Global Warming: What do you think? What do you know?

[Joey Link]

I, like uofom3, really enjoy these controversial and/or political threads.

I'm with most here in believing that global warming does exist, but due to natural cycles of the Earth. I'm not saying we're not contributing, but I will most definitely say I don't believe we're contributing in a way that liberals would like us to believe. Whoever said that without global warming Al Gore would be nothing is absolutely correct.

That said, I think it's bad policy from a political standpoint to not try to promote alternative fuels and sources of energy. Someone brought up Brazil, a very good example of a country who's government embraces new technologies to solve a problem. It's no secret that many of these technologies don't succeed here due to government red tape, and I think that really needs to change. I'm sure the oil companies and their lobbyists have something to do with it, but if that is the case, we're still not electing people willing to stand up to them. If someone were to really, truly try to push through the bureaucracy and make it easier for the US to adopt new technologies, I don't think he or she would have much opposition from the general population. I feel the problem is that many of these people who push for these technologies are using buzzwords like 'green' and 'global warming' and all these other terms, when really all they need to do is stand up and say 'we need to get off this foreign oil because it's bad policy to be so reliant on other countries for our energy' (that's the main reason for me). The second reason is because I believe there are cleaner, more efficient, ways of meeting our energy demands without the impact to our environment. Like most conservatives I know, I care deeply about the environment and what's happening to our Earth.

I believe the answer to our energy problem is electricity, mostly for one reason that nobody has touched on; flexibility. How many different ways are there to produce electricity? How many different ways are there to produce oil and other petroleum products? Ethanol? Biodiesel? Hydrogen? It seems every 'alternative' is very static, unable to adapt to changing conditions. We can get electricity from coal plants, oil plants, the sun, the ocean, the wind, rivers, nuclear plants, and many other sources. It seems to me like banking on one technology, that's not universal, and that can only be acquired in one way, is akin to putting all your money into one stock instead of diversifying your portfolio. Think about everything we use electricity for, and everything we use the other technologies for; it seems to be the one 'energy' that can do it all. Sure, there are some drawbacks, but we're just breaking the ice when it comes to what electric cars can do (not talking about hybrids). GM produced an electric car that was actually used on our roadways in limited numbers that could travel 150 miles on one four hour charge, and apparently they were pretty quick. Have you guys seem some of the performance-oriented prototype cars some of these small companies are making? 0-60 in 3 seconds and such, it's nuts. We need to ask ourselves, what's taking so long to get these cars approved for the road?

[joshh]

LALALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALALALALALA....... ..GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists, GW exists....it does it does it does!!!!


People are too suckered to not believe now.

[Maluco]

EPA scientists complain about political pressure

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/epa_scientists

[monty]

2012 Mayan calendar, polar shifts, end of the world...

[rwh11385]

I'm curious about your response regarding the high cost of e85 and the possible long-term problems with sustaining production of it as a primary fuel source - given that you brought it up. I have a hard time seeing you as being a huge proponent of e85 at any level besides being a good "idea".

http://www.saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/model/95/biopower.shtml

I'm even a fan of it even given that it's raised beer prices.

[joshh]

So joshh, you'd rather use otherwise wasted energy with a turbo than regenerative brakes and electric motors?

Why can't the US have more turbo diesels and especially turbo E85 cars off the lot?

I have no problem with using other forms of energy, it's just not going to come out of my pocket.

Indeed, it's an arguement we can all for sure participate in... While I'll agree with those who say we as individuals cannot make valid statements based on our insight and knowledge, WTF? There is no way in hell this is a matter of fact! Someone brought up something earlier along the lines of scientists aren't ever wrong? Of course they are (not to even go into their pockets) Furthermore, it seems alot of people here are very blind in their postings. Do we on the other side come across as bold and maybe even ignorant? Of course! Only because of the blindness of those who are so pro-side. I'm not even arguing the natural side of things, only the "car", "Gore", "tax" side of it all.. Most seem to be missing that...

I said scientists are never wrong, but I was being 100% sarcastic. I must have forgot the smiley.

[rwh11385]

I'm curious about your response regarding the high cost of e85 and the possible long-term problems with sustaining production of it as a primary fuel source - given that you brought it up. I have a hard time seeing you as being a huge proponent of e85 at any level besides being a good "idea".

High cost? in the midwest it's cheaper. and with a turbo and proper tuning, people are seeing the same mileage. long-term? find a better crop like switchgrass, improve production, have more plants

have fuel coming from a practical weed-like plant that can be grown anywhere instead of getting a lot more fossil fuel that's irreplaceable from countries in control of it and at war usually? hmm....

[uofom3]

So joshh, you'd rather use otherwise wasted energy with a turbo than regenerative brakes and electric motors?

Why can't the US have more turbo diesels and especially turbo E85 cars off the lot?

I'm curious about your response regarding the high cost of e85 and the possible long-term problems with sustaining production of it as a primary fuel source - given that you brought it up. I have a hard time seeing you as being a huge proponent of e85 at any level besides being a good "idea".

[Maluco]

You are 100% correct - excellent post. I made a very similar point earlier in the thread.

Indeed, it's an arguement we can all for sure participate in... While I'll agree with those who say we as individuals cannot make the greatest educated statements but with all of our research and referencs, WTF? There is no way in hell this is a matter of fact! Someone brought up something earlier along the lines of scientists aren't ever wrong? Of course they are (not to even go into their pockets) Furthermore, it seems alot of people here are very blind in their postings. Do we on the other side come across as bold and maybe even ignorant? Of course! Only because of the blindness of those who are so pro-side. I'm not even arguing the natural side of things, only the "car", "Gore", "tax" side of it all.. Most seem to be missing that...

[rwh11385]

So joshh, you'd rather use otherwise wasted energy with a turbo than regenerative brakes and electric motors?

Why can't the US have more turbo diesels and especially turbo E85 cars off the lot?

[Maluco]

You are 100% correct - excellent post. I made a very similar point earlier in the thread.

Indeed, it's an arguement we can all for sure participate in... While I'll agree with those who say we as individuals cannot make valid statements based on our insight and knowledge, WTF? There is no way in hell this is a matter of fact! Someone brought up something earlier along the lines of scientists aren't ever wrong? Of course they are (not to even go into their pockets) Furthermore, it seems alot of people here are very blind in their postings. Do we on the other side come across as bold and maybe even ignorant? Of course! Only because of the blindness of those who are so pro-side. I'm not even arguing the natural side of things, only the "car", "Gore", "tax" side of it all.. Most seem to be missing that...

[uofom3]

Electric motors are not the answer. We still have to mine to get the minerals to make batteries and then we still have to destroy those same batteries. Let alone use oil to charge them. You said it yourself.
The fact is, we are forced to use some form of pollution/destruction to get the power we need.
I'm not about to spend an extra $10,000.00 just to "save" money on gas and "save" the enviroment. That's why Honda made the 89-91 Civic hatchback.

$25,000 for a Prius.
$15,000 for a base Honda Civic.

$10,000 difference.
Gas as is $3.50 per gallon.
That's 2857.14 gallons of gas you can pay for before the Civic evens out the price of the Prius.
Lets say you drive a lot and use 20 gallons a week.
142.8 weeks of gas (20 gallons a week) the Civic uses before it costs as much as the Prius.
That's almost three years of 20 gallons a week.
No the Prius is not cost effective!

You are 100% correct - excellent post. I made a very similar point earlier in the thread.

[joshh]

My old roommate in CA came home with a Prius one day. What a pile....I seriously think a smug cloud started to form around the house....LOL (she really went off on how she got such great gas milage and that everyone should get one)

Now remind her how much more she paid for the POS over a much much cheaper economy car.

[joshh]

No, we're not back to square 1. Electric motors robust enough to run cars are relatively new. Also development of battery packs which can handle long range are too. Yes fossil fuel is burnt to produce the electricity used to charge the cars, but one must remember that the efficiency of a car motor is only around 30% at max. The rest of the energy is lost as heat.
Electric motors are extremely efficient, with very little wasted energy, hence overall it is much better than mechanical engines.

Also remember that alternate power sources like Nuclear energy, solar energy etc. are becoming safer, cheaper and more desirable.

Electric motors are not the answer. We still have to mine to get the minerals to make batteries and then we still have to destroy those same batteries. Let alone use oil to charge them. You said it yourself.
The fact is, we are forced to use some form of pollution/destruction to get the power we need.
I'm not about to spend an extra $10,000.00 just to "save" money on gas and "save" the enviroment. That's why Honda made the 89-91 Civic hatchback.

$25,000 for a Prius.
$15,000 for a base Honda Civic.

$10,000 difference.
Gas as is $3.50 per gallon.
That's 2857.14 gallons of gas you can pay for before the Civic evens out the price of the Prius.
Lets say you drive a lot and use 20 gallons a week.
142.8 weeks of gas (20 gallons a week) the Civic uses before it costs as much as the Prius.
That's almost three years of 20 gallons a week.
No the Prius is not cost effective!

[Sean]

My old roommate in CA came home with a Prius one day. What a pile....I seriously think a smug cloud started to form around the house....LOL (she really went off on how she got such great gas milage and that everyone should get one)