Since all of you are are producing 3+tons of carbondioxide.

[iskim86]

we produce CO2 just by breathing. we should all kill ourselves.

 

[OsoVerde]

Hi Rogo, amusing thread. :wine:

I think it's stupid that China and many other nations have higher fuel economy standards for new vehicles than the US does, and the politicians here (funded by the oilmen) are screaming that it would unreasonable to tighten standards and would lead to economic disaster or some rubbish. The cars already exist, they just aren't being sold in the US. Do people really need that much hp for their Civics and Camrys? Nobody is going to be using a bloody compact car to tow their boat. My ancient, 'gutless' Civic has slightly more than half the hp of newer Civics, and the only time you really notice any difference in power is when taking the thing up a steep incline (mountain highway) with a lot of cargo. My junky old car gets about the same mileage as the newer versions of the model, I would have preferred the automakers to have left the hp where it was and upped the fuel economy instead.

 

[IEC]

According to my roommate, I'm a plant. Guess that means it's good thing eh?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: iskim86
we produce CO2 just by breathing. we should all kill ourselves.

This post proves that lack of education is the problem. When you breathe out CO2, the C is from food that has been metabolized, which grew by using C from the atmosphere. That is not the same thing as releasing large amounts of carbon that have been locked in the earth for millions of years.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Rogo, you require evidence from anybody that disagrees with you, but you still have shown nothing that says our oil is in imminent danger of drying up.

I've already posted primary source material for solution to 'peak oil', from both the U.S Military, and the U.S. corp of engineers.

Here is a link to the GAO's report (Government Accountability Office).

GAO on Peak Oil Production.

The U.S. economy depends heavily on oil, particularly in the transportation sector. World oil production has been running at near capacity to meet demand, pushing prices upward. Concerns about meeting increasing demand with finite resources have renewed interest in an old question: How long can the oil supply expand before reaching a maximum level of production-a peak-from which it can only decline?

This your own government telling you that you're fvcked Godspeed lads.

Wankers

Rogo

I don't think peak oil means what you think it means. We're not out of oil when we reach peak (which we haven't), it's simply going to become more expensive (but not exponentially, which you seem to assume).

As I said earlier, and you pointedly ignored: we have new reserves that are vast. Refining them may be more expensive than sweet crude, but when the $/barrel rises, the extraction will become more and more profitable, most likely surging forward our production numbers until the next "peak oil."

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
We won't ever have the capacity to produce cheap energy (without making storage sites radioactive-we don't' have any more sites to store the surpless we already have-unless you want it in your suburbian back yards)
Rogo

This is my biggest gripe with most environmental activists: You tell me I'm killing my environment with fossil fuels, but you immediately shoot down our best method for producing the energy we'll need to replace oil/coal.

Oh noes! Not radioactive waste!

I'd rather see the radioactive waste stored in deep caverns in the desert Southwest than being pumped directly into the air, as is the case with the case with coal fired power plants (which release far more radiation than nuclear plants).

Do you realize how vast the US is? There is no reason a storage facility would need to be built in "suburban back yards," and you know it, but soliciting the emotional response helps convince the unintelligent that they should side with you.

 

[Rogodin2]

Outstanding Investments was careful to say, the world will not end: "Declining oil production does not mean "we are running out of oil." The world is not running out of oil. No, please do not buy into that line of false reasoning. What is happening is that, going forward, there may be less oil and it will be immensely more valuable."

This is view of the world's oil supply that I share.

Rogo

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Outstanding Investments was careful to say, the world will not end: "Declining oil production does not mean "we are running out of oil." The world is not running out of oil. No, please do not buy into that line of false reasoning. What is happening is that, going forward, there may be less oil and it will be immensely more valuable."

This is view of the world's oil supply that I share.

Rogo

I don't understand how some people don't see oil becoming scarce and insanely expensive as a problem.

Rogo, I really don't think nuclear waste storage is a big problem. If it's buried deep in solid rock, inside of lead and concrete casings, it's not going anywhere, ever. The only potential problem is transporting nuclear waste, but they transport it in big metal containers that are tested to survive falling off a truck. Nuclear waste isn't something to worry about.


To whoever said coal power plants put out more radiation than nuclear waste.. you're right, but infrared radiation never caused any mutations. If you're saying that the particulates contain radioactive material, I'm pretty sure they don't contain nearly the amount as nuclear waste.

 

[Rogodin2]

Merc-

I don't understand how some people don't see oil becoming scarce and insanely expensive as a problem.

I don't either.

Here's an interesting table of oil supply and demand by the EIA.

International Petroleum Suppy and Demand Chart-EIA source

Rogo

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Outstanding Investments was careful to say, the world will not end: "Declining oil production does not mean "we are running out of oil." The world is not running out of oil. No, please do not buy into that line of false reasoning. What is happening is that, going forward, there may be less oil and it will be immensely more valuable."

This is view of the world's oil supply that I share.

Rogo

I don't understand how some people don't see oil becoming scarce and insanely expensive as a problem.

Rogo, I really don't think nuclear waste storage is a big problem. If it's buried deep in solid rock, inside of lead and concrete casings, it's not going anywhere, ever. The only potential problem is transporting nuclear waste, but they transport it in big metal containers that are tested to survive falling off a truck. Nuclear waste isn't something to worry about.


To whoever said coal power plants put out more radiation than nuclear waste.. you're right, but infrared radiation never caused any mutations. If you're saying that the particulates contain radioactive material, I'm pretty sure they don't contain nearly the amount as nuclear waste.

Funny thing is, approximately 8-10% of the energy produced at coal plants is due to nuclear processes. But, please, don't try to compare the emissions of nuke and coal plants. It's known that a coal plant puts out more radiation in a day than a nuke plant does in a year. Coal has so much garbage in it, ranging from sulphur to aluminum to uranium, and much of this is released into the atmosphere. On average, larger coal plants tend to use upwards of 10,000 tonnes of coal a day -- they spew a hell of a lot of (di)oxides into the atmosphere. Coal power is the dirtiest kind of power that we have.

Btw, I might as well tack this on here: a $7 nuclear fuel rod has the potential to produce as much energy as one tonne of coal.

-ben

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
To whoever said coal power plants put out more radiation than nuclear waste.. you're right, but infrared radiation never caused any mutations. If you're saying that the particulates contain radioactive material, I'm pretty sure they don't contain nearly the amount as nuclear waste.

Are you seriously defending coal power plants vs nuclear?

That's ridiculous. Nuclear is cleaner, has higher energy density, and is as safe, if not safer.

The only reason people are up in arms about nuclear plants is beacause, as Deltron Z sang, the word "Atomic is synonymous with ominous."

 

[iskim86]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: iskim86
we produce CO2 just by breathing. we should all kill ourselves.

This post proves that lack of education is the problem. When you breathe out CO2, the C is from food that has been metabolized, which grew by using C from the atmosphere. That is not the same thing as releasing large amounts of carbon that have been locked in the earth for millions of years.

i was being sarcastic.

 

[Rogodin2]

I found a great resource for those of you trying to map your fuel use.

Government Fuel Use Calculator

Rogo

 

[exdeath]

We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming?with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy?is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists?and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine,nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to 550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentraions and reject the high values?all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonsel et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2...7_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

That is precisely the trend I have been pointing out here in this thread: if some data doesn't fit the hypothesis I support, ignore it.

I'm all for doing what we can to stop senseless waste and polluting, but seriously, some people go overboard.

 

[Rogodin2]

Your source isn't credible.

Jaworowski's theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche,[3].

WP

Nice try lad

Rogo

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Your source isn't credible.

Jaworowski's theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche,[3].

WP

Nice try lad

Rogo

So that means if I post you a link to a credible scientific source, it's not credible because I posted the link and I'm not a scientist.

You just keep proving my point (ie: it's only credible because you say it isn't or doesn't meet your standards or requirements as to what constitutes a credible source).

So a journalist (a scientist who conducted his own research actually) wrote an article which cites scientific sources in detail, but it's not credible because the article itself is not a scientific article? Feel free to follow his cited sources then :laugh:

As someone with a PhD who as hands on experience actually investigating the situation as a third party and published his findings in a non moderated medium, I'd say hes more credible than you or I are :laugh:

 

[Rogodin2]

So that means if I post you a link to a credible scientific source

That link is 3000 miles from a crdible scientific source.

Until you find a government source for your stupid conjecture you can go finish your homeec classes.

Rogo

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

So that means if I post you a link to a credible scientific source

That link is 3000 miles from a crdible scientific source.

Until you find a government source for your stupid conjecture you can go finish your homeec classes.

Rogo

Oh it has to be government published for it to be credible. We all know how reliable and credible the government is. As if people like Al Gore and his cronies are going to publish anything that doesn't agree with them :laugh:

If Bush published it would it be credible? How about a committee appointed by Bush to investigate global warming? After all we all believe what Bush says, hes the President, the highest position in our government. :laugh:

Pretty sure then it would just be a conspiracy by Bush and Big Oil to show that global warming doesn't exist so we can keep profiting from oil *snicker*

I hate to be so brutal to someone with good intent, but I think you just lost your credibility.

 

[natto fire]

I decided to stop producing 3+ tons of CO2, and instead, produce 3+ tons of pie. Now the question as to which type of pie I should produce? I am leaning towards apple, but I just am not sure. I wish it could be a mixture, because I have a feeling that 3+ tons of one type of pie will get boring. Of course, as with all things pie, there can only be one.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
I decided to stop producing 3+ tons of CO2, and instead, produce 3+ tons of pie. Now the question as to which type of pie I should produce? I am leaning towards apple, but I just am not sure. I wish it could be a mixture, because I have a feeling that 3+ tons of one type of pie will get boring. Of course, as with all things pie, there can only be one.

Thats a lot of toilet paper. Make sure you only use one square and separate the plies to double your mileage.

 

[Rogodin2]

I prefer blueberry. Ex-want to be my orgain toilet paper distributer?

Rogo

 

[exdeath]

When Cobras Attack