If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and companies don't spend money for nothing. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Is it even something that NEEDS TO BE CURED? |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
Jose wrote:
I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? What has panic and mindless blather ever solved? Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured? |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:38:41 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Anything that uses a hydrocarbon fuel releases CO2. In the case of the fuel cell, or any other engine or power generation that uses a hydrocarbon fuel for that matter, CO2 is released. If that CO2 is coming from a renewable source then it is only putting back what had been removed in producing the fuel. Fossil fuels OTOH strictly add CO2 to the atmosphere. Great strides have been made in engine design allowing much smaller engines to develop the HP that took much larger displacement in the past and we've ended up with much more reliable and longer lived engines. It still takes almost the same fuel to develop the same HP now as it did then, BUT the smaller engines, like most car engines, spend most of their lives developing on the order of 20 to 50 HP and there the smaller engines take far less fuel. Also today's engines produce far less nitrides than older, high compression, large displacement engines. HOWEVER, in the long run our consumption of fuel has gone up roughly on the order of 3.5% every year over the past 3 or 4 decades and it has not slackened with today's high prices. Fleet economy, or MPG reached a peak of about 21.5 MPG some time in the 1980's, but the loophole that lets SUVS and light trucks adhere to a lesser standard has basically driven it down to just over 20 MPG. Had we stuck to the fuel economy standards law passed in the 70's we'd now be driving a fleet that would be getting roughly 37 MPG and saving more than one million barrels of oil a day. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Maybe, maybe not. Generally hystericals cause more resistance, and/or create a lack of credibility. OTOH it sometimes takes a radical to create public attention. Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade Most scientists agree that is has. There are only a few vocal holdouts and fringe groups still denying it exists. Inhofe still calls it a hoax. Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a couple of years old. global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. I seriously doubt that. The upward trend of oil prices doesn't need any help. Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net gain. The US government was slow (downright reluctant) to admit the problem even exists let alone being due to man, but they and even many staunch deniers are swinging around. They are still playing down the results of research and demanding government review of papers on the subject. Even Bjorn Lomborg, a past Danish Greenpeace leader and author of the book "Skeptical Environmentalist" is changing his stance. The conclusions of the "G-8 summit" (June 7) are pretty forceful. http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel...cationFile.pdf (Watch out for line wrap in some readers) It's interesting if you can stay awake long enough to read through 38 pages of that kind of report. As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us" within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try to set a good example. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
In article ,
Jose wrote: Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and companies don't spend money for nothing. I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven Basic physics, molecular spectroscopy and the conservation of energy prove the greenhouse effect. Do you consider either of those to be unproven? If so, which. It follows therefor that ncreasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. What proof do you consider to be missing? -- nor has the case for manmade global warming. The case for anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for the observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is well established both by closure and by the Suess effect. What is it that you doubt about either or both of those? The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. Hystericals are fond of raising this issue in newsgroups where it is off-topic. I have crossposted to sci.environment, where it is on-topic, set follow-ups accordingly, and will be happy to answer any reasonable questions you would like to pose there. Hystericals are also fond of making all sorts of irrational excuses for not discussing such issues in newsgroups frequented by people familiar with the subject matter. I trust you will not. -- FF |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
... The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. ... Now, if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion, please let me know. Note followups. -- FF |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 10:47 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
... Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a couple of years old. Oh no! That is a very common misconception. The most important observations date to the 1970s. It was ignored by the popular Press which found a new ice age to be a more interesting story. But if you look at the proceedings of the climate conferences of that time you will find a different story. The essential Physics was established well before that. The effects of aerosols also have been understood since then. Quantifying the combined effects on global temperatures is the more recent work, and there remains a lot of uncertainty there. But the uncertainty is about how much of a rise and how fast, not the direction of future trends. ... Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net gain. Unfortunately the oceans are rapidly approaching saturation. Should the oceans stop absorbing CO2, the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 will jump to about 15 times the current rate. .... As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us" within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try to set a good example. And they are going to take over in a very big way. Note followups. -- FF |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 12:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. I can GUARANTEE that the world will continue to heat up, or else it will not. If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good. There is no point in fighting it. John Halpenny |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals? What has panic and mindless blather ever solved? Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured? I was not referring to hysterics, but rather, to "hysterics", and should have quoted the word originally. People opposed to environmental safeguards call them hysterics in the same way that people opposed to airport closures refer to "noise nazis". In that sense, "hysterics" (legitimage drawing of attention to the damage we are causing to our and our neighbor's environment) have cured many things. I am most grateful to the "hysterics" of the 1960s for the relatively clean air we breathe today. One only has to go to parts of Europe to breathe the difference (at least when I was last there). As for whether CO2 needed to be "cured", that's not my point. The statement was made that it =was= cured (along with other things including doubling the gas milage), proving that the "hysterics" were unnecessary. I do not see any such proof demonstrated by the facts presented (which I will stipulate), especially as the "cure" was likely to be costly, and business doesn't like costly things. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gasohol | Blueskies | Piloting | 240 | July 6th 07 12:42 AM |
Gasohol | Blueskies | Owning | 233 | June 30th 07 03:50 AM |
How scary is gasohol? | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 27 | March 1st 04 11:39 AM |