If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
"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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
"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. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
"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? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
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! |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
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? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any good aviation clip-art? | zingzang | Piloting | 2 | August 11th 05 01:32 AM |
We lost a good one.... | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | May 28th 05 05:21 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | January 26th 05 07:08 PM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |