Nothing good about Ethanol

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
past peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/

Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
past peer review, only to be caught later:


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/

Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Michael Mann continues to be a respected scientist. On the other hand, John
Daly, the school teacher funded by big oil to provide pseudoscience, is
dead, though his industry sponsored propaganda site lives on.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:



The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of
HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

Well, what does that tell us about the folks who do not agree with the
consensus regarding evolution? Or are they another embattled band of
truth seekers battling the vast wealth and power of the geneticist
empire, the way the What-AGW folks are battling the allpowerful
climatology cartel and their grim desire to destroy the US economy for
murky reasons nobody can fathom?

Matt Barrow wrote:

Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

Another impeccably unimpeachable piece of scientific logic. Curses!
Foiled again!

Dan Luke wrote:
Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in
epistomology or critical thinking.

You persist in this patronizing tone. Why?

You must have realized by now that the What-AGW folks do not really
believe what they are saying, but just can't help being niggling
hectoring contrarian puffed-up supercilious twits whose pretense of
being obviously smarter, more knowledgable, more honest, more moral,
and more ethical than anyone who disagrees with them masks a
deep-seated despair that this "superiority" is the only source of their
worth, and if they were to fail to "win" these kind of arguments for
any reason, even by discovering that objective reality did not match
their predetermined position, they would have to face the horror of
existence as just another piece of meat in a world where the leaders
they slavishly support treat them as shabbily as they do the rest of us.

Ah, Z, you overreached yourself, as usual.

You should not make fun of the creationists since they are your AGW
allies. They think, like Dodger Crappock, that evil Industrialists are
not keeping good stewardship of the earth, and want to scale back
progress. The AGW controversy gives them the perfect opportunity to do
so, under the guise of science.

As for the AGW lobby, their motives are clear: grant money. You
cannot publish a anti-AGW paper as easy as you can a pro-AGW
paper--that's well known.

RL


z wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote:



The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of
HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

Well, what does that tell us about the folks who do not agree with the
consensus regarding evolution? Or are they another embattled band of
truth seekers battling the vast wealth and power of the geneticist
empire, the way the What-AGW folks are battling the allpowerful
climatology cartel and their grim desire to destroy the US economy for
murky reasons nobody can fathom?

raylopez99 wrote:

As for the AGW lobby, their motives are clear: grant money. You
cannot publish a anti-AGW paper as easy as you can a pro-AGW
paper--that's well known.

Did you know the Bushies run the government now?
Oh, and by the way, for those forced to pervert their views by
publishing AGW in order to maintain their wealth and power as
climatologists, here is a list of 40-odd think tanks, media outlets,
and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups which have
received more than $8 million from ExxonMobil to free them to publish
the truth about the AGW lie. Since none of them have taken anything
other than the what-AGW? position since receiving this money, that must
mean that that is the truth! No doubt ExxonMobil would be glad to free
more scientists from bondage if you asked! In fact, looking at the
table, you don't even have to do anything climatology related!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:

PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not useful
until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
all things considered.

For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
direction.

They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.


Greg

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:

PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not useful
until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
all things considered.

For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
direction.

They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.

But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
cars. Solar will not be a viable option until the power grid can
undergo a great increase in its size. Solar is still expensive on
any but a small scale.

Nuclear would take a considerable time to bring on line.

And that means new power plants that will most likely be burning coal.
Coal can be burnt efficiently and cleanly with the proper technology
although that too is costly and results in lots of waste products.

Smaller cars that get good gas mileage be they hybrid or just small
would make a big difference. Just driving fewer miles could make a
good portion of this unnecessary, but as a whole drivers are not going
to make that sacrifice.

Just to add a side note, if we start using electricity at those rates
the electrical rates will become quite high. There is no painless way
to lower costs except to conserve and to many that is the most painful
price.

Watch the Discovery channel's show next month on global warming. If
most of what they have seen is true there may be a good many who read
this still around when realestate starts to get scarce.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Greg

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:

PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not
useful
until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
all things considered.

For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
direction.

They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.

But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
cars.

Huh? You're kidding, right? You think we can power all the ACs but not the
battery chargers?




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com