May 28, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don't care what the fuel is. The concept of "burning stuff" to make your car go is on it's way out, and believe it or not, the conversion is happening pretty quickly. Full electric is the logical solution for 90% of commuters. Short term might mean plugging in to an older grid, but even that is more efficient than gasoline and the grid is changing almost as quickly. When T. Boone Pickens drops 2 Billion on a wind farm, it's a pretty clear sign of things to come.
May 28, 2008 at 8:41 am
That the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong?
[font="Tahoma"]First, it is not the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. When you narrow it down to scientists with expertise in closely related fields, they are quite divided.
Second, most of the proponents of anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) derive their research funding from keeping up the illusion that it is real. Intellectual honesty requires that one be just as skeptical of "big environment" as one is of "big oil".
Third, it is fact, not consensus, that determines science. If 100% of the world's scientists agreed the world was flat, that does not make it so. There is a lot of scientific fact that what we are in is part of a natural warming and cooling cycle, and that what man contributes is too small to make any global difference. The AGCC computer models ignore the effects of solar heat, which is magnitudes larger than what man can do. James Hansen and his folks at NASA were recently caught fudging the numbers, and had to retract and republish what the hottest years on record were. We know Greenland was once farming country - before man's industrial era. And, what no one seems to be able to answer, what exactly is the ideal average temperature for earth? We can't know if we are getting too hot or too cold unless we know what the norm should be.
There are so many holes in the AGCC hoax, and a divided scientific community largely separated by who gets funding from whom. I have read all the evidence, pro and con, I can get my hands on, and I see nothing to indicate AGCC. Man is just not that significant a contributor, and cannot be. At least, so far, here in the US, we still have the freedom to tell the emporer he has no clothes.[/font]
May 28, 2008 at 8:42 am
Wouldn't be the first time. Remember the new Ice Age (global cooling)? Science is not a democracy. Scientists discover things daily that change what they thought was true just moments before.
You're right, science does change. But the previous poster implied that somehow capitalism and freedom had led right-thinking people to the correct answer, although (s)he doesn't say how. I'd be very happy if global warming were indeed proved to be a hoax and a myth, particularly if it were done in a study not funded by oil companies or other organisations with vested interests. For now, it seems sensible to make up one's mind based on prevailing scientific opinion.
John
May 28, 2008 at 8:43 am
Diesel is a HUGH pollution problem..... and is not the answer ( http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=51 ). The DIE in diesel is big clue. We need to switch to hybrids and ultimately electric.
Ethanol and Biodiesel..... we can't start making fuel out of edible resources.... we are going to need those resources to feel the world. Over population is again, did it ever go away, a problem around the world and is getting worse.
IMHO
May 28, 2008 at 8:58 am
msbasssinger (5/28/2008)
[font="Tahoma"]First, it is not the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. When you narrow it down to scientists with expertise in closely related fields, they are quite divided.
Second, most of the proponents of anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) derive their research funding from keeping up the illusion that it is real. Intellectual honesty requires that one be just as skeptical of "big environment" as one is of "big oil".
Third, it is fact, not consensus, that determines science. If 100% of the world's scientists agreed the world was flat, that does not make it so. There is a lot of scientific fact that what we are in is part of a natural warming and cooling cycle, and that what man contributes is too small to make any global difference. The AGCC computer models ignore the effects of solar heat, which is magnitudes larger than what man can do. James Hansen and his folks at NASA were recently caught fudging the numbers, and had to retract and republish what the hottest years on record were. We know Greenland was once farming country - before man's industrial era. And, what no one seems to be able to answer, what exactly is the ideal average temperature for earth? We can't know if we are getting too hot or too cold unless we know what the norm should be.
There are so many holes in the AGCC hoax, and a divided scientific community largely separated by who gets funding from whom. I have read all the evidence, pro and con, I can get my hands on, and I see nothing to indicate AGCC. Man is just not that significant a contributor, and cannot be. At least, so far, here in the US, we still have the freedom to tell the emporer he has no clothes.[/font]
Mmm... but 100% of scientists don't agree that the world is flat. That's the point. I understand that there are arguments for and against AGCC (I've never heard it called that before!), but I think the big difference here is that the changes we are now seeing have happened over decades instead of centuries or millennia. You also make a good point about the ideal temperature and whether there even is one. The earth as a whole has survived much hotter and much cooler periods than we are in now. But even small variations will possibly (probably?) be disastrous for humanity as it exists at the moment: changes in sea levels and crop production will have dramatic effects. So I think from mankind's point of view, the ideal temperature is what we have now.
What I also believe is that if we take action to prevent climate change, we will be in the best possible position if it turns out that AGCC isn't a myth. If we wait until it's proven beyond doubt, it'll be too late.
John
May 28, 2008 at 9:02 am
The concept of "burning stuff" to make your car go is on it's way out, and believe it or not, the conversion is happening pretty quickly.
No, it's not. Electric vehicles are not practical for general transportation. They may find a niche in places with short commutes, but that is about all. I can see it happening in Europe to a larger scale than the US, since the distances covered are so much smaller. With currently in-place pollution controls, gas & diesel vehicles are not significant polluters.
but even that is more efficient than gasoline
Nope, not true. 50% of the energy generated (aside from hydroelectric) to make electricity (even in nuclear power plants) is waste heat that can't be used for anything. A typical modern car engine is much more efficient than that.
When T. Boone Pickens drops 2 Billion on a wind farm, it's a pretty clear sign of things to come.
T Boone Pickens also bought up water rights all throughout the Texas panhandle in a scheme to sell water to other Texas cities. It failed - no one bought the water. Take the government subsidies out of the picture, and I doubt he would have made the investment. Besides, wind farms, like solar, are prohibitively expensive for large scale power generation. Aside from the capital investment, maintenance is expensive, and power production is unreliable. Add to that the huge number of acres that have to be torn up to build them. I suspect the folks that have a cow over snail darters and the like would not be happy with the land being disturbed.
May 28, 2008 at 9:04 am
John Mitchell (5/28/2008)
Wouldn't be the first time. Remember the new Ice Age (global cooling)? Science is not a democracy. Scientists discover things daily that change what they thought was true just moments before.
You're right, science does change. But the previous poster implied that somehow capitalism and freedom had led right-thinking people to the correct answer, although (s)he doesn't say how. I'd be very happy if global warming were indeed proved to be a hoax and a myth, particularly if it were done in a study not funded by oil companies or other organisations with vested interests. For now, it seems sensible to make up one's mind based on prevailing scientific opinion.
John
I agree. I don't think global warming is a hoax, it just may not be fact. I'm just skeptical about following the majority opinion. Always makes me a bit queasy.
May 28, 2008 at 9:07 am
I personally believe that AGCC adherants are vastly unscientific, which is different than thinking AGCC is a hoax. I own a mainstream science history book published in the early 70s which states as common knowledge that we are still coming out of the last ice age and that the Earth will continue to warm for at least 2000 years, raising the sea level 20 feet--roughly the same prediction now attributed to AGCC, but accepted for decades as part of the Earth's natural climatic cycle. I agree that scientists are creatures or society and fashion just like anybody else, and that a vast majority of them go along with this stuff because A) most are not climate scientists and have not done any primary research, i.e. what they know about AGCC is the same thing we non-scientists know about it, namely, what the political trendsetters tell us to believe, and B) it's just damn costly and tiring and politically dangerous to buck the current fashion.
BUT...I don't waste much of my time trying to persuade anyone that we shouldn't try to slow global warming, because almost all of the things we are doing toward that end are things that need to be done anyway--alternative sources of renewable, low-emission energy are good, regardless of climate change.
And I'm highly skeptical of the virulent AGCC naysayers, because they are almost always proponents of free-market big business dogma, who think that it's the godgiven right of Men (American Men, at least) to plunder, pump, burn, spoil and consume themselves into perpetual 8% annual growth of corporate economies, that every political equation should involve dollar signs, and that sustainability, human rights, and quality of life considerations are for sissies.
So I will go along with you climate change naysayers only when you start explaining how disbelieving in AGCC will lead us to a better future for human beings. I'm not interested in a better future for corporations.
May 28, 2008 at 9:19 am
Some good points, mbasssinger, but you're all wet on this one:
"...Nope, not true. 50% of the energy generated (aside from hydroelectric) to make electricity (even in nuclear power plants) is waste heat that can't be used for anything. A typical modern car engine is much more efficient than that....."
The most efficient giant diesels in use are about 50% efficient. Modern cars and trucks max out at around 40% at optimum speeds and conditions. As driven, I would be surprised if America's consumer fleet converts more than 25% of burned gasoline into motion.
May 28, 2008 at 9:20 am
msbasssinger (5/28/2008)
The concept of "burning stuff" to make your car go is on it's way out, and believe it or not, the conversion is happening pretty quickly.
No, it's not. Electric vehicles are not practical for general transportation. They may find a niche in places with short commutes, but that is about all. I can see it happening in Europe to a larger scale than the US, since the distances covered are so much smaller. With currently in-place pollution controls, gas & diesel vehicles are not significant polluters.
Ok, I am a free-market, Libertarian, AGW denier, but you really need to get your facts straight here. Lithium Ion batteries are already in development with ranges approaching 300 miles.
but even that is more efficient than gasoline
Nope, not true. 50% of the energy generated (aside from hydroelectric) to make electricity (even in nuclear power plants) is waste heat that can't be used for anything. A typical modern car engine is much more efficient than that.
More efficient? A typical modern car engine has an efficiency of about 20%! I'm not concerned about what burning stuff is doing to the environment. The environment will be just fine. The internal combustion engine is just plain obsolete and the market is now forcing us to move on to the next best thing as it should. It's simple technological practicality.
May 28, 2008 at 9:27 am
So I will go along with you climate change naysayers only when you start explaining how disbelieving in AGCC will lead us to a better future for human beings. I'm not interested in a better future for corporations.
What is it that the proponents of AGCC want? More government intrusion into telling me what I can drive, how it has to be built, how I use energy in my house, etc. It opens a never-ending process for decreasing personal liberty and increasing government control of how we live our lives. That has never ended well when tried in the past. If people want electric cars, then there will be a market for which someone will provide products. The AGCC movement seems to be comprised of anticapitalist, pro-socialist people. That makes me wonder if the AGCC is simply a vehicle (no pun intended) for making our nation even more socialist and less free. Disbelieving in AGCC leads to the government not spending your money on AGCC measures that are unneeded and useless. Disbelieving in AGCC leads to preserving your freedom. Disbelieving in AGCC leads to focusing our national attention on issues that matter.
As for not wanting a better future for corporations, exactly where do you think the money to live on comes from? Governments cannot create wealth (or jobs), only businesses can. Government can only obtain money from the private sector via taxation (or confiscatory taxation, as it is now). If you want to have a home, a car, food on your table, and whatever enjoyments of life you desire, the income for you to access those originates from businesses that employ people, not government. Did you ever read the story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?
May 28, 2008 at 9:53 am
msbasssinger (5/28/2008)
What is it that the proponents of AGCC want? More government intrusion into telling me what I can drive, how it has to be built, how I use energy in my house, etc. It opens a never-ending process for decreasing personal liberty and increasing government control of how we live our lives. That has never ended well when tried in the past. If people want electric cars, then there will be a market for which someone will provide products. The AGCC movement seems to be comprised of anticapitalist, pro-socialist people. That makes me wonder if the AGCC is simply a vehicle (no pun intended) for making our nation even more socialist and less free. Disbelieving in AGCC leads to the government not spending your money on AGCC measures that are unneeded and useless. Disbelieving in AGCC leads to preserving your freedom. Disbelieving in AGCC leads to focusing our national attention on issues that matter.
Getting a bit off topic now, but I think personal liberty is something of a myth. We have laws and a justice system that curtail your freedom considerably. How to balance the needs of society against the rights of the individual is a debate that isn't new, nor will it end any time soon. Assuming that AGCC is in any way true, we can't make a difference without making a few sacrifices. The market can play its part, but it often needs constraining - look at Enron, for example.
You offered some convincing arguments in an earlier post against AGCC, but the diatribe in your last one leads me to wonder whether your scepticism stems from your not being willing to make any of those sacrifices?
John
May 28, 2008 at 9:58 am
So I will go along with you climate change naysayers only when you start explaining how disbelieving in AGCC will lead us to a better future for human beings. I'm not interested in a better future for corporations.
I don't think this is a belief thing, it's a fact thing. There are HUGE costs involved in adopting all or some of the green house gas reductions being suggested. There is also a huge cost IF global warming is as serious as some are saying. The entire debate hinges not on belief but fact. It does not matter how much I believe something if it is not true.
I suspect reality is somewhere between the extremes being postulated, requiring neither capitulation to those who call for reducing green house gases to zero or ignoring the problem. A measured carefully considered response is what is needed.
I might add that carbon credits are the biggest hoax I've ever seen. The idea that you pay someone else to be green for you so you can continue to live your current life style is Imperialism at it's worst. If you really want to save the environment, reduce your own carbon footprint, period. Take the bullet, don't pay someone else to take it for you.
May 28, 2008 at 10:00 am
The most efficient giant diesels in use are about 50% efficient. Modern cars and trucks max out at around 40% at optimum speeds and conditions. As driven, I would be surprised if America's consumer fleet converts more than 25% of burned gasoline into motion.
You are talking about thermodynamic efficiency. I was talking about chemical efficiency, which is the only way to compare it to electric power generation when comparing total energy from the source to energy available at the site (the car, for example). The point is that electric cars are not a free ride when one thinks electricity appears automagically at the outlet and doesn't consider the source.
Also, on the post that Lithium ion batteries are sustaining 300 mile drives... Not when you consider the typical family car, van, or SUV hauling Mom, Dad, the kids and their stuff. For the little death-trap cars that can be used for commuting (and as found abundantly in Europe), I can see getting 300 miles out of that - with the AC and headlights off. 🙂
Bottom line, I am all for a person believing whatever they want, driving what they want, using whatever energy source they want. Just don't try to get government to force your preferences on me and tax me for it or restrict my freedoms.
May 28, 2008 at 10:07 am
"...The AGCC movement seems to be comprised of anticapitalist, pro-socialist people. That makes me wonder if the AGCC is simply a vehicle (no pun intended) for making our nation even more socialist and less free..."
You're right, the movement has a preponderence of those kinds of people. But you're wrong to think that just because I want greater energy efficiency and cleaner, renewable sources that I am an enemy of freedom, or that I want the government to tell me what to do. Just the opposite. You seem to recognize only two power centers--government and corporate--and you seem to believe they're diametrically opposed. In other words, you have bought into the free market dogma that all government is bad, that all regulation is bad, and the worst fallacy of all, that what's good for big business is good for you and me. Reality is far more complicated than that.
Business will deprive you of your freedom just as surely (and far more efficiently) than government will. Consider that nothing would be more profitable for your employer (or mine, anyway, assuming you are already a tycoon) than if they could get you to do your job barefoot and outdoors for $5 a day. And if they could get you to do it 15 hours per day, preferably overseas where they don't have to look at you or reel from stinking neighborhood, then all the better for them. This goose is laying golden eggs alright, but the gold is coming straight out of my pocket and out of my childrens' mouths, and I'll never get to see the eggs. This is the natural path of the free market. It is neither good nor bad, but it is wholly indifferent to the interests of actual human beings, and we will be fooled and enslaved if we trust the free market to provide for us. Our well being does not produce short term profits!
King George presided over a free market economy. We founded this country to reclaim our freedom and escape that tyranny. You are right that business and opportunity feed innovation, but business will serve us only if we insist on it. You are right that governments are dangerous and tend to go bad. They get innefficient and stupid. But a constitutional government is absolutely necessary. Without it, we revert to a systems of kingdoms in which all the power and wealth is controlled by a few tyrants and the rest of us toil in shackles. If our government stinks, we need to fix it, not abolish it.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 48 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply