global warming

[T. Mac]

What is so bad about batteries for the environment besides the lead and acis which is contained?
Am I missing something?

Nothing except that the hybrid car batteries are no longer lead/acid as lead/acid batteries will not hold up to the demands of the vehicles and are too heavy to be practical.

[Henry V]

Henry,

Your right and thank you for falling into the trap, there is no valid historical data to make any predictions on Global Climate Change. Using 150 years of data to speculate on what the earth has done for hundreds of thousands of years or will do in the next thousand years is just as statistically insignificant as looking at the ALL TIME record lows today across the midwest and making assumptions of 100 year trends. There is NO SIGNIFICANT data that backs up global warming claims only speculation fueled by the need for research money and profiteering snake oil salesmen. They are happy to have you as a customer. Thank you for falling into the trap and proving the point.

Classic stuff IBD. 130 years of an empirical data record means nothing and then you point out a 10 year period to show there is cooling or put lines on a chart contrary to the data. Ok. The majority of climate models predict warming now and in the future and the last 20 years has seen large climate changes particularly in the northern hemisphere. I thought earlier you admitted that there was warming but that humans were not the cause. Now we are clearly back to standing on there is no global warming. Ok.

Exactly who is profiteering from all this? You never cleared that up after I pointed out that industry usually stifles this sort of research yet in this case they have not though they have much to lose. Researchers are profiteering as part of the global conspiracy right. Its the carbon sequestration and green energy juggernaut profiteering and funding I guess.

Let's just agree to disagree. I hope you are right and see no downside in the long run to making changes to reduce carbon emissions. You clearly know you are right and seemingly enjoy a non-conservative approach to energy use.

[subroc]

...You clearly know you are right and seemingly enjoy a non-conservative approach to energy use.

There it is.

Because we don't believe in your view of man caused global warming, we must be energy wasters or lack any knowledge of conservation. Yeh, we just go park over the old storm drains and change our oil. You know (wink, wink) like all those non-believers.

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could just not want man caused global warming advocates to not blow the whole thing up by forcing their advocacy down our throats? Forcing the adoption of technology that isn’t fully developed into mainstream use causing additional unnecessary cost and hardship to the consumer? Advocates of your ilk never look at the law of unintended consequence. You know advocating mandatory ethanol; all it did was raise the price of energy, increase the cost of food and didn’t reduce emersion at all. Some think overall with processing and use it actually raised emissions being sent into the atmosphere. We know, you all just hate the oil companies but just so much foolishness, carbon credits, one sheet of toilet paper, etc.

Well, enough of a rant for today

[Juli H]

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?

well said (or asked, I guess)

Juli

[Clint Watts]

Originally Posted by subroc

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?


I agree.

[Henry V]

There it is.

Because we don't believe in your view of man caused global warming, we must be energy wasters or lack any knowledge of conservation. Yeh, we just go park over the old storm drains and change our oil. You know (wink, wink) like all those non-believers.

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?

My post was directed at one person who, based on his posts in this thread, seems to care little about conservation of energy.

Conserving energy and alternative energy should make sense to most everyone. Do not take my statement in any way as trying to paint with a broad brush. Review my posts here. I have said many times I accept that some do not believe in GW. I have never said what people should or should not do about it either (i.e. shoving anything...) Of course, I have been asked what I am doing about it and I have then been told that I am not doing enough.

Is it possible that someone could just not want man caused global warming advocates to not blow the whole thing up by forcing their advocacy down our throats? Forcing the adoption of technology that isn’t fully developed into mainstream use causing additional unnecessary cost and hardship to the consumer? Advocates of your ilk never look at the law of unintended consequence. You know advocating mandatory ethanol; all it did was raise the price of energy, increase the cost of food and didn’t reduce emersion at all. Some think overall with processing and use it actually raised emissions being sent into the atmosphere. We know, you all just hate the oil companies but just so much foolishness, carbon credits, one sheet of toilet paper, etc.

Interesting. Who here is now making sweeping statements to stereotype a group of people and who is making assumptions about what policies I support or advocate. Ethanol, yeah, right. etc, etc....
Here is an interesting article if you have an interest in alternative energy: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...es-listed.html

[Pete]

Everybody should have a windmill in their back yard

I for one would rather have 1 nuclear power plant to look

Pete

[Henry V]

Pete,
Nuclear could be in the mix just as it is now. As discussed here http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_04.htm it is a very subsidized sector just like all the rest of the energy industry. Nuclear plants are huge investments in the short and long term relative to other technologies. That's a major reason why there are no new plants, besides the fact that many peoplee become "environmentalists" once a plant is proposed anywhere near their community.

[Pete]

Henry
I think there are no new nuclear plants because of the environmentalists and their rants.

Nuclear is safe and cost effective,,,renewable and has a low environmental inpact.

Peoples fears of what could happen which has been evangilized by the fear mongers are the hold up.
I spent most of my adult life in a nuke town (59 experimental sites)and new many scientists and engeneers and they will tell a different story than what the media does.
Chernoble doesn't exist in US plants,,,,, and 3 mile island is the worst case scenerio and it turned out pretty dam good.

Its safer inside a plant than sitting outside throwing birds for our dogs.


Anyway its mostly a political subject and not a rational one

Pete

[subroc]

...Here is an interesting article if you have an interest in alternative energy: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...es-listed.html

I follow global warming, energy and environmental issues “reasonably well.”

I read the article.

I have no problem with anyone, any nation, any entity using the methods in the article to generate energy. I am all for all the methods in the article.

I have a problem with the clown (insult intended) that wrote the article determining anything about how we should use all, including those that aren’t highlighted in the article or considered “green,” energy sources available. If he is so sure of his position, he should get him some investors and start an energy company and prove it.

Don’t force your advocacy down the rest of our throat and force us to pay the freight for unproven technology.

BTW, when these technologies are finally proven and of reasonable cost I will be the first to get in line to own them. Give me a wind machine and a set of batteries that can power a house in the northeast and charge my car all at a reasonable cost and I’m in. Artificially raise the cost of conventional energy to make these unproven technologies attractive is doing nothing more than fleecing the public. It is fraud perpetrated by advocates, nothing more.