electricity costs will be jacked up but it will have little to do with taxes. Fossil fuel costs will increase, and replacing fossil fuels with more sensible energy generation methods will be even more expensive. The era of artificially cheap energy will soon come to an end, so get ready for it.

[jcemitte]

@nmgolfer...



did anyone see my recant of aforementioned, above, ^^^, "backward P.O.S." comment?

[Kal-El]

Future electricity costs will be jacked up but it will have little to do with taxes. Fossil fuel costs will increase, and replacing fossil fuels with more sensible energy generation methods will be even more expensive. The era of artificially cheap energy will soon come to an end, so get ready for it.

There's more than enough fossil fuels to last another century and probably a lot longer even without conservation. Don't let environmentalists tell you different.

If Obama passes Cap and Trade, then yeah, taxes will be the bulk of cost. Direct quote from Obama: " Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electric rates will necessarily sky rocket".

Thanks Mr. President.

[nmgolfer]

There's more than enough fossil fuels to last another century and probably a lot longer even without conservation. Don't let environmentalists tell you different.

If Obama passes Cap and Trade, then yeah, taxes will be the bulk of cost. Direct quote from Obama: " Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electric rates will necessarily sky rocket".

Thanks Mr. President.

We must be patient with the cool-aide drinkers. They've been propagandized all of their short lives and few if any have the technical background to sort the wheat from the chafe when it comes to science climate or any other. No bones about it, it is a run of the mill concentration of power, wealth extraction scheme nothing more (cap and tax that is or what ever the heck they try to re-brand it as this next time).

[bkrownd]

There's more than enough fossil fuels to last another century and probably a lot longer even without conservation. Don't let environmentalists tell you different.


You don't get my drift. The cost will go up because the pollution and damage that fossil fuels cause won't be tolerated in such volumes in the future. The supply will be diminished, and the price will rise. There will be consumption/emissions taxes, as well. Just like cigarette taxes, it should help us kick a bad habit. It's about time! Don't let the irresponsible "conservatives" tell you different.

[STC]

Don't let the irresponsible "conservatives" tell you different.

Hi bkrownd, You forgot to place the "neo" in front of the "conservatives". Let me fix for you...

Don't let the irresponsible "neo-conservatives" tell you different.

Much better... :wink:

[BailOut]

There's more than enough fossil fuels to last another century and probably a lot longer even without conservation. Don't let environmentalists tell you different.
I have no idea where you get your information from but every single piece of data - not supposition but data - that I have ever found tells a much different, darker story. The best analysts in the world, from Royal Dutch Shell to Saudi ARAMCO to other major players in the industry, all agree on 2 things:

1) There is, at most, 40 to 50 years of affordable oil left if we drill and pump every single drop. Affordable means that even though there will still be some oil left it will be so hard to get to and so difficult to refine and offer such little usable return that it will not be cost effective to do so.

2) That we have achieved Peak Oil, meaning that no more oil will ever be pumped out of the Earth per day than is being pumped right now. This means that there is a known limited time supply, and 3 big groups are soon to be competing for it economically: The U.S., China and India. The only things holding gasoline at its current low price are our military and clandestine operations throughout the Middle East and other places, and that neither China nor India has enough cars on the road yet to have large requirements (which will soon change, first in China).

When you combine this information with the fact that we have just 40-70 years left of other resources such as aluminum and steel, and that the unpolluted fresh water sources that remain simply cannot sustain the Earth's human population for very long, you see that the future is indeed fraught with challenges. We can plan now and face these challenges head on with knowledge, sacrifice and solidarity, or we can race to the finish and crash and burn as we hit the wall.

[bkrownd]

Hi bkrownd, You forgot to place the "neo" in front of the "conservatives". Let me fix for you...

Don't let the irresponsible "neo-conservatives" tell you different.

Much better... :wink:

Oooh. Are those somewhere between the Dittoheads and the Palinites? I can never keep track of all these clubs... :iono: I am sad nobody took my stinky bait. :evil:

[STC]

Oooh. Are those somewhere between the Dittoheads and the Palinites? I can never keep track of all these clubs... :iono: I am sad nobody took my stinky bait. :evil:

:laughabove: Nah! The neocons are the "new" neanderthals walking the earth... :laugh: :bellyroll:

Neocons drive me nuts...

BTW... I'm a conservative with huge libertarian beliefs... You could say a Conservative Libertarian> :smile:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conservative%20Libertarian

[daf62757]

I have no idea where you get your information from but every single piece of data - not supposition but data - that I have ever found tells a much different, darker story. The best analysts in the world, from Royal Dutch Shell to Saudi ARAMCO to other major players in the industry, all agree on 2 things:

1) There is, at most, 40 to 50 years of affordable oil left if we drill and pump every single drop. Affordable means that even though there will still be some oil left it will be so hard to get to and so difficult to refine and offer such little usable return that it will not be cost effective to do so.

2) That we have achieved Peak Oil, meaning that no more oil will ever be pumped out of the Earth per day than is being pumped right now. This means that there is a known limited time supply, and 3 big groups are soon to be competing for it economically: The U.S., China and India. The only things holding gasoline at its current low price are our military and clandestine operations throughout the Middle East and other places, and that neither China nor India has enough cars on the road yet to have large requirements (which will soon change, first in China).

When you combine this information with the fact that we have just 40-70 years left of other resources such as aluminum and steel, and that the unpolluted fresh water sources that remain simply cannot sustain the Earth's human population for very long, you see that the future is indeed fraught with challenges. We can plan now and face these challenges head on with knowledge, sacrifice and solidarity, or we can race to the finish and crash and burn as we hit the wall.

I heard the same crap back in the 70s. Wasn't true then and I doubt its true now.

[PhotoDu.de]

I heard the same crap back in the 70s. Wasn't true then and I doubt its true now.

Could you and BailOut cite your sources?

[why?]

oh joy, another one of these discussions. Kinda worthless since no one will change their minds unlike the gentleman that originally came up with the dino oil theory. About 5 years later he decided oil was a biproduct of the planets processes.

And citing sources? This is the net, we don't do weird stuff like that.

Abiotic fuel is what you want to look up.

Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses To Vanish (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanish)

This is a great article.

To summarize it: westerners are morons and care only about who is paying them. Western science has been dead for over 50 years because of this.

[PhotoDu.de]

This is a blog post off a business news website. It's some guys opinion and not an objective look that the subject.
If oil is abiotic what evidence is there that it is being make enough to sustain current/future demand?
Even if we have an unlimited supply of oil, we have to deal with the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases made from burning petroleum products.
Finally, why would a company hide the fact that they have an unlimited source of income from their investors?

[jambo101]

This is a blog post off a business news website. It's some guys opinion and not an objective look that the subject.
If oil is abiotic what evidence is there that it is being make enough to sustain current/future demand?

Its more than some guys opinion its a scientific theory just like the theory that 90 million+ barrels of oil the world uses every day comes from decayed organic matter. Of course the theory of self sustaining oil reserves is widely debunked, can you imagine how much money big oil business would lose if the Abiotic theory were true?

Another link
http://mondovista.com/abioticoilx.html

[nmgolfer]

But you cannot make it drink...

Curious people research things for themselves. There is a ton of material on the web about the true origins of petroleum on planet earth and is ain't dead dinosaurs. Carbon is one of the four most abundant elements in the Universe. Carbon dioxide is NOT a polutant... in fact it is a requirement of life on planet Earth. Carbon dioxide lags global warming not leads it. These are just a few of the thing the the curious critical thinkers learn and the lemming will never ever know.

You must as yourself: Cui Bono... who benefits. Who benefits from convincing the simple minded lemmings that petroleum is derived from dead dinosaurs. Who benefits from controlling carbon and in turn life itself on planet earth? Who benefits when a ridiculous idea that a naturally occurring trace molecule of the air we breath CO2 is a pollutant? I'll give you a hint... it sure as heck is not the lemmings. Wake up... there is a larger agenda afoot, as there has always been from time immemorial.

If you're truly curious, not just trolling I suggest you read some of the articles by Chris Landau, a geologist, who knows exactly how petroleum is made inside the earths crust. http://www.opednews.com/author/author47248.html The Russians have known since 1950's and are one of the largest producers with their deep wells because of it. People can remain ignorant "sheeple" and like lemmings drop to their deaths or they can try critical thinking for themselves

This is a blog post off a business news website. It's some guys opinion and not an objective look that the subject.
If oil is abiotic what evidence is there that it is being make enough to sustain current/future demand?
Even if we have an unlimited supply of oil, we have to deal with the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases made from burning petroleum products.
Finally, why would a company hide the fact that they have an unlimited source of income from their investors?

[nmgolfer]

Because it justifies the price hikes and creates doubt which then influences the markets, wake up people this is all a big scam (gas prices). This is how a few control the many

Bingo... exactly. The entire "world order" is built around petrol-dollar control. Both world wars were made to happen because of it. A really excellent book on this not widely known true history of oil is: A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl. Here in the states gas price is controlled by limiting refining.

http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X

[PhotoDu.de]

Because it justifies the price hikes and creates doubt which then influences the markets, wake up people this is all a big scam (gas prices). This is how a few control the many
I think they would make more from an unlimited supply and people not conserving it.

[PhotoDu.de]

Its more than some guys opinion its a scientific theory just like the theory that 90 million+ barrels of oil the world uses every day comes from decayed organic matter. Of course the theory of self sustaining oil reserves is widely debunked, can you imagine how much money big oil business would lose if the Abiotic theory were true?

Another link
http://mondovista.com/abioticoilx.html

Mondovista.com? That's an even less credible link than the last one that was posted.

[PhotoDu.de]

But you cannot make it drink...

Curious people research things for themselves. There is a ton of material on the web about the true origins of petroleum on planet earth and is ain't dead dinosaurs. Carbon is one of the four most abundant elements in the Universe. Carbon dioxide is NOT a polutant... in fact it is a requirement of life on planet Earth. Carbon dioxide lags global warming not leads it. These are just a few of the thing the the curious critical thinkers learn and the lemming will never ever know.

You must as yourself: Cui Bono... who benefits. Who benefits from convincing the simple minded lemmings that petroleum is derived from dead dinosaurs. Who benefits from controlling carbon and in turn life itself on planet earth? Who benefits when a ridiculous idea that a naturally occurring trace molecule of the air we breath CO2 is a pollutant? I'll give you a hint... it sure as heck is not the lemmings. Wake up... there is a larger agenda afoot, as there has always been from time immemorial.

If you're truly curious, not just trolling I suggest you read some of the articles by Chris Landau, a geologist, who knows exactly how petroleum is made inside the earths crust. http://www.opednews.com/author/author47248.html The Russians have known since 1950's and are one of the largest producers with their deep wells because of it. People can remain ignorant "sheeple" and like lemmings drop to their deaths or they can try critical thinking for themselves

1) Ad hominem attacks don't help

2) CO2 is denser than the N2 and O2 that makes up most of the air. Denser object retain heat better than less dense objects. Air with more CO2 will be denser, retain more heat, and get warmer.

[PhotoDu.de]

Bingo... exactly. The entire "world order" is built around petrol-dollar control. Both world wars were made to happen because of it. A really excellent book on this not widely known true history of oil is: A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl. Here in the states gas price is controlled by limiting refining.

http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X

Are you trying to make an argument for or against saving gas? If we use less gas and find other energy sources we'd end the petrol-dollar system we have.

[nmgolfer]

I think they would make more from an unlimited supply and people not conserving it.

Wrong... a good analogy are diamonds.... Readily abundant and sold cheep for industrial application but by cornering the market Cecil Rhodes and crew make far more money by curtailing and slowly metering supply to a classically (Edward Benays) propagandized consuming public via. their cronies. Again here gas price controls are instituted not so much by controlling production (these days there are lots of producers not just the seven sister) but by controlling refinery output.

[nmgolfer]

Are you trying to make an argument for or against saving gas? If we use less gas and find other energy sources we'd end the petrol-dollar system we have.

I'm saying

1)Petroleum is probably limitless but that at the very least we are not running out anytime soon

2)The powers that be will not let us get away from petroleum because the entire world order is built around it

3)I'm saying Global warming is not caused by man but by naturally occuring cycle but that will not stop the control freaks that have eugenics and totalitarian fascistic agendas from using it to tighten their vice grips on peoples lives.

I'd like nothing better than to never have to purchase gasoline again, to drive and electic vehicle with juice I maded on my property from the sun and the wind and or an internal combustion fueled by hydrogen produced from water sun and wind. All completely doable but no before taking our live back from those who seek to dominate us.

[PhotoDu.de]

nmgolfer, you really need to substantiate your claims.
Also, what do eugenics and totalitarianism have to do with getting people to put less greenhouse gases in the air?
Also gem diamonds are not plentiful while industrial ones are (and some can be produced synthetically). Gem diamond prices are also over inflated because DeBeers holds a monopoly in the market. Comparing diamonds to oil is not a fair analogy.

[Astroman]

Drill baby drill

[PhotoDu.de]

Spill baby spill

[Crims0n5]

I'm saying

3)I'm saying Global warming is not caused by man but by naturally occuring cycle but that will not stop the control freaks that have eugenics and totalitarian fascistic agendas from using it to tighten their vice grips on peoples lives.



We'll you are right when you say that man is not the "cause" of global warming. However, I haven't heard any credible source blaming man for global warming. It is a natural cycle that has been occurring. The real argument is whether our actions are bringing on Global Climate Change at rather accelerated rate.

[Crims0n5]

But you cannot make it drink...

Curious people research things for themselves. There is a ton of material on the web about the true origins of petroleum on planet earth and is ain't dead dinosaurs. Carbon is one of the four most abundant elements in the Universe. Carbon dioxide is NOT a polutant... in fact it is a requirement of life on planet Earth. Carbon dioxide lags global warming not leads it. These are just a few of the thing the the curious critical thinkers learn and the lemming will never ever know.

You must as yourself: Cui Bono... who benefits. Who benefits from convincing the simple minded lemmings that petroleum is derived from dead dinosaurs. Who benefits from controlling carbon and in turn life itself on planet earth? Who benefits when a ridiculous idea that a naturally occurring trace molecule of the air we breath CO2 is a pollutant? I'll give you a hint... it sure as heck is not the lemmings. Wake up... there is a larger agenda afoot, as there has always been from time immemorial.

If you're truly curious, not just trolling I suggest you read some of the articles by Chris Landau, a geologist, who knows exactly how petroleum is made inside the earths crust. http://www.opednews.com/author/author47248.html The Russians have known since 1950's and are one of the largest producers with their deep wells because of it. People can remain ignorant "sheeple" and like lemmings drop to their deaths or they can try critical thinking for themselves

You are right. In trace amounts CO2 is not a pollutant. However the concentration of CO2 and other green house gasses have been increasing over the years. After all, Arsenic doesn't become a poisonous until it reaches a certain concentration in the body.

If you are considering a larger agenda coming from those who are promoting the global climate change issues, we must also consider the possibility of an agenda being forced on us by those trying to disprove man's influence on global climate change.

[PhotoDu.de]

If you are considering a larger agenda coming from those who are promoting the global climate change issues, we must also consider the possibility of an agenda being forced on us by those trying to disprove man's influence on global climate change.

Never listen to talking heads (but feel free to listen to Talking Heads).

[nmgolfer]

nmgolfer, you really need to substantiate your claims.
Also, what do eugenics and totalitarianism have to do with getting people to put less greenhouse gases in the air?
Also gem diamonds are not plentiful while industrial ones are (and some can be produced synthetically). Gem diamond prices are also over inflated because DeBeers holds a monopoly in the market. Comparing diamonds to oil is not a fair analogy.

I don't have to substantiate anything. You're free to choose to remain ignorant. This is not a debate class. Eugenics and totalitarianism have everything to do with the phony ginned up anthropogenic "climate change" scam. Diamonds are a perfectly good analogy, both are commodities in abundant supply that are use to generate tremendous wealth for a select few mainly by market manipulation.

Do you know what the number one greenhouse gas is? Its water vapor. What will the control freaks come up with next? Banning cloud formation? Do you know what the source of cloud formation (water vapor) in the atmosphere is? Ill give you a hint ... its the same thing thats causing warming (that is if the climate warm-mongers data is even valid) Its the sun... ions from the sun in combination with micro particulates. You can substantiate that for yourself as well.

[nmgolfer]

We'll you are right when you say that man is not the "cause" of global warming. However, I haven't heard any credible source blaming man for global warming. It is a natural cycle that has been occurring. The real argument is whether our actions are bringing on Global Climate Change at rather accelerated rate.


Theres no question... man has no measurable influence on the climate. One volcanic eruption... you know like the one that recently occured in Iceland shutting down air traffic in Europe releases more CO2 into the atmosphere that everything cumulatively mankind has ever released. Did you know most volcanic activity is under the sea where it goes unmonitored and detected? Yep... theres your souce of CO2 but the warm-mongers will not discuss it... can't be blamed on Mankind's activities.

Arsenic in any concentration is a poison. It may not make one person sick (while another dies...) in low dosage but its still a poison. CO2 on the otherhand is not a poison or a pollutant. CO2 is released into the atmosphere when the Earths climate warms... it an EFFECT not a CAUSE. Its been in much higher concentrations with no ill effects for living creatures in the past too.

Heres the real problem... some in this country are so dumbed down they conflate carbon monoxide which they know can kill and comes out of an auto's exhaust pipe with carbon dioxide which is essential for photosynthesis hence life as we know it.

[nmgolfer]

We'll you are right when you say that man is not the "cause" of global warming. However, I haven't heard any credible source blaming man for global warming. It is a natural cycle that has been occurring. The real argument is whether our actions are bringing on Global Climate Change at rather accelerated rate.

ok oil is not limitless, you cant have something out of thin air. Oil is basically petrified/fermented/decomposed/liquefied/compressed/etc biological matter (i.e dinos, plants, etc) and it takes ages (thousands if not million of years) to produce, there is no magic tap that constantly pours out crude (no gulf jokes please:biggrin:), so yes we will eventually run out of it, quicker than it takes for it to replenish. The point is, no one knows for sure when will this happen and the people that say it will be within the next 50 years are the sly devils that own the wells creating a justification for filling their pockets with your cash. It's like asking a fox to guard the hen (no sh%^ they will say "sure sure I'll be honest about it and tell you the truth"). What is needed is an independent, honest and unbiased person or group to verify the claims on both sides.As for global warming even the scientists are divided because they simply cant predict, they can study models and make educated guesses but it's all it is an educated guess. So both sides of this argument are correct and wrong at the same time unless there is scientific (repeatable and measurable) and unbiased proof

No you're wrong... People believed the earth was flat once too. They were wrong. There is more than enough limestone for millions years of petroleum production by an for us by our mother earth. Maybe by then we'll have access to the better solutions.

Science will always be politicized. Heck Galileo was thown in a dungeon for saying the evidence suggest that the Sun is the center of the Universe. There was very little funding for climate research until the APW scam was seized apon... those scientists are not going report the truth.. they're going to "hide the decline" and punish dissent... they've got carreers to build mouths to feed and cars and homes to buy. They know if they don't produce the results their funder's want some one else will. But there are more than 30,000 honest scientists who are screaming at the top of their lungs that is all a bunch of Hogwash this global warming scam... Do they get to be heard? No of course not because that doesn't support the agenda. If you think dissent is not silenced in scientific research or any politics for that matter you're not one. Scientists cling tightly to the accepted dogmas and Politicians out CIA agents to circle the wagons around the propaganda machine.

[nmgolfer]

1) Ad hominem attacks don't help

2) CO2 is denser than the N2 and O2 that makes up most of the air. Denser object retain heat better than less dense objects. Air with more CO2 will be denser, retain more heat, and get warmer.

Consider this... if CO2 is heavier (which it is) it should sink to the ground ... which it does ergo no greenhouse effect! Its not helium afterall... how are you going to get it up there to cause all that warming?

[Crims0n5]

Consider this... if CO2 is heavier (which it is) it should sink to the ground ... which it does ergo no greenhouse effect! Its not helium afterall... how are you going to get it up there to cause all that warming?

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.

[jambo101]

Mondovista.com? That's an even less credible link than the last one that was posted.

The link was posted to clarify what the Abiotic oil theory is all about not to justify one way or the other its legitimacy as a theory.
Whats your conspiracy theory behind Mondovista.com?:confused: I've never heard of them and thought their description of the Abiotic theory was quite understandable.

[bkrownd]

If you think dissent is not silenced in scientific research or any politics for that matter you're not one. Scientists cling tightly to the accepted dogmas and Politicians out CIA agents to circle the wagons around the propaganda machine.

Pull that tin foil hat on tight! :rolleyes:

[PhotoDu.de]

Consider this... if CO2 is heavier (which it is) it should sink to the ground ... which it does ergo no greenhouse effect! Its not helium afterall... how are you going to get it up there to cause all that warming?
:laughabove:

You do realize there is something call wind, right?

jambo101, lets check out some of the headlines on Mondovista.com:
-Noah's Ark is discovered (again) in Turkey
-Suggestions for preperaring for 2012 doomsday
-It's easy to make an H-BOMB! Just add lithium
-Gray Alien caught on SA tape?
and the best one yet
-Will Cognitive Dissonance Fool You? :bellyroll:

I have no conspiracy theory behind Mondovista.com. It's just not a credible source because it's a conspiracy theory website.

[jambo101]

I have no conspiracy theory behind Mondovista.com. It's just not a credible source because it's a conspiracy theory website.

So what is about the description of the Abiotic theory that they provide that gives you a problem? and if you were to post a link describing the Abiotic theory to people who have no idea what we are talking about which link would you post.?

[nmgolfer]

:laughabove:

You do realize there is something call wind, right?



You do realize helium is prevalent in the upper atmosphere don't you? Why do you suppose that is? :iono:

[nmgolfer]

Pull that tin foil hat on tight! :rolleyes:

Bury that head in the sand DEEP!

[nmgolfer]

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.

"Projected" By whom? The pseudo-scientists at the CRU? By lickspittle pseudo-scientists caught lying about data at NASA http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000 ? Anybody can say anything but that does not make it true. CO2 is increasing yes... because we've been coming out of the little ice age for centuries!

[PhotoDu.de]

So what is about the description of the Abiotic theory that they provide that gives you a problem? and if you were to post a link describing the Abiotic theory to people who have no idea what we are talking about which link would you post.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
You do realize helium is prevalent in the upper atmosphere don't you? Why do you suppose that is? :iono:
It's also prevalent in the lower atmosphere, because of wind.
"Projected" By whom? The pseudo-scientists at the CRU? By lickspittle pseudo-scientists caught lying about data at NASA http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000 ? Anybody can say anything but that does not make it true. CO2 is increasing yes... because we've been coming out of the little ice age for centuries!
The reason they dropped stations was because of the way they were collecting data: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/ http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/08/an-alternative-land-temperature-record-may-help-allay-critics-data-concerns/
Satellite data confirms the data of ground weather stations. If John Coleman had credable evidence he should share it with the scientific community and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. He aired his special on KUSI because there is more money there than being an accredited scientist.
CO2 is also increasing because be burn petro-chemicals, which is also releasing other even worse greenhouse gases.
Even if we forget about climate change, there are still other reason we need to end our dependence on petroleum; ground water contamination, soil contamination, oil spills, limited supply, destruction of wildlife habitats to find oil, etc.

[yarrr]

Are all 23 posts by nmgolfer in this thread? I'm too lazy to check.

The complete lack of information and ignorance found in all but a few posts in this thread are basically what's wrong with the entire world.

My favorites:

1)Limitless oil
2)that takes thousands(if not millions) of years to form.. ya I think we're out of the thousands here but good try buddy.
3)If we didn't run out of oil in the 70s we will never run out. Sound argument there.
4)Russia has 300 40,000 foot wells. The only people interested in Russia's tech is Iran.
5)Diamonds to oil - people don't wear oil, its not a fashion statement. Your theory breaks down after that.
6)Man dumping tons of Co2 every day, with other pollutants, has no effect on climate. Can't even comment on that one its so dumb.
7)One volcano pollutes more than humans ever could possibly do - reality check brought to you by 10 seconds on google:
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.


I believe in Global Warming, but I guarantee mankind's ignorance will kill us all before global warming gets us.

[nmgolfer]

The one thing you wrote that rings true....

I'm too lazy to check.

Seems.. you're clueless. :thumbdown:

About "Data" from supposedly trusted "accredited" sources....

Processed, smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated? Data extension? Data integration? No actual data? Making atmospheric measurements that will facilitate a predetermined conclusion?

Greenhouse Gas Observatories Downwind from Erupting Volcanoes

By Andrew Walden

Problems in the collection of atmospheric CO2 data parallel other absurdities in the global warming fraud. The Climategate scandal is exposing the massive and systematic fraud behind the fabrication of the worldwide temperature record necessary to make the case for global warming. But what about the record of atmospheric CO2?

The U.S. NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which "contains no actual data." NOAA temperature stations sited in ways that artificially inflate temperatures have been exposed over the past two years. CO2 observatories have similar flaws. Two of the five NOAA "baseline" stations are downwind from erupting volcanoes. All five are subject to localized or regional CO2 sources.

Climategate collaborator Dr. Andrew Manning worked with Dr. David Keeling, founder of the Mauna Loa Observatory, where atmospheric CO2 is measured. Manning, whose name appears in 37 Climategate emails, tells BBC: (emphasis added)

The goal behind starting the measurements was to see if it was possible to track what at that time was only a suspicion: that atmospheric CO2 levels might be increasing owing to the burning of fossil fuels.



To do this, a location was needed very far removed from the contamination and pollution of local emissions from cities; therefore Mauna Loa, high on a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean was chosen.


Without this curve, and Professor Keeling's tireless work, there is no question that our understanding and acceptance of human-induced global warming would be 10-20 years less advanced than it is today.



Mauna Loa has been producing a readout which supports Manning's predetermined goal by showing steady growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959. This record, highlighted in Al Gore's discredited movie An Inconvenient Truth, is known as the Keeling Curve. A graph of the curve is engraved on a bronze plaque mounted at the entrance to the Observatory’s Keeling Building, 10,000 feet above sea level on the rocky north flank of Mauna Loa. According to the Observatory website: "The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change."

For some reason, they fail to mention the erupting volcano next door.


In the world of global warming climate modeling, massive volcanic explosions are tied to short periods of regional or even global cooling caused by the injection of volcanic gases and particulates into the upper atmosphere. For instance, Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 explosion shot twenty million tons of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, deflecting as much as 12% of the sun's warming rays.


Just thirty miles from the observatory, Kilauea's Pu`u O`o vent sends 3.3 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That's enough to change local CO2 concentrations without producing the kind of SO2 volumes needed to have worldwide temperature effects. Pu`u O`o has been erupting continuously since 1983. Since 2008 it has been joined by a second eruption even closer to the Observatory -- from Halema`uma`u Crater at the top of Kilauea.


The Nature Conservancy estimate of CO2 produced by human activity is roughly 5.5 tons from each of the world's six billion people. (If you exceed this amount, the Nature Conservancy will "offset" your excess carbon for a tax-deductable $20-per-ton contribution.) Pu`u O`o sends into "the undisturbed air" near "the remote location" the equivalent to yearly CO2 production from an average city of 660,000 people. Air trajectory charts show that most of the air reaching Mauna Loa Observatory first passes over Pu`u O`o and Halema`uma`u.

A USGS fact sheet produced in 2000 describes the effect of "volcanic air pollution" from Pu`u O`o. "On the Island of Hawai`i, the trade winds blow the vog from its main source on the volcano to the southwest, where wind patterns send it up the island's Kona coast. Here, it becomes trapped by daytime (onshore) and nighttime (offshore) sea breezes. In contrast, when light 'Kona' winds blow, much of the vog is concentrated on the eastern side of the island, but some can even reach Oahu, more than 200 miles to the northwest."


Volcanologists have measured CO2 concentrations as high as 48.9% at the Kilauea summit hotspot. After Halema`uma`u began erupting, the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared the Big Island of Hawaii to be a federal disaster area. Forty-five of the forty-eight protea growers downwind of the eruptions have been wiped out by VOG.


In spite of the claims about "undisturbed air," there is a clear difference between eruption years and non-eruption years in the rate of growth of Mauna Loa CO2 readings.


During the 1969-74 Mauna Ulu eruption, also in Kilauea’s East Rift, Mauna Loa set two records for CO2 increase.
Kilauea’s East Rift again erupted in 1977, expelling 32 million cubic meters of magma -- and the 1977 rate of increase at Mauna Loa Observatory set another record.
In seven of the 25 years of continuous eruption since 1983, annual CO2 growth rates measured at Mauna Loa exceeded those of all previous years.
Average CO2 concentration increase for the 17 non-eruption years is 1.00 ppm.
Average CO2 concentration increase for the 33 eruption years is 1.62 ppm.


It wasn't always easy to win funding for Mauna Loa. Climategate collaborator Manning explains: "Dave Keeling suffered many sleepless nights, even as late as in the 1990s, being forced again and again to justify continued funding of his programme." A chapter of Spencer Weart’s 2008 book The Discovery of Global Warming lionizes Keeling’s efforts. Its title: "Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels."

But the funding did start to roll in, and Mauna Loa is no longer alone. A "global network" of over one hundred CO2 stations is now headed by Mauna Loa and four other "baseline" observatories. Their readouts are used to produce a worldwide CO2 readout called GLOBALVIEW CO2.



If localized volcanic activity is affecting CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, why would the "global network" be following along? Perhaps it's because all of the CO2 stations -- including the NOAA's other baseline stations at the South Pole; American Samoa; Trinidad Head, CA; and Pt. Barrow, AK -- are subject to localized, and in some cases regional, CO2 influences.

The American Samoa observatory is about 150 miles downwind from where the one-mile wide Nafanua volcano has emerged. The undersea volcano is described by University of Sydney marine scientist Dr. Adele Pile as producing an undersea environment with an acidic pH of 3 (similar to vinegar), carbon dioxide bubbling up "like champagne," and extremely hot venting water so toxic that "any life swimming into this pit immediately dies, except these amazing scavenging worms." Woods Hole oceanographers report they "discovered that hot, smoggy water from the crater was spilling over the top or through breaches in the crater rim and billowing outward. It formed a halo around the rim that was hundreds of feet thick and extended more than 4 miles." In addition, Samoa's lush tropical vegetation is a big daytime consumer of CO2 thus dropping CO2 levels sharply during the day and raising them sharply at night.
Trinidad Head Observatory is on a Northern California peninsula jutting into the Pacific about twenty miles north of Eureka, CA. Like Samoa, Trinidad Head is subject to substantial vegetation-driven changes in CO2 levels from the surrounding temperate forests and wetlands. The prevailing winds come in off the Pacific, which are influenced by coal-happy China.
The South Pole Observatory is just yards away from a power plant which burns jet fuel 365 days a year to provide electricity and heat for Amundsen Station. (Researchers claim that prevailing winds come from the opposite direction.) It is also about 800 miles from Antarctica's Mt. Erebus volcano, which has continuously erupted since 1972. Because the atmosphere's ability to carry water vapor is cut approximately in half by every ten-degree-C drop in temperature, the extremely low temperatures at the South Pole mean that only trace amounts of water vapor are in the atmosphere. CO2 mixes with water vapor in the atmosphere to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid), giving rainfall a slightly acidic pH and washing CO2 from the air. The uniquely dry and cold conditions of the South Pole prevent this from occurring, thus altering the natural atmospheric carbon elimination process and magnifying the effect of CO2 sources. Amundsen Station personnel and emissions from the 12,000-foot Mt. Erebus volcano are also implicated in the 1990s ozone hole scam.

The Observatory at Point Barrow, Alaska is about 170 miles downwind from the Prudhoe Bay headquarters of the North Slope oil industry. It is therefore subject to a localized increase in man-made air pollution, including CO2 emissions. Coincidentally, of course, the Barrow Observatory was established in 1973 -- just before construction began on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Barrow is also annually subject to several months of "Arctic haze," which University of Alaska Geophysicist Ned Rozell indicates is from ex-Soviet and new Chinese "iron, nickel and copper smelters and inefficient coal-burning plants."

CO2 produced by China's massive and growing reliance on coal is being used to justify CO2 controls on the U.S. and Europe. The Pacific bias of these five "baseline" locations is hard to miss. If one were seeking CO2 increases, downwind of China would be the place to go find them.

The NOAA's preference for warm maritime CO2 collection sites on ocean waters between 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south -- including many reached only by boat -- means that "flask network" collections are primarily conducted in highly humid areas. When the flasks are returned to Mauna Loa, the water vapor is removed by heating. This process breaks H2O out of the carbolic acid, leaving behind the CO2 to be measured in the dry air sample. Besides the South Pole, few CO2 flasks are sent to low-humidity desert areas with less airborne carbolic acid to measure as CO2. All of these variables create the opportunity for mischief.

Local CO2 consumption by photosynthesis can produce a profound daylight decline and nighttime increase in CO2 concentrations. Calculations to account for these and other local or regional fluctuations create a lot of room for "hiding the decline," "fudge factors," and the other CRU-style techniques characteristic of politically-driven "post-normal" science.

As the Copenhagen talks approach, the November 23 AP headline blares: "Mauna Loa Observatory's carbon dioxide readings near worst-case scenario." In the midst of the Climategate revelations, the AP replicates global warming front-man Geoff Jenkins' 1996 Climategate scam by releasing "projected" CO2 concentrations of 390 ppm early -- the "highest for the past million years" -- "for the silly season."

In 2008, Mauna Loa readings of 387 ppm were supposed to be "The highest in 650,000 years," according to the U.K.'s Guardian. Can't they make up their minds?

Of course, neither the AP nor the Guardian makes note of the fact that the latest CO2 increases come in the midst of a climatic cooling cycle. Nor are the "paleo"-records of CO2 "for the past million years" questioned, even as "paleo"-temperature records are completely discredited as being the fraudulent work of politically motivated hacks at the East Anglia CRU.


Instead, AP-readers are expected to trust "[t]he Mauna Loa researchers [who] extend their measurements through their 'flask network' -- containers sent to dozens of places around the world each week or carried on commercial ships so people can fill them with air and send them back to be measured for CO2 and other gases."

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) boldly announces the methodology behind its worldwide CO2 chart created from these "Flask Network" readings:


GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is derived using the data extension and data integration techniques described by Masarie and Tans [1995].



The impetus for the work done by the many cooperating organizations and institutions is to make atmospheric measurements of trace gas species that will facilitate a better understanding of the processes controlling their abundance. These and other measurements have been widely used to constrain atmospheric models that derive plausible source/sink scenarios. Serious obstacles to this approach are the paucity of sampling sites and the lack of temporal continuity among observations from different locations. Consequently, there is the potential for models to misinterpret these spatial and temporal gaps resulting in derived source/sink scenarios that are unduly influenced by the sampling distribution. GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is an attempt to address these issues. ...


In case readers don't get the point, the NOAA also explains (emphasis in original):


GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is derived from measurements but contains no actual data. To facilitate use with carbon cycle modeling studies, the measurements have been processed (smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated) resulting in extended records that are evenly incremented in time.


Processed, smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated? Data extension? Data integration? No actual data? Making atmospheric measurements that will facilitate a predetermined conclusion?

[jambo101]

Sure hope you copied and pasted all that, :biggrin:
Would have said why not just post the link but it seems all links have to be approved by photodu.de these days:wink:
Wikipedia eh, A veritable bastion of reliable info :biggrin:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=wikipedia+mistakes&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=wikipedia+mist&gs_rfai=&fp=9bda1a6f71d89fd6

[nmgolfer]

Sure hope you copied and pasted all that, :biggrin:
Would have said why not just post the link but it seems all links have to be approved by photodu.de these days:wink:
Wikipedia eh, A veritable bastion of reliable info :biggrin:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=wikipedia+mistakes&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=wikipedia+mist&gs_rfai=&fp=9bda1a6f71d89fd6

Ya I copy/pasted :smile: Some people are too LAZY to click on links as as for the witchesfoot as a reliable source... don't get me started.... Well seems and independent panel has excoriated the frauds and charlatans at the IPCC today...

IPCC climate change panel needs transparency, review panel finds
The IPCC climate change advisory panel, stung by criticism that it ignored dissenting views, underwent an independent review of its management. Observers have called the report 'remarkably hard-hitting.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7972034/IPCC-told-to-stop-lobbying-and-restrict-role-to-explaining-climate-science.html

If climate science were conducted the way science is supposed to be conducted there would likely be no concerns about global warming and it would certainly be clear that there is NO CONSENSUS...

... But there's no profits in that for the controllers and they need their impending global catastrophe to further empower the non-elected totally unaccountable undemocratic supra-national collectivist UN. And the beat goes on...

[fmicle]

Well, if CO2 is a pollutant, you better never try to revive anyone by giving them rescue breaths. After all, you'd be "poisoning them with your CO2".

I recently learned about this "Snowball Earth" theory; about 650 million years ago, the Earth was completely frozen. They say it's estimated that the CO2 levels needed to thaw that were 250 times the levels of today. So where did all that CO2 go? It must still be here somewhere...

How about Mt. Pinatubo eruption? Didn't that lower global temperatures for like 2 or 3 years because of all ash in the atmosphere?

I hate pollution because I don't want to get cancer, but I don't think we can do much about the warming, other than move a bit farther north. Personally, I've always wanted to check out Montana...

Another piece of bad news: the sun will be entering a new phase of peak activity in its 11 year cycles, so prepare for more toasty times...

[bkrownd]

Clearly scientists have failed to account for the CO2 that comes from UFO tail pipes! How do you think those Motherships and their Swarm stay up in the air? They are producing ENORMOUS plumes of exhaust, and the mind-control machines are doubtless massive energy hogs! Where is the accounting of these pollution sources in the scientific data? Missing? HIDDEN?!? Can you say "coverup"?!?!! :smoking:

[nmgolfer]

Unlike some of the some of the readers of this thread, you know who you are bkround and yarr, this guy gets it:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Why is it that we keep reading things like this months later in the so-called "mainstream media"?

There is no certain bet in nuclear physics but work by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) on the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors may be the magic bullet we have all been hoping for, though we have barely begun to crack the potential of solar power.

Gee, where did I read that before?

Each ton of coal we burn up contains 13 times as much energy as that liberated by combustion of the carbon in said Thorium. We could thus receive the same electrical energy we gain by burning the coal through extracting the Thorium and using the nuclear energy to produce power. With the rest of the energy, the other 12/13ths, we could then extract hydrogen from seawater (which we have lots of) and convert the remaining coal to either diesel fuel or gasoline. To put a not-fine-point on this, we throw away more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline (after conversion losses) in thorium tailings alone. That is damn close to all of our existing gasoline consumption - with ZERO oil being drilled. (PS: Those are conservative estimates - mathematically, it's 200 billion gallons!)

Funny, that.

Even funnier that this isn't exactly rocket science. Oh yeah, we had one running at Oak Ridge for quite some time. The operators intentionally left it both unattended and without power twice in an attempt to make it melt down. It drained itself and shut down exactly as designed. No boom, no china syndrome, no radioactive waste release. In the morning they came and restarted it without incident by simply re-heating the material and pumping it back into the core. No muss, no fuss, no cloud over Oak Ridge.

Even better is that these things burn nuclear waste, turning long-life isotopes into short-life ones. The sort that decay into non-harmful isotopes within a few years, at which point they can be processed into their useful rare-earth elements (which are not radioactive.)

We have solutions to our energy problems folks. We just simply refuse to use them - and whether your political persuasion is of the left or right variety, you might want to ask your favorite politician why?

Wouldn't it be nice to create some high-paying jobs putting Throium-cycle nuclear power infrastructure into place in this country? Yes, you'd have to put a cork into the "NIMBY" folks with Federal Laws that would preempt the nonsense that is typically run with these sorts of projects.

But the question is this: Do we want to live in a petroleum-constrained nation forever, with an increasing amount of dependence on nations that hate us, or would we like to break their backs and become independent from them?


There are technical solutions to every problem mankind faces except that one where in the elites want to kill off 90% of the rest of us! Its all about control and eugenics. Has been for eons. Heck the Trojan wars were fought because of overpopulation. Nobody likes pollution, but burning gasoline for transportation purposes sure beats dumping into the rivers like the Rockefellers did at the turn of the last century before they unplugged the automobile industry. (Gasoline is a waste product we're stuck with as long as we use petroleum for thing like plastics)

[ChilliwackGuy]

You know what? I've never really had a good pickle!

[yarrr]

He's a nukular physicist AND a meteorologist. I'm impressed.

Yessss the "magic bullet" of "said thorium" (wait where did I say it before? or is it throium? you'd think I'd learn to use spell check some time on my way to becoming a world renowned scientist with respected views). What's with those stupid electric companies setting up multi billion dollar wind and solar farms. Why don't they just use this free energy?



And yes, I agree with you fmicle. If a few people would just stop breathing this whole global warming thing would be solved.

[nmgolfer]

More on the thorium cycle reactor and the energy independence your loving government (NOT) will not let you have...


http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2139398
Energy: Are You A Pig - And A Bigot?

There are a huge number of what some on the right call "Limousine Liberals" that preach all sorts of BS about "energy efficiency", "global warming" or "alternative fuels."

I have yet to see one with actual resources - one who is not reasonably wealthy or better - that is not a hypocrite or worse, exploiting people and playing on fear for their ECONOMIC benefit and to your detriment.

Let's deal with some facts. I will not provide the references, but I do have them. You will do your own homework if you care to. If you don't, just skip to the next Ticker, as I'll provide you with fair warning here and now - if you come into the forum to run some sort of claptrap you'll only do it once, as my tolerance for the nutball lefties on this subject (including the jackasses who showed up on Pensacola's beach to claim "no drilling" but got there in their SUVs) is utterly exhausted.

Facts:

We have a lot of coal in this country. It contains Thorium, which is a natural substance that can be used to build nuclear piles. Said technology was developed and built more than 30 years ago - this is not "pie in the sky" technology.

Each ton of coal we burn up contains 13 times as much energy as that liberated by combustion of the carbon in said Thorium. We could thus receive the same electrical energy we gain by burning the coal through extracting the Thorium and using the nuclear energy to produce power. With the rest of the energy, the other 12/13ths, we could then extract hydrogen from seawater (which we have lots of) and convert the remaining coal to either diesel fuel or gasoline. To put a not-fine-point on this, we throw away more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline (after conversion losses) in thorium tailings alone. That is damn close to all of our existing gasoline consumption - with ZERO oil being drilled. (PS: Those are conservative estimates - mathematically, it's 200 billion gallons!)

We know how to build fast breeder reactors. It is true that we have a limited supply of U-235, because it is a tiny proportion of the natural deposit in terms of isotopes. However, we have a lot of U-238 and we can turn that into Pu-239 in said Breeder Reactor. That produces both more nuclear fuel and electricity.

We like our cars. We like our Air Conditioning. We like our electricity, peak load of which is often generated with natural gas. We like our 3,000 square foot houses, our computers, our bigscreen TVs and other electrical and electronic knick-knacks. All of these require energy to operate.

A growing economy requires a growing energy output. There is no escaping this fact, despite it being inconvenient.

We have a lot of oil and natural gas in various forms in the United States. That includes (but is not limited to) offshore oil and gas, shale on federal lands and more. We don't want to stick the straws in the ground and perform other sorts of mining (including strip-mining), but the energy is there.
Bluntly, "energy scarcity" is artificial. We have every means within this nation - never reaching beyond our own borders - to supply every single bit of energy we need literally for the next several hundred years, and we can make as much of that energy into liquid hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) as we wish.

Notice that nowhere did I include such things as:

Ethanol from corn (or anything else); such is an idiotic waste of good foodstuff and arable land, and is utterly uneconomic unless subsidized, never mind the corrosion and phase-separation problems it presents in fuel systems (both of which are real.)

Biodiesel from blue-green algae. It will work. We have lots of arid, hot and sunny land on which we can build fully-closed systems. Once we have scadloads of power (see above), we might choose to. But we don't need to in order to get where we need to go.

Solar P/E. It only works when the sun shines, it requires rare earth elements, manufacturing calls into question whether you will ever get out what you put in and on a $-per-kw basis it doesn't make much sense. If it ever does unsubsidized, then fine and well.

Any sort of "pie-in-the-sky" sources such as wind (insufficient to provide a meaningful part of the load), wave (nice concept but unproved and not deployable today), tidal (and exactly who's waterway do you intend to dam to do that), lasers (or simple focused sunlight) from space and similar things.
That's because I don't need to. I only need what we know we can make work, right now, right here, today.

Our refusal to be energy independent is political, not practical, thermodynamic, or driven by resource. It is the product of lies and manipulations by those who claim "environmental awareness", which in fact is no such thing - it is instead a demand that "someone else" eat the risks that come with the consumption of energy we demand to enjoy, instead of those risks and costs being accepted by us in the United States.

Now with these facts let me put forward one of my first principles - that is, one of the things that I simply will not compromise on.

We have no right to demand that other people accept pollution and degradation of their environment to further our way of life.

We will start with oil. You can gripe about drilling off the coasts - all of them - and argue for shutting it down, along with arguing AGAINST strip-mining for shale and recovering oil sands and similar. But if you do so you have an obligation to crush your powered vehicles (all of them), get a goat to "mow" your grass and refuse to fly or ride in any conveyance that is not powered by humans, animals or electricity (more on that latter one in a moment.) If you heat your home with natural gas or heating oil you must disconnect both and toss your heating plant in the trash heap, replacing it with something that burns wood (if you'll accept the smoke that doing so produces) or lots of blankets (if not.) You must, right now, go through your home and trash every item made of polymers - that is, plastics and synthetic rubber. This means your computer, your television, your telephone (yes, including your cell), indeed, anything containing electronic components as all have petroleum in them. You also may not use any sort of petroleum lubricant anywhere in your home or business. If you have carpeting in your home, remove it - it was made using petroleum.

If you enjoy your Air Conditioning in the summer time you may not use it whenever the electric company is required to use natural-gas-fired "peaking" plants. This is, incidentally, when it's hot outside.

Next, coal: If you argue against coal-fired power plants you may not use electricity anywhere that it is generated using that coal. Likewise if you argue against nuclear power, against hydro-electric ('cause of all the poor fishies we displace) and similar.

Finally, nuclear: We can build, right now, both thorium-salt based nuclear reactors and fast breeders. The former we have more fuel than we know what to do with and the latter is fuel-cycle positive for both itself and a bunch of pebble-bed ordinary fission reactors. You have no right to consume electricity where there is no coal or hydro-electric available (or if you argue against those!) if you argue against building a nuclear plant next door to your home.

The fact of the matter is that each and every one of the jackasses who I keep reading that argue against our "energy profligacy", along with "environmental damage" refuse to do any of the above.

They want to drive their cars and fly their (often private or chartered) airplanes - but they want the environmental risk and damage, if any, to happen to "those people" - you know, the blacks in Nigeria and the ragheads over in the Middle East? Yeah, "those people." Those "less than" fully-human people that are not entitled to the same environmental protection they arrogate for themselves? Uh huh.

These are the same lefty liberals who type on their Macbooks and iPhones (made in China where they pollute their air, water and earth, never mind the workers at Foxconn who are committing suicide by the busload - apparently due to working conditions) all produced where it's cheap primarily because they have no EPA and thus simply throw out industrial waste instead of recycling or properly reducing it to harmless materials.

The bottom line is that all human endeavor involves risk. You want to enjoy a western lifestyle, this means petroleum and energy production. Period.

You want to know what I consider being "equitable" if you really believe the crap that is spewed by people like Kunstler and Gore - as a maximum resource consumption point? I'll tell you:

One bedroom of of no more than 144sq/ft (12x12) for each cohabitating or married adult couple, plus one 10x10 bedroom for each additional single person (including children.)

One bathroom no more than 10x8, containing one tub/shower, one toilet, and two sinks.

A living room space of no more than 20x20.

An eat-in kitchen no larger than the living room.
This puts the "living space" for a household of 4 persons at about 1100 sqft. That's what I grew up in and it's definitely "middle class" by the definitions of the 70s and early 80s. It is also quite livable and frugal. Now let's continue:

One television, LCD (not plasma), no more than 400w.

Passive cooling only (e.g. basement + fan), no air conditioning.

Solar hot-water boosted with electric (remember, no petroleum - so no gas!) when necessary.

Your computer is a laptop (low-power netbook), and you own only one.

No incandescent lamps, no dishwasher (you have a dishwasher - it's your hands.)

Your clothes are dried on a line outside. The use of a horizontal (low-water and energy) washing machine is acceptable.

No person drives more than 5 miles to work and no petroleum is used to get there and back. Yes, this means you walk, you bike, or you use a plug-in electric bicycle or golf-cart style vehicle or moped.

You do not use, at any time except for bona-fide emergency (e.g. an ambulance ride!) any petroleum-consuming conveyance, including diesel-powered trains, city buses (other than electric trolleys), automobiles or aircraft. Period.
You do that and you can complain about energy profligacy. And before you say that's impossible, no it's not. A lot of people get damn close to it, and I know one such person very well who has the $30 monthly electric bills to prove it. In Florida, where such would be called "impossible" by many. It's not.

Those who argue for a "western lifestyle" but demand that others, whether defined as Chinese, Nigerians, Arabs, Mexicans or anyone else "eat" the risk and pollution that comes from their profligate lifestyles, or who argue for you to live as the above while they have their cars, boats, mansions and planes, are both pigs and bigots.

This means you Mr. Gore, it means you Mr. Kunstler, and it means you <insert your favorite author or politician arguing that we're all gonna die if we don't "go green" right now.> I won't even bother getting into the financial deals many of these people have entered into that will generate huge windfalls if we do have "carbon exchanges" and similar claptrap - I don't need to in order to make my point.

I like my car, my boat, my pool and my house. I like my A/C in the summer and my natural-gas fired heat in the winter.

I therefore support extraction and production of each and every BTU that I desire to consume right here, inside our borders, where the risk of the production of that BTU falls on ME, as part of the collective known as The United States.

And that, my friends, is the name of that tune.

[fmicle]

And yes, I agree with you fmicle. If a few people would just stop breathing this whole global warming thing would be solved.

Don't you think we'd be much better off if they stopped farting instead? :wink:

[HTM Yaris]

Just imagine what would be happening if the US would not have made marijuana illegal in 1937 . We would have an endless and renewable source of ethanol .
You don't think really think marijuana is illegal b/c it is bad for you , ...do you ? Oil companies realized long ago that marijuana would put them out of business and then successfully lobbied against marijuana .

Wait , did I just throw a monkey in somebody's wrench .....awww snap .

[PhotoDu.de]

Sure hope you copied and pasted all that, :biggrin:
Would have said why not just post the link but it seems all links have to be approved by photodu.de these days:wink:
Wikipedia eh, A veritable bastion of reliable info :biggrin:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=wikipedia+mistakes&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=wikipedia+mist&gs_rfai=&fp=9bda1a6f71d89fd6

I'm sorry I like things from credible and reviewed sources. Did you even look at the results that came up on Google? The first three were a Yahoo! Answers thread in which they discuss how most errors are quickly removed, the Wikipedia article "Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia," and then an article about how Wikipedia fights vandalism.

Just imagine what would be happening if the US would not have made marijuana illegal in 1937 . We would have an endless and renewable source of ethanol .
You don't think really think marijuana is illegal b/c it is bad for you , ...do you ? Oil companies realized long ago that marijuana would put them out of business and then successfully lobbied against marijuana .

Wait , did I just throw a monkey in somebody's wrench .....awww snap .

It wasn't the oil companies but DuPont who wanted it illegal. However, they did it to protect their interest in plastics which you need oil for.
Also, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics released propaganda that misrepresented the effects of Marijuana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

Vote yes on prop 19!

[PhotoDu.de]

Well, if CO2 is a pollutant, you better never try to revive anyone by giving them rescue breaths. After all, you'd be "poisoning them with your CO2".

You also exhale oxygen. CO2 is a pollutant because it makes the air more dense, not because it is toxic.

[fmicle]

You also exhale oxygen. CO2 is a pollutant because it makes the air more dense, not because it is toxic.

Really? :confused: daaaym :tongue:

Dictionary definition for "pollutant": any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

I don't see how "denser air" is harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose :iono: Besides, plants need to live too, CO2 is good for them...

[PhotoDu.de]

Really? :confused: daaaym :tongue:

Dictionary definition for "pollutant": any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

I don't see how "denser air" is harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose :iono: Besides, plants need to live too, CO2 is good for them...
I already talked about how denser air retains heat better and how that is harmful to the environment. I also found this article that also mentions the definition of pollution:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp

"The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste."
This article continues to go on to talk about the negative effects CO2 has on the oceans.

This is also a nice article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124001537515830975.html

[daf62757]

I already talked about how denser air retains heat better and how that is harmful to the environment. I also found this article that also mentions the definition of pollution:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp

"The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste."
This article continues to go on to talk about the negative effects CO2 has on the oceans.

This is also a nice article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124001537515830975.html

How about the harmful effects that morons have on society!

[PhotoDu.de]

How about the harmful effects that morons have on society!

What about them? Non sequitur much?

[daf62757]

What about them? Non sequitur much?

Well yes I do.....but not in this case!

[docB]

What about shale oil? The US has more oil stores this way then 2-3 OPECs. Why can't we just use it while we wean off of fossil fuels? This has been known since the early 1990's.

[PhotoDu.de]

What about shale oil? The US has more oil stores this way then 2-3 OPECs. Why can't we just use it while we wean off of fossil fuels? This has been known since the early 1990's.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html

We can, but it's a lot harder to get than most of OPEC's oil.

[fmicle]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html

We can, but it's a lot harder to get than most of OPEC's oil.

+1

I read a very interesting article a few years back about what it takes for oil to make it from Kuwait into my gas tank. And the guy was saying the same thing, not only is desert oil very light, which makes it good quality (IIRC), but it also comes out at the right pressure, without any help. It's pretty much like this: stick a pipe in the ground with a tap at the upper end and open the tap...

[daf62757]

What about shale oil? The US has more oil stores this way then 2-3 OPECs. Why can't we just use it while we wean off of fossil fuels? This has been known since the early 1990's.

Because this is about making as much profit as possible. Both political parties are controlled by big oil and they won't do anything to change the price of oil. You could be paying a lot less for gas if it weren't political influence of the democrats and republicans.

[PhotoDu.de]

Both political parties are controlled by big oil and they won't do anything to change the price of oil.

Except promoting renewable energy policies, not that we do it every well.

[TLyttle]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

[fmicle]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

+1,000,000 :thumbsup:

[jambo101]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

At real world prices of $8 a gal watch them big trucks and SUV's disappear fast and get ready to listen to them Americans howl,bitch and complain, something they seem to have taken to a whole new level lately,:tongue: of course the smart people who bought a Yaris will be laughing:biggrin:

[mryaris]

The reason gas is higher in Canada & Britain has more to do with taxes than anyting else. Thank your socialist government for that one!

Oil would have to be over $200/barrel for it to hit $8/gallon. While I understand your thinking, if the US taxed gas to the extent that other countries do then our economy would fall apart and one heck of a world wide recession would happen.....one vastly worse than what we're experiencing right now. Nobody wants that, so while raising gas prices would certainly reduce consumption it would have such a bad effect on the economy that the total cost to society would be too high. In effect, it is cheaper and better in the long run not to conserve oil/gas.

[STC]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

If the US Government was serious about conservation and forced Americans to pay $8 a gallon, you would see some conservation with those who get it, but unfortunately most others would gripe and then happily dish out money and further place themselves in debt, never changing their selfish narcissistic habits. Oh, and meanwhile the US Government would probably create a program to entitle gas credits to middle a lower income classes to further place people to suck on the hind tit of government (financial dependence/modern serfdom) and keep them spending just as much for gas when gas was under $4! LOL! Hypocricy at its best... :wink:

And where would the tax money go if this was the case? To strengthen the economy? create industry? infrastructure? Nope to the corporate pluto/crimeocacy of wealth and privelage... :wink:

[daf62757]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

If it weren't for government intervention, we would be paying about a dollar or so less for gas. That is my theory. The cost is artificially inflated and the government is encouraging it because they are owned by the special interests. That is my theory. Just to make sure you aren't misinterpreting my theory and attempting to blow my theory out of context!

[daf62757]

If the US Government was serious about conservation and forced Americans to pay $8 a gallon, you would see some conservation with those who get it, but unfortunately most others would gripe and then happily dish out money and further place themselves in debt, never changing their selfish narcissistic habits. Oh, and meanwhile the US Government would probably create a program to entitle gas credits to middle a lower income classes to further place people to suck on the hind tit of government (financial dependence/modern serfdom) and keep them spending just as much for gas when gas was under $4! LOL! Hypocricy at its best... :wink:

And where would the tax money go if this was the case? To strengthen the economy? create industry? infrastructure? Nope to the corporate pluto/crimeocacy of wealth and privelage... :wink:

You sound like you are against freedom of choice. There is not reason to conserve. There is enough oil and gas for many decades to come. If someone wants to drive a big truck, power to them. It isn't governments place to raise the price of something just to impose some inane ideology that a bunch of ivy league nerds want.

[STC]

You sound like you are against freedom of choice. There is not reason to conserve. There is enough oil and gas for many decades to come. If someone wants to drive a big truck, power to them. It isn't governments place to raise the price of something just to impose some inane ideology that a bunch of ivy league nerds want.

Actually, I'm all about 'Freedom of Choice', including limited economic government dealings and of course limited personal intrusion. I'm a Libertarian...:wink: I'm not the commercialized libertarian in what we are seeing in establishment entertainment media politics of so called libertarians. I was just saying "if" government is to... then this is what would happen. That is all that I was saying. :smile:

Government is broken and gridlocked. There is actually a relationship between Capital (Private) and Government (Public) that actually serves the special interest groups, not the people. Government for the corporations and by the corporations... a Corporatocracy. And the political dichotomy benefits keeping the left and right strong... the illusion. Both Left and Right, albeit a small difference are actually the same...:wink: ... The false political dichotomy with corruption!

[PhotoDu.de]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

In general if the US had the public policy of the UK, Canada and the rest of the developed world we'd be better off.

[PhotoDu.de]

It isn't governments place to raise the price of something just to impose some inane ideology that a bunch of ivy league nerds want.

Cognitive dissonance, try it sometime. How can thoughts derived by intellectuals be inane?

[fmicle]

I agree with PhotoDu.de on the last two items.

We need a certain degree of government control and intervention, it's not as easy as "if someone wants to do something, the government should let them do it". I, for one, would like to pee on the street, why is the government forbidding me to do that? I'm hoping you'll get the idea.

Government can influence, or should I say, steer or guide certain public habits, through sensible policy, such as encourage good healthy habits and discourage destructive behavior, even though it is legal and allowed.

Look at how Sweden, for instance, has brought alcoholism under control, by imposing high taxes on alcohol. You can still have a beer, but they brought one big problem under control and the entire society benefited from the results: increased productivity, lower mortality, etc.

[daf62757]

Cognitive dissonance, try it sometime. How can thoughts derived by intellectuals be inane?

Don't confuse intelligence with wisdom! That is why our country is in such a mess. Because we have so many intelligent idiots in charge!

[PhotoDu.de]

intelligent idiots

That's an oxymoron.

[zachryboles]

You can still have a beer, but they brought one big problem under control and the entire society benefited from the results: increased productivity, lower mortality, etc.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:
oh i rofl at the amount of fail that libs have to think that the government should dictate my habits outside of not killing people or showing my dick in the street.................. if i want to poison myself with booze, marijuana, cigs and the like then so be it..... if i want to use a car that is under 15 mpg then so be it...... its not a moral issue to use "fossil fuels" good to know that controlling people lowered mortality but seriously i doubt random drunkenness was the main cause of death in that country..... multiple sets of numbers from scientists or it didn't fucking happen.

[PhotoDu.de]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:
oh i rofl at the amount of fail that libs have to think that the government should dictate my habits outside of not killing people or showing my dick in the street.................. if i want to poison myself with booze, marijuana, cigs and the like then so be it..... if i want to use a car that is under 15 mpg then so be it...... its not a moral issue to use "fossil fuels" good to know that controlling people lowered mortality but seriously i doubt random drunkenness was the main cause of death in that country..... multiple sets of numbers from scientists or it didn't fucking happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/833483.stm
http://people.su.se/~totto/downloadable_publications/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden

Try proper punctuation and grammar next time. It will make you look like somebody with an intelligent thought and not like a high school girl sending a text message.

Also, you have full right to do those things, you just need to pay for the cost of the negative side effects of those things. Seems only fair.

[daf62757]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/833483.stm
http://people.su.se/~totto/downloadable_publications/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden

Try proper punctuation and grammar next time. It will make you look like somebody with an intelligent thought and not like a high school girl sending a text message.

Also, you have full right to do those things, you just need to pay for the cost of the negative side effects of those things. Seems only fair.

Should liberals have to pay for all the damage they are doing to our individual rights? Seems to me that is where the more serious damage is occurring.

[daf62757]

Actually, I'm all about 'Freedom of Choice', including limited economic government dealings and of course limited personal intrusion. I'm a Libertarian...:wink: I'm not the commercialized libertarian in what we are seeing in establishment entertainment media politics of so called libertarians. I was just saying "if" government is to... then this is what would happen. That is all that I was saying. :smile:

Government is broken and gridlocked. There is actually a relationship between Capital (Private) and Government (Public) that actually serves the special interest groups, not the people. Government for the corporations and by the corporations... a Corporatocracy. And the political dichotomy benefits keeping the left and right strong... the illusion. Both Left and Right, albeit a small difference are actually the same...:wink: ... The false political dichotomy with corruption!

Good post....and excellent Yaris color!

[Astroman]

Should liberals have to pay for all the damage they are doing to our individual rights? Seems to me that is where the more serious damage is occurring.

Bush was the one who suspended habeas corpus, remember? :bellyroll: Try watching something other than fox news, it may surprise you.

[Henry G.]

Electric cars use batteries. Toxic batteries that are toxic to make, and toxic to recycle. And the power comes from.....?
Electric plants that burn coal, natural gas, fuel oil, peakers that burn jet fuel, tell me is that cleaner than Ultra Low Emission Vehicles? NO. And the losses to transmit and distribute that electricity, the heat given off charging the batteries....?
Electric vehicles are an enviornmental joke until they charge from solar or wind sources.....I'll keep my sporty litttle 105 hp roller skate car, I just pray I dont get into an accident or I know I'm dead.

[mryaris]

I just pray I dont get into an accident or I know I'm dead.

Why would you say this? The Yaris is a pretty safe little car. Obviously if you get hit by an 18-wheeler you're screwed,but that would be true in almost any other car on the road as well. I effectively hit a guard rail head on at 50MPH (fishtailed on black ice) and then rolled it over onto it's side and walked away without a scratch. The car also held up very well.....no intrusions into the cabin, etc.

http://myfiero.com/uploads/18748_.jpg

**sorry for the hijack!!** :smile:

[fmicle]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:
oh i rofl at the amount of fail that libs have to think that the government should dictate my habits outside of not killing people or showing my dick in the street.................. if i want to poison myself with booze, marijuana, cigs and the like then so be it..... if i want to use a car that is under 15 mpg then so be it...... its not a moral issue to use "fossil fuels" good to know that controlling people lowered mortality but seriously i doubt random drunkenness was the main cause of death in that country..... multiple sets of numbers from scientists or it didn't fucking happen.

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and not just scan the keywords. I never said anything about government "dictating" your habits. I said that government can and should encourage proper behavior. It's common sense. Something you should try exercising as well sometimes.

If you want to drown in booze and sniff marijuana, go ahead and be my guest, but when you get cancer, or otherwise end up in the hospital, don't ask me to pay for it. Usually, those who do push these bad habits to the extreme, more often than not, do not have insurance and us taxpayers end up footing the bill. How messed up is that?

It does become a moral issue when people die so that you can keep driving your 15 mpg truck. And I'm not saying you should not be allowed to do it. All I'm saying is that you should be paying a little more than those who drive 30 mpg cars. Just like flying 1st class, you know? Common sense.

Oh, and just FYI, plenty of guys can pee discreetly without showing their dick, so obviously you still have a lot to learn...

[fmicle]

Should liberals have to pay for all the damage they are doing to our individual rights? Seems to me that is where the more serious damage is occurring.

I am not a big fan of liberals, but if you do just a little bit of homework, just a bit, not too much, so your brain doesn't overheat or something, you'll see that most of our rights that we enjoy today were fought for by liberals...

[fmicle]

Electric cars use batteries. Toxic batteries that are toxic to make, and toxic to recycle. And the power comes from.....?
Electric plants that burn coal, natural gas, fuel oil, peakers that burn jet fuel, tell me is that cleaner than Ultra Low Emission Vehicles? NO. And the losses to transmit and distribute that electricity, the heat given off charging the batteries....?
Electric vehicles are an enviornmental joke until they charge from solar or wind sources.....I'll keep my sporty litttle 105 hp roller skate car, I just pray I dont get into an accident or I know I'm dead.

Think about this for bit, at night, when America is sleeping, what do power plants do? Do they shut down? No, you can't shut down a power plant for a few hours, just because there is no demand. Technically, it's not feasible. You can turn down the output a bit, but that's about it. So lots and lots of electricity is... wasted! Simply wasted. Why not use that to recharge your "toxic" batteries? There is no extra pollution generated.

And also, there is something called "economies of scale", sometimes it's more efficient to produce something on a large scale, it becomes more efficient and cheaper, plus at least you can control where the pollution happens, if you can't eliminate it altogether.

So I'm not convinced by your argument. I'd totally get a Tesla Roadster if it didn't cost $100k :drool:

[PhotoDu.de]

I am not a big fan of liberals, but if you do just a little bit of homework, just a bit, not too much, so your brain doesn't overheat or something, you'll see that most of our rights that we enjoy today were fought for by liberals...

Lumping politics into either "conservative" or "liberal" is way too narrow. "Conservatives" don't agree on all policies and visa versa. These terms are only used to be divisive and dumb down the arguments to the level of a sports rivalry; you are either for one team or the other. This division makes it easier to dismiss the other side's argument without actually examining it.
Political discourse in the United States is mindless.

[mryaris]

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and not just scan the keywords. I never said anything about government "dictating" your habits. I said that government can and should encourage proper behavior. It's common sense. Something you should try exercising as well sometimes.

I believe he was paraphrasing. You advocate government intervention into the private lives of its citizens to "encourage good healthy habits and discourage destructive behavior, even though it is legal and allowed", but then say that you never said anything about having the government dictate your habits. What's the difference between dictating and "encouraging" through policy?



If you want to drown in booze and sniff marijuana, go ahead and be my guest, but when you get cancer, or otherwise end up in the hospital, don't ask me to pay for it. Usually, those who do push these bad habits to the extreme, more often than not, do not have insurance and us taxpayers end up footing the bill. How messed up is that?

I'm guessing you voted Democrat and are all for the "public option" in regards to universal health coverage.....if I'm wrong about that then I apologize. That said, what's the difference if you, as a taxpayer, pay for someone's cancer treatment because he has no health insurance or because you are forced to through public policy? Meaning, if I am forced to pay for health coverage and I never use it then I am effectively paying for someone else's treatments. I have been to the doctor twice in the past 20 years and rarely get sick (maybe get a cold once every year or two) so I do not have nor need health insurance and do not want it forced upon me.



It does become a moral issue when people die so that you can keep driving your 15 mpg truck. And I'm not saying you should not be allowed to do it. All I'm saying is that you should be paying a little more than those who drive 30 mpg cars. Just like flying 1st class, you know? Common sense.

How does driving a 15 MPG vehicle kill anyone moreso than someone in a 30 MPG car? Are you saying that because it gets less miles per gallon that the truck pollutes more and therefore that extra pollution somehow will kill someone faster than if we all drove 30 MPG cars? That's a stretch. What if the guy in the 15 MPG truck drives 30 miles a day and the 30 MPG guy drives 90 miles per day? Who pollutes more?

Also, people who drive 15 MPG trucks *do* pay more than the guy driving a 30 MPG car......they pay for it at the pump and if they are OK with spending twice as much to go half as far then that's their prerogative.

You also mention how great Sweden is as well as the UK & Canada . Did you know that Sweden is the largest welfare state? Income tax rates top out at nearly 60% to pay for all the social programs there. That's for people making anything more than $75,000 US.....can you imagine paying 59.17% tax on $75000? Your take home pay would be $30,600. I take home more than that and I make just under $50K a year!

That's the max. example though.....here's the breakdown (numbers are approximate and include all municipal & national taxes):

$0-$52,000 (US) has a minimum tax rate of 28.89% and a max of 34.17%

$52,000-$74,000 has a minimum tax rate of 48.89% and a max of 54.17%

$74,000 and up has a minimum tax rate of 53.89% and a maximum of 59.17%


By comparison, right now in the US the top tier earners (those making more than $373,650 pay 35% federal tax (plus whatever your state income tax rate is)....the effective rate for both combined are generally less than 45%. This is for high income earners and depends on where you live and what you make.

Here are the websites I got my info from:

http://www.taxrates.cc/html/sweden-tax-rates.html
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://www.xe.com/ucc/


Probably more info than anyone wanted....oh well. The point is, countries like Sweden aren't some sort of ideal that we should be striving towards. If it works for them great. Have at it, but that is not what this country is all about. I don't want or need anyone telling me how to live my life. I can take care of myself thank-you very much. If anyone feels otherwise it isn't all that hard to renounce your citizenship and move to Skandinavia. I hope you like lutefisk! Yum! :wink:

That was probably the longest post I've ever made on any forum I belong to.....sorry. I just fail to grasp how anyone feels it is their duty to tell someone else what they should or should not do with their life. The beauty of living in the United States is that you have freedom of choice. If you choose to drive a 15MPG gas guzzler you can. I choose to drive a Yaris and a 50-year old British car.....it's my choice and if I later choose to drive something else I can and will.

[daf62757]

Bush was the one who suspended habeas corpus, remember? :bellyroll: Try watching something other than fox news, it may surprise you.

I would suggest you try listening to more than the liberal news....the truth might surprise you!

[jambo101]

I would suggest you try listening to more than the liberal news....the truth might surprise you!

My favorite news outlet is MSNBC definitely Liberal but very credible hosts.
I usually listen to Limbaugh on the radio and he sounds like a total whacko who's on drugs ,great for lunch time laughs,Glenn Beck and his recent God complex is also some one drinking the Koolaid,good for entertainment only.
There is precious little truth to be had over on Fox.
Their probable take on the Yaris? let me guess = crappy little Jap econo box that only commie socialist enviro nazi's would consider driving.

[zachryboles]

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and not just scan the keywords. I never said anything about government "dictating" your habits. I said that government can and should encourage proper behavior. It's common sense. Something you should try exercising as well sometimes.

If you want to drown in booze and sniff marijuana, go ahead and be my guest, but when you get cancer, or otherwise end up in the hospital, don't ask me to pay for it. Usually, those who do push these bad habits to the extreme, more often than not, do not have insurance and us taxpayers end up footing the bill. How messed up is that?

It does become a moral issue when people die so that you can keep driving your 15 mpg truck. And I'm not saying you should not be allowed to do it. All I'm saying is that you should be paying a little more than those who drive 30 mpg cars. Just like flying 1st class, you know? Common sense.

Oh, and just FYI, plenty of guys can pee discreetly without showing their dick, so obviously you still have a lot to learn...

Understandable.....
But at the same time who dictates what “proper behavior” is?:iono: And if I get cancer I will deal with it with my OWN insurance and not crappy Lolbamacare..... I've paid for my own insurance since I was 17 and I have taken care of myself just fine. Don't speak down to me because I don’t discreetly pee in public apparently..... Some of us come here to unwind and not have to be completely grammar and pc conscience... I for one work a corporate gig and am one of the most responsible people you'll know if you met me. Maybe I'm the grown up for keeping my snake in my trousers (just a thought). But seriously I'm just a gun toting bible thumping conservative that watches Aljazeera, BBC, and even on occasion CNN and MSNBC. And having a truck that is 15 MPG is not the same as first class. People don’t die over anything with that other than oil war crossfire. I honestly couldn't care less about those people as I've been there and seen that with my own eyes and I have nothing for disgust for the culture that unfortunately owns most of the free world with blood/oil money. You want to be self righteous and make a difference? Go brain a few Saudi Royal figures then come back and talk to me. I'm going to be labeled as either racist or misinformed but I'll tell you this, after 4 tour VOLUNTARILY I feel I have both a justified and well rounded view of the subculture that is eventually going to turn that desert into glass because no one is educated. The ones who are tend to be blood lust drunk for power and are crazy enough to fire Da Nuke. Stop complaining about the natural cycle of the earth being something that only humans effect and realize that life and the earth is a cycle. Just my .02 though.

[PhotoDu.de]

What's the difference between dictating and "encouraging" through policy?
Dictating would be to make it illegal to do.

That said, what's the difference if you, as a taxpayer, pay for someone's cancer treatment because he has no health insurance or because you are forced to through public policy? Meaning, if I am forced to pay for health coverage and I never use it then I am effectively paying for someone else's treatments. I have been to the doctor twice in the past 20 years and rarely get sick (maybe get a cold once every year or two) so I do not have nor need health insurance and do not want it forced upon me.

Because thought a public option you pay for the cheaper preventative health care instead of the more expensive emergency care.
Also, you are going to need healthcare at some point. You will be old someday.

.they pay for it at the pump and if they are OK with spending twice as much to go half as far then that's their prerogative.

Right, which is why you tax the gas and not the car.

Did you know that Sweden is the largest welfare state? Income tax rates top out at nearly 60% to pay for all the social programs there.

Yes, and because of their social programs they have a higher standard of living than in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Yes they don't bring home more money, but since society takes care of so much they spend less on curtain things and effectively have more money for other things.

the point is, countries like Sweden aren't some sort of ideal that we should be striving towards. If it works for them great. Have at it, but that is not what this country is all about. I don't want or need anyone telling me how to live my life. I can take care of myself thank-you very much.

Countries like Sweden are an ideal because their government works great for them.
This country isn't about well ran government?
The Swedes aren't told how to live their lives.
Yes you do take care of yourself, except when you are on a road, or use water, or your house is burning down, or need the police, or the countless other things you need to rely on the government for.
Social services and appropriate tax structures enhance civil liberties, they do not limit them.

If anyone feels otherwise it isn't all that hard to renounce your citizenship and move to Skandinavia.

Yes it is. I don't know any nordic language nor any company that would sponsor my citizenship. That, and I'd prefer Canada.
It would just be a lot easier to change the laws here.

[PhotoDu.de]

Stop complaining about the natural cycle of the earth being something that only humans effect and realize that life and the earth is a cycle. Just my .02 though.

Your two cents are not as valuable as the scientific consensus.

I don't know why so many people in this thread think they know better than thousands of scientist who have researched, reviewed, and debated over the last century. They are scientist and their job is to look at things objectively. The conspiracy theories that keep on being posted here are by people with ulterior motives.

[fmicle]

I believe he was paraphrasing. You advocate government intervention into the private lives of its citizens to "encourage good healthy habits and discourage destructive behavior, even though it is legal and allowed", but then say that you never said anything about having the government dictate your habits. What's the difference between dictating and "encouraging" through policy?

Ah, come on, the difference is simple; it's "you should" instead of "you must". Just like tax write-offs for instance, the government encourages people to buy homes, by allowing them to write off the interest they pay on the loan. Right? Encouragement through policy. I never heard anyone complaining that the government is forcing them to buy a house :smile:


I have been to the doctor twice in the past 20 years and rarely get sick (maybe get a cold once every year or two) so I do not have nor need health insurance and do not want it forced upon me.

I have never had a car accident in 15 years, why is car insurance forced upon me??? I haven't heard anyone complain about the mandatory liability insurance, why are they complaining about health insurance?

The problem with your thinking is, that if you end up in the ER, they will save you first and then ask for insurance; they won't let you die...


How does driving a 15 MPG vehicle kill anyone moreso than someone in a 30 MPG car?

It's not about pollution, it's about politics and wars. The Arabs hate us because we're in Saudi Arabia and everyone knows WHY we are in Saudi Arabia.

[fmicle]

Don't speak down to me because I don’t discreetly pee in public apparently..... Some of us come here to unwind and not have to be completely grammar and pc conscience...

I apologize if I offended you, that wasn't my intention... that's what happens when you mix "trying to be funny" with sarcasm.

Go brain a few Saudi Royal figures then come back and talk to me. I'm going to be labeled as either racist or misinformed but I'll tell you this, after 4 tour VOLUNTARILY I feel I have both a justified and well rounded view of the subculture that is eventually going to turn that desert into glass because no one is educated.

Hats off, I respect you for your service; but I ask you, wouldn't everyone be better off if we threw them books instead of bombs?

You probably know this better than me, but in Afganistan, aren't we firing $10k missiles at $100 tents? How is that for sensible policy?

[daf62757]

My favorite news outlet is MSNBC definitely Liberal but very credible hosts.
I usually listen to Limbaugh on the radio and he sounds like a total whacko who's on drugs ,great for lunch time laughs,Glenn Beck and his recent God complex is also some one drinking the Koolaid,good for entertainment only.
There is precious little truth to be had over on Fox.
Their probable take on the Yaris? let me guess = crappy little Jap econo box that only commie socialist enviro nazi's would consider driving.

Anyone who makes such outrageous comments.....is probably not too bright or so blinded by his ideology that he wouldn't recognize what the truth is if it hit him in the face.

Sounds like you got him with both barrels!

[daf62757]

Your two cents are not as valuable as the scientific consensus.

I don't know why so many people in this thread think they know better than thousands of scientist who have researched, reviewed, and debated over the last century. They are scientist and their job is to look at things objectively. The conspiracy theories that keep on being posted here are by people with ulterior motives.

The problem with you comment is that the scientific consensus has been proven to be a fraud. These scientists have been manipulating data to make their claims. Twenty years ago they were saying the earth was cooling.

The earth has been in cooling and heating cycles for millions of years. It is pure madness to think that anything man has done could have such an effect on that cycle.

But just keep on believing people like Al Gore and you will be that intelligent idiot!

[PhotoDu.de]

The problem with you comment is that the scientific consensus has been proven to be a fraud. These scientists have been manipulating data to make their claims. Twenty years ago they were saying the earth was cooling.

The earth has been in cooling and heating cycles for millions of years. It is pure madness to think that anything man has done could have such an effect on that cycle.

But just keep on believing people like Al Gore and you will be that intelligent idiot!

Sir, when you have some credible evidence from reliable sources and don't resort to childish ad hominem attacks I will gladly look at your arguments. Until then, please stop typing. You provide nothing of value to this conversation.

[Astroman]

+1

I'm sure though he thinks Glenn Beck is a genius.

[yarrr]

If you want to drown in booze and sniff marijuana, go ahead and be my guest, but when you get cancer, or otherwise end up in the hospital, don't ask me to pay for it.

Sniffing weed? Talk about being educated on the subject you preach.

Oh and weed doesn't give you cancer, its a treatment for cancer patients.

It is pure madness to think that anything man has done could have such an effect on that cycle.

I suppose we couldn't kill off an entire species with pollution or overhunting either.. oh wait

"The cycle" has been proven through ice core analysis to be caused by greenhouse gases from volcanic activity building up. How is it madness to think that dumping tons of co2 into the atmosphere isn't going to effect the cycle in anyway.

Saying something has been happening for millions of years is not proof man can't influence the cycle.

[daf62757]

Sir, when you have some credible evidence from reliable sources and don't resort to childish ad hominem attacks I will gladly look at your arguments. Until then, please stop typing. You provide nothing of value to this conversation.

I would say that you listen but don't hear. There has been evidence that these do called scientists have falsified the evidence. I have heard all these same arguments before. Earth cooling, killing off the fish in sea, now earth cooling.
Liberals love to pontificate, yet never really care to examine the other side of the argument. And then they try to say how intelligent they are.

You can look in the mirror an fool yourself, but I am not convinced!

[Henry G.]

Think about this for bit, at night, when America is sleeping, what do power plants do? Do they shut down? No, you can't shut down a power plant for a few hours, just because there is no demand. Technically, it's not feasible. You can turn down the output a bit, but that's about it. So lots and lots of electricity is... wasted! Simply wasted. Why not use that to recharge your "toxic" batteries? There is no extra pollution generated.

And also, there is something called "economies of scale", sometimes it's more efficient to produce something on a large scale, it becomes more efficient and cheaper, plus at least you can control where the pollution happens, if you can't eliminate it altogether.

So I'm not convinced by your argument. I'd totally get a Tesla Roadster if it didn't cost $100k :drool:

Sorry you are wrong. I forgot to mention I run a piece of the electric grid as my job as a Transmission System Operator. Power plants DO come offline at night, not all of them of course. AGC Automatic Generation Control runs that ones that stay online, to match load with generation, EXACTLY, the less load, the less generation, the less fuel used. There is no free lunch with electricity, the power is not " getting wasted" at night, although I think some members of this forum are! :biggrin:
Now do some research. Fuel is needed to run the car. Either at the generation station or in your fuel tank. Which makes less pollution?. The cars of course.

[nmgolfer]

Just to recap...

1) Oil is made by mother earth converting (predominately) limestone under extreme heat and pressure not dead dinosaurs. Coal is desiccated oil (Made by MOTHER EARTH) and neither is running out ANYTIME soon. Besides that we waste billions upon billions of gallons of fuel by not using our abundant resources (THORIUM) wisely.

2)Global warming is UN orchestrated tax and control scam. Earth is not warming any more than is normal when coming out of a little ice age... Climate ALWAYS changes... they once to ice-skated on the Thames and Grapes grew well in Great Briton... all well documented. Its the sun... The sun (its cycles) and the Earth's relationship to it (orbit eccentricity) which determines climate warming and cooling.

3) CO2 is neither a pollutant (especially in the minuscule concentration in our atmosphere) nor is it a cause of climate change. The CO2 cycle lags the climate not the other way around as was claimed in philandering sex freak Al Gore's propaganda piece: An inconvenient lie.

4)Both political parties are bought and paid for by the corporations. Presidents of both stripes are paid pathological liars who will say and do anything their masters want them to say and do... Ain't a dimes worth of difference between any of them.. They're all rat B*ASTARDS! Old people (like me) know this... the young people (like photo taker) are still too gullible and too naive, having only recently emerged from the indoctrination camps we call "school" in this country, to accept this... That my friends is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

5)The so-called GOVERNMENT is in the process of morphing away from the constitution and the principles of individualism this country was founded on to collectivism where a self-appointed un-elected paternalistic technocratic elite will make all decisions for everybody like it or not. Make no mistake all will NOT like it, especially when their number is up and they themselves are summoned to the soylent green factory! The bipartisan backstabbing elite will succeed in their hostile take-over of this once great country, morphing it into the totalitarian fascist dictatorship of their dreams, one that will make Hitler and Mussolini proud when the (photo-takers) completely cede their though process' to the elite controlled pied pipers at either MSNBC or FAUX or communist Thom Hartman or drug addled gas bag Rush Limbaugh and when us old people (having watched the complete de-construction of our once great country) are dead and gone. I've given up hope that the process can be stopped... It will run its murderous course because human nature does not change.

And that is the name of that tune...

[nmgolfer]

One more thing... Photod.ude I'm calling you on your BS. What you are saying about the density of air is absurd.. Density is a function altitude not CO2 emmision.. Heat Capacity of AIR Cp does not vary much at all with density. Also helium is in much higher concentration in the upper atmosphere... Why do you suppose that is?

[PhotoDu.de]

One more thing... Photod.ude I'm calling you on your BS. What you are saying about the density of air is absurd.. Density is a function altitude not CO2 emmision.. Heat Capacity of AIR Cp does not vary much at all with density. Also helium is in much higher concentration in the upper atmosphere... Why do you suppose that is?

Density (ie mass) and air pressure (ie the distance between molecules) are two different things. I've already made my points nor should I bother repeating them because you'll think whatever conspiracy theory websites tell you no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
I also think that corporations have too much control of our government, and I went to private schools.
All governments are founded as collectives, that's what a government is. As Abe said "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Just because you are older than me doesn't mean you are smarter than me.

[nmgolfer]

Density (ie mass) and air pressure (ie the distance between molecules) are two different things. I've already made my points nor should I bother repeating them because you'll think whatever conspiracy theory websites tell you no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
I also think that corporations have too much control of our government, and I went to private schools.
All governments are founded as collectives, that's what a government is. As Abe said "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Just because you are older than me doesn't mean you are smarter than me.

You should have payed better attention during "private" indoctrination classes. Density is mass per volume. You haven't a clue what either collectivism or individualism is because you are unread. Pick up Road to Serfdom and learn. No need to repeat your points because they're all wrong. Fact is you have no idea what you are talking about do you. Pressure is not "distance between molecules" LOL.. pressure is how much energy those molecules have! PV=rhoRT

about "conspiracy theories"

... that term was created by a government think tank back in the 60's to de-rate and ridicule anything not broadcast by the official news media (aka Edward Bernays Propaganda machine) on the evening news ... there was a famous man that once said ... "never attribute to conspiracy that which can amply be attributed to the actions of a bunch of greedy stupid self serving men in power"

[fmicle]

It is pure madness to think that anything man has done could have such an effect on that cycle.

So I guess the hole in the ozone layer created by the use of CFC's was also a natural process? :thumbdown:

[fmicle]

Sniffing weed? Talk about being educated on the subject you preach.

Oh and weed doesn't give you cancer, its a treatment for cancer patients.

It's called "figure of speech"...

And by the way weed doesn't TREAT cancer, it makes the symptoms manageable, such as: amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger in chemotherapy and AIDS patients, as well as pain reliever.

[fmicle]

Sorry you are wrong. I forgot to mention I run a piece of the electric grid as my job as a Transmission System Operator. Power plants DO come offline at night, not all of them of course. AGC Automatic Generation Control runs that ones that stay online, to match load with generation, EXACTLY, the less load, the less generation, the less fuel used. There is no free lunch with electricity, the power is not " getting wasted" at night, although I think some members of this forum are! :biggrin:
Now do some research. Fuel is needed to run the car. Either at the generation station or in your fuel tank. Which makes less pollution?. The cars of course.

Alright Sir, you got my attention. So what's the average efficiency of a typical power plant? I would think that a coal burning power plant would make more pollution than all the individual cars combined to produce the same amount of power, but how about the other types of power plants? Are they still that bad in comparison?

[fmicle]

Just to recap...

1) Oil is made by mother earth converting (predominately) limestone under extreme heat and pressure not dead dinosaurs. Coal is desiccated oil (Made by MOTHER EARTH) and neither is running out ANYTIME soon.

Even though I mostly agree with this theory, I still think we're burning them up faster than mother nature can refill the empty wells...

[PhotoDu.de]

Pressure is not "distance between molecules" LOL.. pressure is how much energy those molecules have!

No, pressure has to deal with the amount of energy exerted on other molecules. When they are closer together, they exert more energy on each other.

[nmgolfer]

The problem with you comment is that the scientific consensus has been proven to be a fraud. These scientists have been manipulating data to make their claims. Twenty years ago they were saying the earth was cooling.

The earth has been in cooling and heating cycles for millions of years. It is pure madness to think that anything man has done could have such an effect on that cycle.

But just keep on believing people like Al Gore and you will be that intelligent idiot!

UP is Down... Black is White and facts don't matter to them Big Dave. They are a brainwashed (as Charlotte Iserbyt puts it: Deliberately Dumbed Down) and they are no longer capable of thinking critically .. for themselves. That part of their brain was excised. Now they rely on pied pipers and repeat what they hear from so-called "experts" like mindless automatons. In time they came to believe the lies they were tested on in school (indoctrination). Repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and these pea brained idiots we as a nation have become will accept it as truth...

"The truth is what they believe" -George Herbert Walker Bush

[nmgolfer]

No, pressure has to deal with the amount of energy exerted on other molecules. When they are closer together, they exert more energy on each other.

Pressure is FORCE per AREA! THAT IS THE DEFINITION! Again you should have paid attention... Heck I bet you haven't even a clue what force is let alone area.

L(,)(,)K! I gave you the equation! P V = rho R T

Don't you know what that is or what the variables are? Gads our school systems are sh*te

[PhotoDu.de]

Pressure is FORCE per AREA! THAT IS THE DEFINITION! Again you should have paid attention... Heck I bet you haven't even a fricken clue what force is let alone area.

Ok, pressure has to deal with the amount of energy exerted on other molecules over an area. Since there are less air molecules the higher up you go they apply less force over a certain area. You pressurize Scuba tanks so you have more air molecules.

[nmgolfer]

Even though I mostly agree with this theory, I still think we're burning them up faster than mother nature can refill the empty wells...

On what basis have you arrived at that belief? Personally I'd like to see us off oil (accept for plastics) because they're nasty caustic chemicals ... but not because we're running out anytime soon. Gulf disaster shows how nasty it is... wouldn't want to be breathing that stuff personally and I'll think twice before buying gulf shrimp again anytime soon.

[docB]

The hole in the ozone is a funny thing. The first satellite sputnic didn't measure ozone. How does anyone know if the holes were there more than 60 years ago and do they cycle over decades or centuries? From what I read, global climate is way more influenced by the sun then by any emissions form mankind.

nmgolfer:
+1 on way too much plastic (from oil) in our lives

[PhotoDu.de]

The hole in the ozone is a funny thing. The first satellite sputnic didn't measure ozone. How does anyone know if the holes were there more than 60 years ago and do they cycle over decades or centuries? From what I read, global climate is way more influenced by the sun then by any emissions form mankind.

nmgolfer:
+1 on way too much plastic (from oil) in our lives

The ozone layer was discovered before sputnik.

[fmicle]

On what basis have you arrived at that belief?

I don't know, common sense, I would guess. I'm thinking we're only using oil in large quantities after the industrial revolution, so if Mother Earth can produce more than what we consume today and assuming that these processes have been going on for millions of years, we should be swimming in oceans of oil instead of water... I'm thinking, as with most other geological processes, the genesis of oil must be slow...

[zachryboles]

The problem with you comment is that the scientific consensus has been proven to be a fraud. These scientists have been manipulating data to make their claims. Twenty years ago they were saying the earth was cooling.

The earth has been in cooling and heating cycles for millions of years. It is pure madness to think that anything man has done could have such an effect on that cycle.

But just keep on believing people like Al Gore and you will be that intelligent idiot!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

[zachryboles]

Density (ie mass) and air pressure (ie the distance between molecules) are two different things. I've already made my points nor should I bother repeating them because you'll think whatever conspiracy theory websites tell you no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
I also think that corporations have too much control of our government, and I went to private schools.
All governments are founded as collectives, that's what a government is. As Abe said "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Just because you are older than me doesn't mean you are smarter than me.

says the man that criticized me that im young because he thinks im stupid......

[PhotoDu.de]

says the man that criticized me that im young because he thinks im stupid......

I criticized you for typing like an idiot not for being young.

[PhotoDu.de]

nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.
Also, since you claim to be so well read, what books/scientific literature have you read about climate change? Just because you read a book/blog that reaffirms your political beliefs doesn't mean you are better read than me. Until you look at the observable and objective facts you can't claim to know anything.

[yarrr]

If you are only using google and wikipedia you are perpetuating your own cycle of ignorance , to quote one of my teachers.

Ya, people who are wrong say that a lot.

[yarrr]

Just to recap...

1) Oil is made by mother earth converting (predominately) limestone under extreme heat and pressure not dead dinosaurs. Coal is desiccated oil (Made by MOTHER EARTH) and neither is running out ANYTIME soon. Besides that we waste billions upon billions of gallons of fuel by not using our abundant resources (THORIUM) wisely.

Um... source?

Oil forms IN limestone, it doesn't convert limestone to oil.

[yarrr]

so....you are saying you are only using those two source to get your info....ok....i rest my case. ANd of course this is Mr. Im always right I'm sorry ll just go back to ignoring you

Nope, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying when someone doesn't have a valid argument, they attack the source, even if its a valid source.

[nmgolfer]

Um... source?

Oil forms IN limestone, it doesn't convert limestone to oil.

You're wrong... RESEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF! I don't spoon feed.

[PhotoDu.de]

I'd like to know how many of all the people in this discussion actually have scientific background and know how to efficiently and effectively get their info. If you are only using google and wikipedia you are perpetuating your own cycle of ignorance , to quote one of my teachers.

I've written a report on Kyoto for one of my classes (unfortunately I can't find it). I used primary sources like articles in peered reviewed journals and academic books.
I've also taken an anthropology course entitled "The Human Ecological Footprint." The professor used primary sources but we also covered a lot more than just climate change.

Secondary sources like Wikipedia are ok for reference only if they reference primary sources that are credible.
Google can find good sources, but there are better database searches for scientific work.

[yarrr]

You're wrong... RESEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF! I don't spoon feed.

Ahahah you write essays on forums, but you don't spoon feed. Right. I have researched it, and most scientists agree that the majority of oil was formed by sea life, mostly vegetation.

I also googled oil from limestone, limestone converted to oil, and there was nothing about it, just about animals and vegetation trapped in limestone at formation which are then turned into oil over millions of years.

I can't find one thing saying "limestone turns into oil." If you can't come up with one source, its just not true... lol

[nmgolfer]

And thats how it suppose to be done, kudos. Wikipedia and google are great tools to supplement your research and not base it on them.

Im no geologist or chemist but oil used to power our vehicles and other types of machinery is of the carbon-hydrogen type and limestone doesnt contain any considerable amounts of either, there are traces but nothing significant. Also they are called fossil fuels for a reason

They are called "FOSSIL FUELS" to fool the fools.

LIMESTONE IS TURNED INTO PETROLEUM DEEP UNDERGROUND UNDER EXTREME TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE. The gulf disaster occured 5 miles down... ask yourself HOW DID DEAD DINOSAURS END UP DOWN THERE? Answer: THEY DIDN'T. That oil originates from dead plants is a lie fed to idiots ill-equipped to think for themselves.

Petroleum originates from abiogenic process' (google Thomas Gold). This fact has been known for YEARS! But simply put artificial scarcity (and the Peak Oil ruse that has accompanied it for the last century) increases petroleum company profits. Years ago Russia had no oil but they knew Thomas Gold's theories and they pursued it and now Europe depends on Russia for Fuels ... they and their DEEP WELLS are major world producers.

Landau is a geologist who thinks for himself and who knows the score... has all of the pertinent equations and had been published in peer review acedemia:


NATURAL GAS AND COAL SYNTHESIS FROM LIMESTONE AND CARBON DIOXIDE
LANDAU, Chris, 6764 Therese Trail, Browns Valley, CA 95918, chrislandau@yahoo.com (TS#17)
I suggest that inorganic pathways exist for producing coal, natural gas and oil from dolomite(CaMgCO3), calcium carbonate(CaCO3) (limestone), calcium carbonate sandstones and mudstones, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The carbon in the calcium carbonate is changed to methane and other natural gases by heat, and by reducing hydrogen sulphide gas and water. Active fault zones are a source of hydrogen sulphide gas, carbon dioxide gas and water. Under reducing water poor regions will produce coal. With more water, natural gases are produced. With abundant water, oil is produced. Natural gas is found within, below and above limestone or calcium rich sandstone layers. These layers are the source of methane. They are not the traps for natural gas. In a reducing environment, limestone is changed to methane.

CaCO3(limestone)+4H2S(hydrogen sulphide)+2Fe(iron) =Ca (OH)2(hydrated lime)+CH4(methane)+H20(water)+2FeS2(Pyrite)
Also, in the presence of water and hydrogen sulphide, a reducing and hydrating environment, methane, lime and sulphur tri-oxide are produced.

CaCO3+H20+H2S = CH4 +Ca (OH) 2+SO3 (sulphur tri-oxide)
Coal and methane may form by carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide bubbling out of volcanic vents in the presence of hydrogen sulphide (black smokers) No limestone is necessary.

H2S will react with salt-water brines to produce HCl (hydrochloric acid).

H2S+2NaCl (salt) = 2HCl+Na2S

Hydrochloric acid reacts with calcium carbonate to produce carbon dioxide.

1) 3CO2(carbon dioxide) + H2S = 3CO(carbon monoxide) +H2O+SO2 (sulphur dioxide)
2) SO2 +CaCO3 = CaSO4+CO

Sulphur dioxide converts limestone to gypsum or anhydrite.

3) H2S + 3CO = 3C (coal/lignite) +H2O+SO2

Carbon dioxide and water with hydrogen sulphide will produce methane gas.

4) 2C + H2S + 3 H2O =2 CH4 + SO3

The accepted origin for coal and gas is through forests and plankton being buried under heat and pressure. Tree fern fossils or pterodactyl fossils and dinosaur bones in coal do not mean that these fossils created the coal. The fossils were preserved in non – oxidizing, reducing conditions. Plankton in oil means that these reducing conditions preserved these organisms. The plankton did not create the oil. Coal is therefore a chemical sedimentary deposit as is chert (SiO2) and dolomite (CaMgCO3). Oil and gas are inorganic by-products of reducing environments and conditions. With further reduction and in the presence of iron, coal and seashells, are changed to pyrite. Gastropod shells are often seen under reducing conditions, perfectly preserved and made of pyrite. The Petrified Forest, which represent tree trunks turned to stone, under siliceous conditions, does not mean that living trees when buried, are always preserved in carbon form. The fossils outlines are preserved, butthey are altered to the chemistry that surrounds them.

http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/abstracts.pdf
http://www.aipg.org/Meetings/2009%20Annual%20Meeting/2009proceedings.pdf

http://www.opednews.com/author/author47248.html

[nmgolfer]

Ahahah you write essays on forums, but you don't spoon feed. Right. I have researched it, and most scientists agree that the majority of oil was formed by sea life, mostly vegetation.

I also googled oil from limestone, limestone converted to oil, and there was nothing about it, just about animals and vegetation trapped in limestone at formation which are then turned into oil over millions of years.

I can't find one thing saying "limestone turns into oil." If you can't come up with one source, its just not true... lol

In addition to everything we know about you, You're also a lousy researcher

[nmgolfer]

wow do you know how tectonic plates move over time, you really think the planet has the same layout as it had when dinosaurs where here? just because one place is now inaccessible doesn't mean it was always like this. stop using google to research academic stuff because it will only return the most popular links first it is not a relevance based algorithm but popularity based one, so for sure the conspiracy theories will be the most popular but not necessarily relevant or valid. this is the risk of only basing your research on the net, go to a library and look for stuff to back up the info you found.

Is everything scientific correct, hell no thats why people keep on learning, but sometimes there are facts you just cant fudge or ignore. Im sorry but limestone does not equal oil, it doesn't produce oil its just part of a whole process you have to get through to get oil but not the actual producer. Why do you think there are gases that need to be extracted first before you can access the oil, not because its limestone but because methane and propane are the result of organic decay. You expose limestone to acid and the product would be calcium and CO2, CO2 doesn't ignite like you see on the oil platforms (when they burn off the gases that are released during drilling). think a bit

in addition the quote seems more like a hypothesis then an actual theory. just because it has a fancy title or looks authentic doesn't mean it is. Find me stuff from MIT, Princeton,McGill, Harvard or any other prestigious and established school that supports your hypothesis and ramblings and I promise I'll give you the benefit of the doubt , but right now you spitting out info that you saw only as a google result.

use these to do research:
http://infomine.ucr.edu/
http://www.techxtra.ac.uk/index.html
http://www.incywincy.com/

You're full of ... logical fallacies. Just because someone is from MIT does not make them any more qualified in a given subject matter than my dog. That particular logical fallacy is called "appeal to authority". But Thomas Gold (originator or abiogenic petro theory) was from Cambrige so neener neener neener!

Well here's the bottom line... I think you're just like PhotoD.ude ignorant of science in general, geology in particular and completely unprepared to pass judgement or even begin to understand any of these topic no matter how long and how hard you "google". We will just have to agree to disagree.

[PhotoDu.de]

nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

[tk-421]

Guys, let's all turn it down a notch. This is an interesting and important topic, so I would like to keep the thread open. Thanks.

[PhotoDu.de]

Guys, let's all turn it down a notch. This is an interesting and important topic, so I would like to keep the thread open. Thanks.

Has my behavior been appropriate?

p.s. I am just going to double repost this so he sees it:
nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

[PhotoDu.de]

But Thomas Gold (originator or abiogenic petro theory) was from Cambrige so neener neener neener!


Thomas Gold was a astronomy professor, not a geologist. http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/04/7.1.04/Tom.Gold.obit.html

"The debate still is raging on one of Gold's last, and most widely controversial, ideas: that oil and natural gas are formed not from decaying organic matter, as most scientists believe, but from geologic processes and continually well up to the surface from deep underground.

The presence of organic molecules in all petroleum deposits has long been taken as evidence for the biological origin of petroleum. Gold argued instead in his 1999 book The Deep Hot Biosphere that the organic molecules come from subterranean microbes that feed on petroleum deep in the Earth's crust. Gold's vision of a supply of oil and gas that is essentially inexhaustible drew intense criticism from petroleum geologists."

He didn't provide proof, he provided a different theory. This theory does not hold up under scrutiny.

You are cherry picking results, I am trying to looking at the scientific consensus.

Sorry for repeating myself again but I really would like an answer. Mngolfer, do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

[yarrr]

Thomas Gold was a astronomy professor, not a geologist. http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/04/7.1.04/Tom.Gold.obit.html

"The debate still is raging on one of Gold's last, and most widely controversial, ideas: that oil and natural gas are formed not from decaying organic matter, as most scientists believe, but from geologic processes and continually well up to the surface from deep underground.

The presence of organic molecules in all petroleum deposits has long been taken as evidence for the biological origin of petroleum. Gold argued instead in his 1999 book The Deep Hot Biosphere that the organic molecules come from subterranean microbes that feed on petroleum deep in the Earth's crust. Gold's vision of a supply of oil and gas that is essentially inexhaustible drew intense criticism from petroleum geologists."

He didn't provide proof, he provided a different theory. This theory does not hold up under scrutiny.

You are cherry picking results, I am trying to looking at the scientific consensus.

Sorry for repeating myself again but I really would like an answer. Mngolfer, do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

broooooooooooooo

Those petroleum geologists that criticized him were all bought out by big oil man.. Gold was the only one with the balls to stand up to them!

/standard conspiracy theorist answer

[PhotoDu.de]

broooooooooooooo

Those petroleum geologists that criticized him were all bought out by big oil man.. Gold was the only one with the balls to stand up to them!

/standard conspiracy theorist answer

Conspiracy theories are great. If BP isn't competent enough to drill for oil, how would they be able to keep the wraps on a huge conspiracy like some claim? If this was such a huge conspiracy there would be so many information leaks/people to keep in line that it would be an incredible feat.

[fmicle]

Also they are called fossil fuels for a reason

Just like the natives in North America were called Indians? :smile:

[PhotoDu.de]

Just like the natives in North America were called Indians? :smile:

Right, we call them native americans now because of correct geographical knowledge. We didn't start using the term "fossil fuel" until a scientific consensus was formed on the origin of crude oil/natural gas/coal.

[nmgolfer]

nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

Apparently you haven't a clue about thermodynamics in general or the heat capacity of a substance (including air) in particular therefore, In deference to the moderators... I will not respond to your idiocy. We are done, this is my last post this thread.

[nmgolfer]

This article is so germane to the topic at hand I had to break my earlier vow to discontinue this dialog. Your are being systematically lied to and the sooner you realize it the better off all living creatures on this planet will be.


us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/)

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

[docB]

So, does the IV idea of using SO2 to artifically block sunlight make any sense, or would it just serve to curb solar energy efforts?