Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1141  
Old 11.03.2013, 08:53
Fridge's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zürich
Posts: 687
Groaned at 23 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 757 Times in 331 Posts
Fridge has a reputation beyond reputeFridge has a reputation beyond reputeFridge has a reputation beyond reputeFridge has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
View Post
Another thing that bothers me, in the sixties and seventies those that are supposed to know about climatology, were predicting a fresh ice age early in this century, ie today. These same people are now predicting global warming on a massive scale, and in only a few years time.

The world has become very slightly warmer, this has been measured, and you only need to visit the Alpine museums here, and look at old photographs, to learn how far the Swiss glaciers have retreated in the past 50 years.

But this is probably due to the Sun's solar cycle, and it will get a bit warmer before cooling again.

There is a study scheme to supply Scotland with electricity produced in Iceland, but this will lead to a 30% distribution loss. They have plenty of thermal energy which can also be easily used to create hydrogen, a very useful but dangerous fuel, with no distribution losses.

Isn't it strange that the oil companies can capture wasted methane gas in the Libyan desert and ship it liquified to Europe for use in cars and city buses here in Bern, but some say it is impossible to manufacture cleaner hydrogen and ship it here for transport use.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, a stable, very high energy density molecule. Hydrogen is an extremely reactive, low energy potential atom.

So you do have distribution losses. The H2 had to be either carried by something else or completely isolated. That's not free.

It's far from impossible, it just isn't very feasible with current solutions. So, it's not in any way cleaner.

Edit: you do know that hydrocarbons like methane actually contain hydrogen, right? Kind of underlining my point. And you can't "manufacture" an atom. Not yet anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 11.03.2013, 09:44
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 29,136
Groaned at 2,035 Times in 1,526 Posts
Thanked 34,693 Times in 16,479 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
hydrolysis
Which takes more energy to produce the hydrogen then you will get back.

Brilliant.

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #1143  
Old 11.03.2013, 09:46
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 29,136
Groaned at 2,035 Times in 1,526 Posts
Thanked 34,693 Times in 16,479 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
you only need to visit the Alpine museums here, and look at old photographs, to learn how far the Swiss glaciers have retreated in the past 150 years
FTFY

Tom

....
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 11.03.2013, 10:26
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ticino & London
Posts: 1,969
Groaned at 165 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 1,132 Times in 622 Posts
Cashboy has a reputation beyond reputeCashboy has a reputation beyond reputeCashboy has a reputation beyond reputeCashboy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Yes, H would be the atomic symbol for hydrogen But having a single of a 2 electron outer shell, the "stable state" is bonded as a 2-atom molecule, hence H2.
Haven't you just mixed up because Hydrogen (H) is in Period 1 and Oxygen (O) is in Period 2 of the Periodic Table and hence H2O for water?
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 11.03.2013, 10:47
Fridge's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zürich
Posts: 687
Groaned at 23 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 757 Times in 331 Posts
Fridge has a reputation beyond reputeFridge has a reputation beyond reputeFridge has a reputation beyond reputeFridge has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Haven't you just mixed up because Hydrogen (H) is in Period 1 and Oxygen (O) is in Period 2 of the Periodic Table and hence H2O for water?

No.

H2O has the hydrogen bonded with a common oxygen, not each other.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
Quote:
At standard temperature and pressure, hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, nonmetallic, highly combustible diatomic gas with the molecular formula H2.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Fridge for this useful post:
  #1146  
Old 11.03.2013, 13:06
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
climate is not the same as the weather you watch on the tv news. You don't need a ph.d. To understand why Monsanto is engineering new GM plants to take advantage of drier climates with longer growing seasons where it used to be cold and wet. I don't understand folks more enamored of arguing against the scientific studies when merely knowing the way the climate has changed in our own lifetimes is significant enough to ask the questions.
Who's talking about weather? I'm referring to climate, both as weather over a large region (more than a municipality, e.g.) and/or as weather over a large span of time (years).

The fact of the matter is that we don't know, on any given day, what the temperature of the Earth truly is. We have discreet measurements from around the globe that we can use to estimate average temperature; however this estimate is so imprecise that the perceived warming falls well within the statistical margin of error.

Further, we don't know how much rain fell on Earth yesterday, or any day, so many of these "predictive" models (I use that term very loosely) don't factor in precipitation at all!

As I and others have pointed out, we've had scares of acid rain, holes in the ozone, global warming, global climate change, and the complete consumption of fossil fuels. Where have most of these stories gone? Once they lost their power to engender sensational fear and/or were disproven, they were conveniently dropped by the media and the political environmental movement.

These demagogues moved onto the next sensational topic that was sure to keep them on the speaking circuit, cameras on, and their pockets lined.

So, yes, the climate is changing. Just like it has for 4.5 billion years. Nothing is static on Earth. Forests, deserts, rivers, and continents come and go. Let's find out how to take care of our planet responsibly, and not by listening to the snake oil salesmen.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1147  
Old 11.03.2013, 13:28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fulenbach
Posts: 264
Groaned at 5 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 186 Times in 100 Posts
Pavanne is considered knowledgeablePavanne is considered knowledgeablePavanne is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Who's talking about weather? I'm referring to climate, both as weather over a large region (more than a municipality, e.g.) and/or as weather over a large span of time (years).

The fact of the matter is that we don't know, on any given day, what the temperature of the Earth truly is. We have discreet measurements from around the globe that we can use to estimate average temperature; however this estimate is so imprecise that the perceived warming falls well within the statistical margin of error.

Further, we don't know how much rain fell on Earth yesterday, or any day, so many of these "predictive" models (I use that term very loosely) don't factor in precipitation at all!

As I and others have pointed out, we've had scares of acid rain, holes in the ozone, global warming, global climate change, and the complete consumption of fossil fuels. Where have most of these stories gone? Once they lost their power to engender sensational fear and/or were disproven, they were conveniently dropped by the media and the political environmental movement.
Acid rain is getting better in the West because of measures taken to stop it, particularly the installation of scrubbers in fossil fuel power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, and several successful international treaties and permit trading mechanisms. It's still a big problem in much of China but the same solutions will work there.

The hole in the ozone layer is another success story of environmental regulation in response to concerns - basically, the use of aerosols and CFCs has been phased out.

Both of these are examples of how there was a problem, and appropriate concern and regulation seems to have solved it. I hope we can do the same for the bigger, nastier, more global problems of climate change and global fossil fuel depletion.
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 11.03.2013, 15:25
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Acid rain is getting better in the West because of measures taken to stop it, particularly the installation of scrubbers in fossil fuel power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, and several successful international treaties and permit trading mechanisms. It's still a big problem in much of China but the same solutions will work there.

The hole in the ozone layer is another success story of environmental regulation in response to concerns - basically, the use of aerosols and CFCs has been phased out.

Both of these are examples of how there was a problem, and appropriate concern and regulation seems to have solved it. I hope we can do the same for the bigger, nastier, more global problems of climate change and global fossil fuel depletion.
What you're missing, though, is these stories were dropped long before any possible benefit could have come about. So this is not an issue of "problem solved, let's tackle the next one," inasmuch as its an issue of "people aren't worried about this anymore, how can we scare them?"
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1149  
Old 11.03.2013, 15:29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fulenbach
Posts: 264
Groaned at 5 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 186 Times in 100 Posts
Pavanne is considered knowledgeablePavanne is considered knowledgeablePavanne is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
What you're missing, though, is these stories were dropped long before any possible benefit could have come about. So this is not an issue of "problem solved, let's tackle the next one," inasmuch as its an issue of "people aren't worried about this anymore, how can we scare them?"
Well, once the appropriate measures had been taken there wasn't much point in continuing to report on them in the popular press. Scientific journals continued to monitor and report progress, and enough of it seeped down for me to be aware that these problems were in decline through the 1990s, as a reasonably environmentally aware kid with a subcription to New Scientist and Nature.

Perhaps you're reading the wrong papers?
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 11.03.2013, 15:40
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,806
Groaned at 227 Times in 191 Posts
Thanked 22,512 Times in 9,559 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Has anyone thought of creating hydrogen, deliver it, and use it as a fuel? Well of course they have, but the oil companies wouldn't like it!


It's always attractive to blame some conspiracy of big business. But did horse breeders stop the growth of the automobile? Did the pony express stop the spread of the telegraph? Did newspapers stop the spread of the Internet? They tried maybe, but their resistance didn't last for long or get them far.

If a new idea isn't winning through, it's rarely because there is some conspiracy keeping it back. It's mostly because it just isn't really such a good idea after all.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1151  
Old 11.03.2013, 15:43
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,806
Groaned at 227 Times in 191 Posts
Thanked 22,512 Times in 9,559 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I agree completely here. Current electric-vehicle technology is still in its infancy, and so much so, that traditional internal-combustion vehicles are still the best option. Hopefully research continues, and breakthroughs are made in battery technology and electric motor efficiency.
Electric motor efficiency is actually pretty good, typically around the 97-99% mark. The gearbox and drive chain probably lose more energy than the motor. It's storage and charging technologies that are keeping electric cars back, not motors.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1152  
Old 14.03.2013, 00:18
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 852
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,669 Times in 699 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I have just finished reading the excellent "Merchants of doubt". It shows in great detail how big business managed to put off legislation against smoking, dangerous pesticides, etc. There is a chapter about global warming. The kind of bullying and denigration that they describe being used against scientists is pretty much the same as goes on on this thread, so I won't bother to post here any more. Groaning (again) will just prove my point, so feel free .
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank FrankZappa for this useful post:
  #1153  
Old 14.03.2013, 00:58
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 870
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 351 Times in 229 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Another thing that bothers me, in the sixties and seventies those that are supposed to know about climatology, were predicting a fresh ice age early in this century, ie today. These same people are now predicting global warming on a massive scale, and in only a few years time.
That's a myth.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/inde...g_in_the_1970s
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 14.03.2013, 01:07
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,687
Groaned at 142 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 4,530 Times in 1,800 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

So im not going to read this whole thread because its obvious from the start that it is idiotic. One point though- you mentioned the 150 gigatons of CO2 produced by animals, and 24 gT produced by man. Whether or not that is correct is irrelevant - have you thought about the impacts that our species has had on the planet by destroying over 80% of it's forests, the lungs of the earth that are needed to process the CO2 regardless of it's source? Wake up - nobody who supports the existence of global warming is trying to sell you anything or profit off of you, while there are huge profits to be made for the energy/oil companies in continuing to burn fossil fuels unchecked. (of course,in the end, no one profits when the planet is uninhabitable.)
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank pilatus1 for this useful post:
The following 2 users groan at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1155  
Old 14.03.2013, 01:23
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,687
Groaned at 142 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 4,530 Times in 1,800 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post

It's always attractive to blame some conspiracy of big business. But did horse breeders stop the growth of the automobile? Did the pony express stop the spread of the telegraph? Did newspapers stop the spread of the Internet? They tried maybe, but their resistance didn't last for long or get them far.

If a new idea isn't winning through, it's rarely because there is some conspiracy keeping it back. It's mostly because it just isn't really such a good idea after all.
what a ridiculous argument. you dont think that a large powerful company( or a whole industry, for that matter - the most powerful one on the planet), would squash, destroy, or suppress any technology that would potentially keep it from making trillions of $ more in revenue? If not, I guess those oil execs just cant wait to be able to turn over all that power to the next guy with a better invention than the internal combustion engine, an outdated relic from a century ago.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1156  
Old 14.03.2013, 04:32
poptart's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,787
Groaned at 33 Times in 28 Posts
Thanked 3,013 Times in 1,242 Posts
poptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post

As I and others have pointed out, we've had scares of acid rain, holes in the ozone, global warming, global climate change, and the complete consumption of fossil fuels. Where have most of these stories gone? Once they lost their power to engender sensational fear and/or were disproven, they were conveniently dropped by the media and the political environmental movement.

These demagogues moved onto the next sensational topic that was sure to keep them on the speaking circuit, cameras on, and their pockets lined.

So, yes, the climate is changing. Just like it has for 4.5 billion years. Nothing is static on Earth. Forests, deserts, rivers, and continents come and go. Let's find out how to take care of our planet responsibly, and not by listening to the snake oil salesmen.
Red herring. Just because the 70s were filled with disaster movies and histrionic asshats doesn't mean that the data today isn't worthy of your consideration. I'm not scared of the climate, I'm worried about those who willfully look for reasons to discount all the hard data these days. It's hard to ignore no matter what your political leanings as mother nature really doesnt give a damn if you understand her or not.
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 14.03.2013, 04:39
poptart's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,787
Groaned at 33 Times in 28 Posts
Thanked 3,013 Times in 1,242 Posts
poptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond reputepoptart has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Which takes more energy to produce the hydrogen then you will get back.

Brilliant.

Tom
Not true, actually as efficiency rates are pretty high these days up to 95%with platinum reduction agents if my reading is correct.
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 14.03.2013, 09:07
baboon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 4,060
Groaned at 155 Times in 134 Posts
Thanked 7,093 Times in 3,254 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Weren't we all supposed to have been vaporized by the hole in the ozone layer by now?
Well you could ask the thousands in Australia that have had malignant melanomas hacked off them what they think about that one.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 14.03.2013, 09:19
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 29,136
Groaned at 2,035 Times in 1,526 Posts
Thanked 34,693 Times in 16,479 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Not true, actually as efficiency rates are pretty high these days up to 95%with platinum reduction agents if my reading is correct.
You're trying to tell me that you can take water, separate it into H2 and O2, then recombine the H2 and O2 to make water, and get more energy out then you put in?

Thanks, I always knew that the first law of thermodynamics was total BS!

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 14.03.2013, 09:44
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Well, once the appropriate measures had been taken there wasn't much point in continuing to report on them in the popular press. Scientific journals continued to monitor and report progress, and enough of it seeped down for me to be aware that these problems were in decline through the 1990s, as a reasonably environmentally aware kid with a subcription to New Scientist and Nature.

Perhaps you're reading the wrong papers?
Again, I'm talking about what the average person saw and heard, not what was published in specific scientific/trade journals. The average person flipped on the television and got the scare, and when they got numb to it, the charlatans jumped to the next topic.

Quote:
View Post
I have just finished reading the excellent "Merchants of doubt". It shows in great detail how big business managed to put off legislation against smoking, dangerous pesticides, etc. There is a chapter about global warming. The kind of bullying and denigration that they describe being used against scientists is pretty much the same as goes on on this thread, so I won't bother to post here any more. Groaning (again) will just prove my point, so feel free .
Yes, businesses opposed legislation, but I think you would be very hard-pressed to prove they did this because they wanted to pollute the environment. More often, the legislation was likely overreaching, too aggressive, and the businesses had to protect themselves from corporate suicide or negotiate legislation that they could reasonably afford to implement. What good is the environmental legislation if it completely shuts down the company that owns the factory, and, for lack of funds, the factory slowly rots into the environment?

Quote:
View Post
So im not going to read this whole thread because its obvious from the start that it is idiotic. One point though- you mentioned the 150 gigatons of CO2 produced by animals, and 24 gT produced by man. Whether or not that is correct is irrelevant - have you thought about the impacts that our species has had on the planet by destroying over 80% of it's forests, the lungs of the earth that are needed to process the CO2 regardless of it's source? Wake up - nobody who supports the existence of global warming is trying to sell you anything or profit off of you, while there are huge profits to be made for the energy/oil companies in continuing to burn fossil fuels unchecked. (of course,in the end, no one profits when the planet is uninhabitable.)
80% of the forests? Really? Everywhere I turn, there are trees, here in Switzerland, and back home in Florida. I don't see people and animals falling over choking from CO2 poisoning...have we all somehow miraculously evolved to not need so much oxygen in the few thousands of years that man has been chopping down forests? And where does most of that CO2 come from? Mankind? Or is it naturally occurring?

As to the carbon credits, you are deluded if you don't believe these snake-oil carbon credit salesmen are making money selling them to you. And yes, many of them believe in "global warming."

Quote:
View Post
what a ridiculous argument. you dont think that a large powerful company( or a whole industry, for that matter - the most powerful one on the planet), would squash, destroy, or suppress any technology that would potentially keep it from making trillions of $ more in revenue? If not, I guess those oil execs just cant wait to be able to turn over all that power to the next guy with a better invention than the internal combustion engine, an outdated relic from a century ago.
Yup, those "evil oil execs..." They're all sitting in their darkened boardrooms conspiring to hide wonderful new technology from you.

As amogles pointed out, at one time there were different moneyed interests, and different industries were the most powerful in the world, and they weren't able to stop the development of new technologies that eventually unseated them. Why is it any different today?

Third, that "outdated relic from a century ago," was an environmental boon compared to what came before. Horses, oxen, cows, donkeys, mules, etc are all ruminants, and as such, fart a lot. The methane gas emitted by these animals is four times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, and per unit of distance (metric or SAE), these animals emitted more greenhouse gasses and required far more fuel than do automobiles today. Further, when your car breaks down, it gets towed off. When a horse (or whatever animal) broke down and died, oftentimes it was left right there in the street to decompose because it was too heavy to move, emitting more greenhouse gasses in the process.

By the late 1800's cities were literally drowning in the byproducts of beasts of burden. In addition to dealing with their carcasses, there was the much more pressing burden of dealing with the rising sea of horseshit that was filling the streets and causing outbreaks of disease in places like London, New York City, Boston, Paris, etc. The farms couldn't take any more "fertilizer," so there were huge landfills where the crap was dumped (and emitted methane gas, by the way). Those cute New England brownstones with the raised front porches that Americans love were built that way, to elevate people above the layer of horseshit sitting in the road. So, yeah, I'll take the relic, as its still the best option we have.

Quote:
View Post
Red herring. Just because the 70s were filled with disaster movies and histrionic asshats doesn't mean that the data today isn't worthy of your consideration. I'm not scared of the climate, I'm worried about those who willfully look for reasons to discount all the hard data these days. It's hard to ignore no matter what your political leanings as mother nature really doesnt give a damn if you understand her or not.
The data today is worthy of consideration, once you've eliminated all of it that has been contrived to fit a political viewpoint, which is a significant portion of it. I hear a story about glaciers melting, and I look into it, and I find the researchers documented one instance, made all kinds of statistical inferences about its meaning, and ignored the next glacier over that was actually growing. They post pictures of polar bears, telling us they're becoming extinct, when their population is actually growing. They tell us that the Earth is becoming warmer, based on data taken from a thermometer placed next to a heat exhaust.

So again, let's have the conservation, which is good and necessary. But let's wake up and realize that Al Gore and his ilk are no different than the tribal shamans that told our ancestors to sacrifice our virgins to the gods otherwise the crops wouldn't grow...

Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
This user groans at Jobsrobertsharpii for this post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0