1970s climate change

[lamradio]

I find it amusing that some of the staunchest proponents for the global climate crisis spend more time worrying about what others are doing and how they are living their lives rather that being proactive in their own lives. I wasn't being facetious in my plant a tree comment; if CO2 emissions are a great concern, plant a freaking tree. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

I know.. I was just jerking your chain.. I'm in one of those moods today.

 

I find it amusing that some of the staunchest proponents for the global climate crisis spend more time worrying about what others are doing and how they are living their lives rather that being proactive in their own lives.

 

Exactly! Al Gore is a prime example of that.. How can you take a guy seriously when he's typing up his next lecture about being more "green" on his laptop from his private jet..

[Guest Jules]

I find it amusing that some of the staunchest proponents for the global climate crisis spend more time worrying about what others are doing and how they are living their lives rather that being proactive in their own lives. I wasn't being facetious in my plant a tree comment; if CO2 emissions are a great concern, plant a freaking tree. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

You're Motorik,

what's your price for flight.

[Motorik]

I was serious about the rickshaw rides, I'm good for it.

[Good Old Neon]

It

[Motorik]

So you're probably not interested in a rickshaw joint venture then?

[lamradio]

Maybe this kind:

 

[embiggen]

You're Motorik,

what's your price for flight.

 

 

finding Mr. Right

[Guest Jules]

finding Mr. Right

[bobbob1313]

I think it's really funny that people talk about going green and then mention e-fucking-85, the production of which puts more greenhouse gasses in the atmopshere than the production of gas.

 

Can I just get my hydrogen fuel cell now? Please?

[lamradio]

I think it's really funny that people talk about going green and then mention e-fucking-85, the production of which puts more greenhouse gasses in the atmopshere than the production of gas.

 

Yeah, I would never put that piss in my gas tank..

[caliber66]

Can I just get my hydrogen fuel cell now? Please?

It's incredibly energy-inefficient to produce hydrogen using known methods.

[bobbob1313]

I know, but the president promised I'd have it by like 10th grade.

[plasticeyeball]

I think it's really funny that people talk about going green and then mention e-fucking-85, the production of which puts more greenhouse gasses in the atmopshere than the production of gas.

 

Can I just get my hydrogen fuel cell now? Please?

 

 

not at $3 - $5 million to put a fueling station in.

[plasticeyeball]

I know, but the president promised I'd have it by like 10th grade.

 

 

that president was/is high on dope.

[Guest Jules]

I just realized bobbob is talking about the same president we have now.

[bobbob1313]

I'm just saying, if the gas companies would stop throwing money at unreal solutions like e85 which don't fix any of the problems with the current situation, and the government would stop subsidizing both the gas companies and farmers for e85 production and people would focus on real, renewable, clean energy sources, they would be a lot cheaper and faster.

[lamradio]

We need to make cars like this:

 

 

It runs off of garbage for Gods sake!

 

Added bonus: You'd get to go to that Hendrix concert you wish you could have attended.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

There's a lot of reasons why E85 and biodiesel (the latter being not as bad) are so popular with auto companies and politicians.

 

1. Money for farmers, the heartland, etc. A great american tradition.

2. It's easy and inexpensive for car companies to equip their cars with the technology needed.

3. Consumers don't have to change much.

 

I remember McCain took heat for bashing ethanol in Iowa in 2000. I think he's backpeddled on that now.

[plasticeyeball]

I'm just saying, if the gas companies would stop throwing money at unreal solutions like e85 which don't fix any of the problems with the current situation, and the government would stop subsidizing both the gas companies and farmers for e85 production and people would focus on real, renewable, clean energy sources, they would be a lot cheaper and faster.

 

 

NATURAL GAS MUTHERFUCKERS!

 

 

(the oil companies do not want a solution that doesn't include them. vehicle manufactures will only work on solutions that the oil companies get behind. i've been in the alt fuels business now for 15 years and it will not change in my lifetime.)

[ikol]

I know, but the president promised I'd have it by like 10th grade.

 

Then he passed No Child Left Behind in an attempt to keep you in 10th grade long enough to fulfill his promise.

[Guest Jules]

NATURAL GAS MUTHERFUCKERS!

 

 

(the oil companies do not want a solution that doesn't include them. vehicle manufactures will only work on solutions that the oil companies get behind. i've been in the alt fuels business now for 15 years and it will not change in my lifetime.)

I work with a company in California that converts truck engines to run on natural gas. The technology is out there and some truckers are using it. They thought it would catch on faster than it has.

[John Smith]

Without reading the whole thread I'll just put my 2 cents in and leave. Sure in the mid 1970's there was some talk of a cooling effect from green house gasses. The premise was that the gasses reflected sunlight and did not allow the heat to enter all the way through to the planet surface. From what I can remember the solution was the same as thee solution offered up today - cut greenhouse emissions. Today after thirty years of additional study (I'm not quite sure when climate study became a mature science or if it is yet) new theories have emerged and the ball has changed direction with it commonly believed among scientists not employed by energy companies that green house gasses in effect capture the suns heat and don't allow it to vent properly.

 

The notion that because they believed one thing in the 1970's (not republicans of course) and that belief which is 180 from where were are today therefore one or the other or both propositions must be wrong is not a very good way to approach any subject. 2200 years ago the peoples of the earth believed that all natural events were caused by angry or benevolent gods. 500 years ago it was common belief that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago the atom was unknown or that it consisted of protons electrons and other matter. 100 years ago it was believed that you could not communicate long distances using wireless technology. 40 years ago cell phones, laptops, ipods, genetic therapy for medicine, cloning were all things of the imagination etc... etc.. etc... Just because something is believed at one point in time, does not make it always valid. It does not necessarily invalidate the notion either. Nothing is static as far as our knowledge of science goes. If we have a theory, like perhaps mankind is harming the earth, then we study it and as we gather information (who would admit that we don't have more information today than we did in the 1970's on global warming) our knowledge and understanding of that subject should change or be reinforced. But to think it is one way and has to stay that way is just plain wrong.

[plasticeyeball]

I work with a company in California that converts truck engines to run on natural gas. The technology is out there and some truckers are using it. They thought it would catch on faster than it has.

 

 

i'm (supposed) to be finishing drawings on a natural gas refueling station that will fuel 70 buses for a school district in PA right now. We (my company) put in refueling for 40 buses 10 years ago at this school and they are upping the program now. i think i've designed 70 stations so far in PA, NJ, NY, CT & VA. The technology has been out there since the 80's. it looked like it was going to take off in the mid 90's so that's when the auto makers removed CNG from their available platforms cause god forbid they promote a fuel that doesn't include oil as at least part of the blend.

 

 

p.s. that's not the company that stiffed you for 60k and filed chapter 11 is it.

[Good Old Neon]

Without reading the whole thread I'll just put my 2 cents in and leave. Sure in the mid 1970's there was some talk of a cooling effect from green house gasses. The premise was that the gasses reflected sunlight and did not allow the heat to enter all the way through to the planet surface. From what I can remember the solution was the same as thee solution offered up today - cut greenhouse emissions. Today after thirty years of additional study (I'm not quite sure when climate study became a mature science or if it is yet) new theories have emerged and the ball has changed direction with it commonly believed among scientists not employed by energy companies that green house gasses in effect capture the suns heat and don't allow it to vent properly.

 

The notion that because they believed one thing in the 1970's (not republicans of course) and that belief which is 180 from where were are today therefore one or the other or both propositions must be wrong is not a very good way to approach any subject. 2200 years ago the peoples of the earth believed that all natural events were caused by angry or benevolent gods. 500 years ago it was common belief that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago the atom was unknown or that it consisted of protons electrons and other matter. 100 years ago it was believed that you could not communicate long distances using wireless technology. 40 years ago cell phones, laptops, ipods, genetic therapy for medicine, cloning were all things of the imagination etc... etc.. etc... Just because something is believed at one point in time, does not make it always valid. It does not necessarily invalidate the notion either. Nothing is static as far as our knowledge of science goes. If we have a theory, like perhaps mankind is harming the earth, then we study it and as we gather information (who would admit that we don't have more information today than we did in the 1970's on global warming) our knowledge and understanding of that subject should change or be reinforced. But to think it is one way and has to stay that way is just plain wrong.

 

As always - well said.

[Guest Jules]

p.s. that's not the company that stiffed you for 60k and filed chapter 11 is it.

No. Thankfully, they're growing cautiously and have interests in the UK as well.

 

Your work sounds very interesting.