Not Evil Just Wrong

[clayinaustin]

www.noteviljustwrong.com (http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/)

On October 18th there is a movie coming out that shows how the anti-global warming efforts hurt people.

Maybe human are causing the global temperature to rise, maybe not. But the anti-global warming laws are hurting people.

Warm weather is not the enemy of life, ice is. Warm weather allows life, all life, to fluorish. There is much more life in the tropics than in the artics.

Al Gore just needs to shut the hell up! :mad:

[cigdaze]

Good stuff.

sHMOEVRysWE

Yes, Gore needs to STFU.

'Global warming' is a total farce perpetrated on the unknowing with near-religious, cult-like fervor by a small group who stand to profit very largely from it's taxation. It's nothing more than that.

Global cooling is what we really need to worry about in the next few years.

What Happened to Global Warming??? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

[Wrinkleface]

Couldn't prove any GW in Michigan this summer, it was a cool rainy crappy summer!:(

[Ratickle]

What bothers me about any of the science trends. Whether global warming, food shortages, lack of oil supply, etc.

Not a one of those chickens will talk about the number one reason, too many people, and try to do anything about it.

[Ratickle]

Couldn't prove any GW in Michigan this summer, it was a cool rainy crappy summer!:(

And the winter forecast is worse than last year which set all kinds of records for cold......

[Ratickle]

Yes, Gore needs to STFU.



I think they should take his Nobel back. And give him the one for the second biggest dire warning farce in history.....:sifone:

[BBB725]

And the winter forecast is worse than last year which set all kinds of records for cold......

Why do you think they changed from Global Warming to Climate Change:biggrinjester:

[cigdaze]

An excerpt from a fantastic article called The Great American Bubble Machine, which was previously discussed (and can be found) here:
http://www.seriousoffshore.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8046


BUBBLE #6
Global Warming

FAST-FORWARD TO TODAY. IT'S early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Ohama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs - its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign - sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs. Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place arc Treasury chief of staffMark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits - a booming trillion-dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat ofthe commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice even three times that amount. The feature of this plan that has ,special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all' electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion. Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate-change problem." A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use clean-er energy. As Paulson said at the time, "We're not making those investments to lose money."The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Hanis. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets, There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech ... the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy-futures market? "Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee. Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe - but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected. "If it's going to be a lax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says· Michael Masters, the hedge-fund director who' spoke out against oil-futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wan Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want, It's just asinine." Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn't, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing hut massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees - while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying tor it, It's Dot always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone though lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you can still sort of feel things that are no longer there. But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some o[us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.

[cigdaze]

Why do you think they changed from Global Warming to Climate Change:biggrinjester:

A minor inconvenience: It wasn't warming. :rofl:

[cuda]

I was talking to a girl in Minnesota that said "the white chit" is already falling. I talked to her after that, and she said it was melting. She's from Austrailia, where it was 112 the day she was born. :eek:

[Ratickle]

Damn Nick, I may edit that when I get a chance.....

Scams by politicians are everywhere. What surprises me the most, the guys cheat and steal, get caught, and it's as if they have diplomatic immunity in our own country......

[Ratickle]

I was talking to a girl in Minnesota that said "the white chit" is already falling. I talked to her after that, and she said it was melting. She's from Austrailia, where it was 112 the day she was born. :eek:

Austrailia is having a tough draught season. Feelin sorry for those people....:(

[MarylandMark]

I think they should take his Nobel back.

Worthless anyway- see the schmuck that won one last week? :USA:

[cigdaze]

Damn Nick, I may edit that when I get a chance.....

Scams by politicians are everywhere. What surprises me the most, the guys cheat and steal, get caught, and it's as if they have diplomatic immunity in our own country......

It's rough I know, but that what you get when you scan a document and make a pdf out of it and then copy & paste...Acrobat does it's best to translate an image of text into actual text, but it's not perfect.

Click the link for the full article.

:)

[Sea-Dated]

Good site....

[sledge]

Not a one of those chickens will talk about the number one reason, too many people, and try to do anything about it.

I agree, but how do we implement population control when 99.9% of "the population" are indoctrinated with procreation as their primary goal in life?

Somebody needs to pick a fight between India and China...2 largest populations that need some controlling. But Ghandi went and phucked up the Hindus so they won't fight back....:boxing_smiley:

[fund razor]

Austrailia is having a tough draught season. Feelin sorry for those people....:(

They are having a tough drought season.

Their draughts are still flowing by the Pint, mate. :D

[gerritm]

www.noteviljustwrong.com (http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/)

On October 18th there is a movie coming out that shows how the anti-global warming efforts hurt people.

Maybe human are causing the global temperature to rise, maybe not. But the anti-global warming laws are hurting people.

Warm weather is not the enemy of life, ice is. Warm weather allows life, all life, to fluorish. There is much more life in the tropics than in the artics.

Al Gore just needs to shut the hell up! :mad:

Besides, it is kind of hard to get a chick naked on your Cig in the Artic.:biggrinjester::drool5:

[Wobble]

They are having a tough drought season.

Their draughts are still flowing by the Pint, mate. :D

It was Litres when I was down there:sifone:

EDIT, that was back in the eighties, things have gotten way more confusing since then

Names of beer glasses in various Australian cities
Capacity Sydney/Canberra Darwin Brisbane Townsville6 Adelaide Hobart Melbourne Perth
115 ml
(4 fl oz) – – – – – small beer – shetland
140 ml
(5 fl oz) pony – small beer five pony – horse/pony pony
170 ml
(6 fl oz) – – – – – six (ounce) small glass bobbie/six
200 ml
(7 fl oz) seven seven beer7 seven butcher seven (ounce) glass glass
225 ml
(8 fl oz) – – – – – eight (ounce) – –
255 ml
(9 fl oz) – – – – schooner – – –
285 ml
(10 fl oz) middy/half pint8 handle pot ten schooner ten (ounce)/pot pot middy/half pint
350 ml
(12 fl oz) schmiddy – – – – – – –
425 ml
(15 fl oz) schooner schooner schooner schooner pint fifteen/schooner schooner schooner4
570 ml
(20 fl oz) pint pint pint pint imperial pint pint pint pint
1140 ml
(40 fl oz) jug jug jug jug jug jug jug jug

[Wobble]

They ran commercial shipping through the Northeast passage (around Siberia and Russia) for the first time this year. That is probably significant

[Perlmudder]

I have read so many articles on climate change in the last 5 years, and it still boggles me how people do not see the bigger picture. The issue is not so much that we are heating and cooling, its what comes along with that. If the earth heats up, viruses and diseases which were once not a problem because they were killed by the cold are now able to spread at a faster rate. Food production is another issue, if rodent and insect populations are allowed to increase, we will have to use harsher chemicals to deter them. Hunting and fishing will also be greatly affected, for fish stocks to replenish themselves, they require certain water temperatures and season. If this does not happen, there will be smaller, and eventually endangered and decimated numbers of species. Deer and moose are in "season" for only so long, and hunting permits are given depending on how many are estimated to be alive.

Now I am not saying the government is going about combating the potential affects of climate change in the right manor by reducing industry, and raising taxes, etc. But nobody can say that creating other forms of energy production is a bad thing. I don't know how many of you live in large cities, but being from Toronto, when it gets real hot in the summer, there is nothing fun about a smog warning.

Would it hurt anybody to try and implement a more sustainable lifestyle? Probably not. I personally walk to school everyday because I enjoy walking, I could take a bus or car to school, but that would just be foolish. Even something as small as buying local produce can make a big difference and does not cost anything. Not leaving lights on when you leave the room, buying energy efficient appliances, etc, all make a difference. I am surely not saying give up your big blocks, I for one hope to own one in the future, but there are not shortage of little things that can be done around ones home to reduce their impact on the environment.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head.

[Perlmudder]

Also, like anything else, after watching the trailer for Not Evil Just Wrong, it proves what a good video editor is capable of doing. There is BIAS in everything, like any documentary they are going to use whatever means possible to shock the viewers.

[fund razor]

They ran commercial shipping through the Northeast passage (around Siberia and Russia) for the first time this year. That is probably significant First time ever?? I mean, in that 500 years or so of "ever" that has decent records?

[Ratickle]

They are having a tough drought season.

Their draughts are still flowing by the Pint, mate. :D

:leaving:

[fund razor]

Is it Evil or Wrong to suggest that in response to the population explosion that we make people pass an IQ test in order to reproduce? I suppose both.

[Ratickle]

Is it Evil or Wrong to suggest that in response to the population explosion that we make people pass an IQ test in order to reproduce? I suppose both.

Shockley's plan, along with some other professors, was to offer them money to become sterilized. No force, just "Here's $25,000, you're stupid, how about a little snip?":sifone:

[Wrinkleface]

Shockley's plan, along with some other professors, was to offer them money to become sterilized. No force, just "Here's $25,000, you're stupid, how about a little snip?":sifone:

Nobody paid me 2 get snipped! FK, matter of fact, I paid 2 have it done!!!:banghead:

[2112]

I have read so many articles on climate change in the last 5 years, and it still boggles me how people do not see the bigger picture. The issue is not so much that we are heating and cooling, its what comes along with that. If the earth heats up, viruses and diseases which were once not a problem because they were killed by the cold are now able to spread at a faster rate. Food production is another issue, if rodent and insect populations are allowed to increase, we will have to use harsher chemicals to deter them. Hunting and fishing will also be greatly affected, for fish stocks to replenish themselves, they require certain water temperatures and season. If this does not happen, there will be smaller, and eventually endangered and decimated numbers of species. Deer and moose are in "season" for only so long, and hunting permits are given depending on how many are estimated to be alive.

Now I am not saying the government is going about combating the potential affects of climate change in the right manor by reducing industry, and raising taxes, etc. But nobody can say that creating other forms of energy production is a bad thing. I don't know how many of you live in large cities, but being from Toronto, when it gets real hot in the summer, there is nothing fun about a smog warning.

Would it hurt anybody to try and implement a more sustainable lifestyle? Probably not. I personally walk to school everyday because I enjoy walking, I could take a bus or car to school, but that would just be foolish. Even something as small as buying local produce can make a big difference and does not cost anything. Not leaving lights on when you leave the room, buying energy efficient appliances, etc, all make a difference. I am surely not saying give up your big blocks, I for one hope to own one in the future, but there are not shortage of little things that can be done around ones home to reduce their impact on the environment.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head.

Maybe you missed it. The earth is in a cooling trend. Has been since 1998.

Cheers to you for treading lightly. :USA:
.

[cigdaze]

I have read so many articles on climate change in the last 5 years, and it still boggles me how people do not see the bigger picture. The issue is not so much that we are heating and cooling, its what comes along with that. If the earth heats up, viruses and diseases which were once not a problem because they were killed by the cold are now able to spread at a faster rate. Food production is another issue, if rodent and insect populations are allowed to increase, we will have to use harsher chemicals to deter them. Hunting and fishing will also be greatly affected, for fish stocks to replenish themselves, they require certain water temperatures and season. If this does not happen, there will be smaller, and eventually endangered and decimated numbers of species. Deer and moose are in "season" for only so long, and hunting permits are given depending on how many are estimated to be alive.

Now I am not saying the government is going about combating the potential affects of climate change in the right manor by reducing industry, and raising taxes, etc. But nobody can say that creating other forms of energy production is a bad thing. I don't know how many of you live in large cities, but being from Toronto, when it gets real hot in the summer, there is nothing fun about a smog warning.

Would it hurt anybody to try and implement a more sustainable lifestyle? Probably not. I personally walk to school everyday because I enjoy walking, I could take a bus or car to school, but that would just be foolish. Even something as small as buying local produce can make a big difference and does not cost anything. Not leaving lights on when you leave the room, buying energy efficient appliances, etc, all make a difference. I am surely not saying give up your big blocks, I for one hope to own one in the future, but there are not shortage of little things that can be done around ones home to reduce their impact on the environment.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head.
I completely agree with everything you stated.

My problem is with this nonsensical, politically-motivated drivel that is being passed around as pseudo-science embodied in phrases like global warming and man-made climate change, and being force-fed down our kids' throats and touted in all but a few mainstream media outlets as undisputed fact.

Of course there's climate change. There has been for about 4-1/2 billion years on the earth alone; cyclically driven inter-stellar climactic events have driven life on earth for eons - well before we burned the first drop of oil, expelled the first CFC, cut down our first forest. That's not what's at debate.
The premise, the notion - the audacity - of our politicians to dictate that there's some sort of man-made artificial heating is absurd. One only has to look at Venus' and Mars' temperate records a decade pre-1998 and post-1998 to see that the exact same patters have occurred there as here. Coincidentally, there was an ice age on other nearby planets at roughly the same time as here. To ignore it and the think otherwise is simply arrogant and ignorant.

Further to what you said, living sensibly and without wanton waste is absolutely encouragable. I cannot disagree with you there, it only makes sense - but not to the point of religiously following this global warming parade led by the this pie-eyed Gore right into the drastic cessation of our accustomed way of life through hysteria-mongering.

[Wobble]

First time ever?? I mean, in that 500 years or so of "ever" that has decent records?

Good point and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Vikings had been there and done that:cheers2:

I meant to say that it was the first time that commercial traffic had made the passage without one of Russia's nuclear powered ice breakers clearing the way

[Tony]

Is it Evil or Wrong to suggest that in response to the population explosion that we make people pass an IQ test in order to reproduce? I suppose both.


Neither evil or wrong. Ive got a story about this that I will share in the near future.

[2112]

it only makes sense - but not to the point of religiously following this global warming parade led by the this pie-eyed Gore right into the drastic cessation of our accustomed way of life through hysteria-mongering.

Because that is how we will exert further Gov't control (marxist policies for the masses) and reward the cronies that paid to put our current power structure into place.
.

[PatriYacht]

Would it hurt anybody to try and implement a more sustainable lifestyle? Probably not. I personally walk to school everyday because I enjoy walking, I could take a bus or car to school, but that would just be foolish. Even something as small as buying local produce can make a big difference and does not cost anything. Not leaving lights on when you leave the room, buying energy efficient appliances, etc, all make a difference. I am surely not saying give up your big blocks, I for one hope to own one in the future, but there are not shortage of little things that can be done around ones home to reduce their impact on the environment.

Are you serious? Of course we would have to get rid of our big blocks. Walking occasionally and cutting back on toilet paper use is not going to have any measurable effect on energy use. If you think that global warming is happening and you want to reverse it, you would have to get rid of boats, RV's, recreational air travel. Outlaw all cars that get less gas milage than a Prius. Restrict the size of your dwelling or how much gas you are allowed to use to heat it. Cutting carbon emissions would be painful and expensive. And it would be useless unless everyone on Earth did it. China is building a new coal fired power plant a week. India is doing about the same.

Lucky for all of us, the theory of global warming is starting to fall apart. Carbon dioxide is proving to be a lot less of a greenhouse gas than originally thought. And since it is a plant food, it will help crop yields.

[Ratickle]

I diagree Ian. All you'd have to do is outlaw having children. Within 4 generations, problem solved.....:sifone:

[Perlmudder]

Are you serious? Of course we would have to get rid of our big blocks. Walking occasionally and cutting back on toilet paper use is not going to have any measurable effect on energy use. If you think that global warming is happening and you want to reverse it, you would have to get rid of boats, RV's, recreational air travel. Outlaw all cars that get less gas milage than a Prius. Restrict the size of your dwelling or how much gas you are allowed to use to heat it. Cutting carbon emissions would be painful and expensive. And it would be useless unless everyone on Earth did it. China is building a new coal fired power plant a week. India is doing about the same.

Lucky for all of us, the theory of global warming is starting to fall apart. Carbon dioxide is proving to be a lot less of a greenhouse gas than originally thought. And since it is a plant food, it will help crop yields.


What should be done and what can be done are two very different things. Creating a more sustainable lifestyle by implementing energy saving devices in ones household and workplace can have a measurable effect on our impact. We can not be responsible for what they do in India and China, but we can watch our own actions.

This statement "it will help crop yields" is false. Carbon dioxide in the right amounts is beneficial to plant life production, in excess amounts it is detrimental just like any other substance. The issue with carbon dioxide is not that it is going to kill plants, but that is it going to impact the seasons. If every year we have a growing season that is one day or half a day less, in 15-30 years from now we are might not have fruits and vegetables that are able to develop to their maximum potential. This has already been proven in parts of France and Europe where vineyards have had to change the type of wines and champagnes they have produce in the past (and are well known for) because the growing season is no longer optimal.

[Perlmudder]

This website is sort of neat if you want to measure your ecological footprint. There is a more accurate calculator on another website but I was not able to locate it.

http://www.myfootprint.org/en/visitor_information/

[Ratickle]

Only need 7.96 earths if everyone lived like me....

[PatriYacht]

What should be done and what can be done are two very different things. Creating a more sustainable lifestyle by implementing energy saving devices in ones household and workplace can have a measurable effect on our impact. We can not be responsible for what they do in India and China, but we can watch our own actions.

This statement "it will help crop yields" is false. Carbon dioxide in the right amounts is beneficial to plant life production, in excess amounts it is detrimental just like any other substance. The issue with carbon dioxide is not that it is going to kill plants, but that is it going to impact the seasons. If every year we have a growing season that is one day or half a day less, in 15-30 years from now we are might not have fruits and vegetables that are able to develop to their maximum potential. This has already been proven in parts of France and Europe where vineyards have had to change the type of wines and champagnes they have produce in the past (and are well known for) because the growing season is no longer optimal.


If the growing season is getting shorter then there must not be any global warming. Problem solved. Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas making up less than .001 percent of the earth's atmosphere. Doubling it or tripling it will make plants grow faster. I have never heard of poisoning a plant with too much.

[Perlmudder]

If the growing season is getting shorter then there must not be any global warming. Problem solved. Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas making up less than .001 percent of the earth's atmosphere. Doubling it or tripling it will make plants grow faster. I have never heard of poisoning a plant with too much.

Nowhere did I refer to it as "global warming", I referred to it as "climate change", which is the correct term. :)

Although carbon dioxide does not comprise most of our atmosphere, like you stated, it still has a large impact on the green house effect, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%.

[Ratickle]

Greenhouse Studies

....tests have shown that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse to 550 ppm will accelerate plant growth by 30 - 40 %. The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 450 ppm, having increased from about 250 ppm in the last ice-age, so this slight increase may not appear significant at first sight. The point of the matter is that the level of carbon dioxide in the average greenhouse with the ventilation system closed will drop sharply due to uptake by the plants and will lie around 150 - 200 ppm if nothing is done about it.....

In the Wild Studies

....Both trees and poison ivy grew faster, when exposed to higher concentrations of CO2, than their oxygen-only counterparts. But poison ivy grew faster than the trees--150% faster, in fact, compared to a 20% increase in tree growth. The difference, according to Jackie Mohan, is that poison ivy, like all vines, is a bit lazy.

"Vines don't need to devote so much of their CO2 resources to growing these big, woody trunks," she says. "Instead, they can devote that to growing more green leaves, which increase photosynthesis some more. And it becomes a cycle."

This study was the first time the effects of CO2 had been researched like this in the wild. ....

[2112]

This has already been proven in parts of France and Europe where vineyards have had to change the type of wines and champagnes they have produce in the past (and are well known for) because the growing season is no longer optimal.


Um..I believe it is commonly referred to as soil depletion, not a change in growing season and is seen in every cultivated crop world wide. :USA:

Still not knocking your efforts to waste less but be careful, those who preach this stuff would love to take our boats away yesterday and are making efforts to do exactly that.
.

[fund razor]

Still not knocking your efforts to waste less but be careful, those who preach this stuff would love to take our boats away yesterday and are making efforts to do exactly that.
.
Yep.

[Perlmudder]

Um..I believe it is commonly referred to as soil depletion, not a change in growing season and is seen in every cultivated crop world wide. :USA:

Still not knocking your efforts to waste less but be careful, those who preach this stuff would love to take our boats away yesterday and are making efforts to do exactly that.
.

Soil depletion and a change in growing season are different. Soil depletion results from minerals and nutrients being taken from the soil (depleted) and not returned. It happens most commonly in scenarios where intense cultivation takes place, where slash and burn techniques are used (like in the rain forest of Brazil), and ranching (also common in Brazil). Most farmers expect this to happen, that is why they rotate crops and fields, and give them rest years, although organic farmers do not suffer from this issue as much. When I say a change in growing season I mean that the actual length of the season is not as long. If a specific type of grape for a wine needs 60 days to ripen and only receives 50, it is not able to produce the desired taste the wine maker wishes for.


I LOVE boating just as much as the everybody else on here. I clock 150+ hours a year. I just don't see the problem with implementing energy saving techniques to reduce our impact on the environment in other areas of our life.

[Perlmudder]

Greenhouse Studies

....tests have shown that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse to 550 ppm will accelerate plant growth by 30 - 40 %. The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 450 ppm, having increased from about 250 ppm in the last ice-age, so this slight increase may not appear significant at first sight. The point of the matter is that the level of carbon dioxide in the average greenhouse with the ventilation system closed will drop sharply due to uptake by the plants and will lie around 150 - 200 ppm if nothing is done about it.....

In the Wild Studies

....Both trees and poison ivy grew faster, when exposed to higher concentrations of CO2, than their oxygen-only counterparts. But poison ivy grew faster than the trees--150% faster, in fact, compared to a 20% increase in tree growth. The difference, according to Jackie Mohan, is that poison ivy, like all vines, is a bit lazy.

"Vines don't need to devote so much of their CO2 resources to growing these big, woody trunks," she says. "Instead, they can devote that to growing more green leaves, which increase photosynthesis some more. And it becomes a cycle."

This study was the first time the effects of CO2 had been researched like this in the wild. ....

If you want to look at it like that, carbon dioxide is a positive factor plant life, but what about all of the other greenhouse gases that come along with it? Those do not benefit plant life.

This is a section of a paragraph I wrote for an essay:
----
Buildings represent approximately 50% of all green house gas emissions in The United States of America. Most of these greenhouse gasses are formed by the electricity consumed to light the buildings as well as cool and heat them. In 2006, 37% of all electricity produced in the U.S.A. was consumed by residential buildings, while 36% was consumed by the commercial sector (Buildings Energy Data Book, Page 28).
----

With that amount of electricity being consumed between residential and commercial buildings, I would say implementing energy saving appliances is not a bad idea (although I'm not sure if it was you who was arguing against that).

[PatriYacht]

Most appliances produced in the U.S. in ther last 10 years have been of the energy efficient kind. My house was built about 10 years ago and it has all of them including high efficiency furnace and water heater and about 16 inches of insulation in the attic. There isn't much I can do to increase efficiency except to move to a smaller house. I am sure that there are many in my situation given the number of house built in the last 10 years. My energy bill for one year is about 10,000.00. About 3000.00 goes to gasoline to get to work. Another 3000.00 goes in the boat. I use 3000.00 in natural gas to heat the house, about 3500 sq. feet, water and cook. About a thousand goes to electricity. I am already doing everything practical to save because it is so expensive. The house is kept fairly cool in the winter and the air is set about 78 in the summer. There is no way in hell I can cut more than 10% of my energy use without selling my house or my boat. That is what coming legislation is going to do to us. They will make it so expensive that we will have to downsize everything. Like I said, it's not just a matter of walking occasionally or using less toilet paper or even buying a new appliance. It means wholesale lifesyle changes some of which we won't like.

[PatriYacht]

Climate change is the ultimate weasel word. Maybe you are too young to remember how all of this started. Originally global warming was going to cause the oceans to rise, coastal plains would flood, all of the major citties in the world built near shipping ports would be covered with water. Remember Al Gore's movie showing the Staue of Liberty half covered with water? After 10 years with no warming and many signs of cooling actually, global warmists decided they needed a new term that would cover up the fact that they were wrong. So global warming became climate change. How could they lose, after all the climate has been changing ever since there was a Planet Earth.

Btw, I'm old enough to remember when some of these same scientists warned of a coming ice age if we didn't change our consumption etc, blah blah....

[Ratickle]

Btw, I'm old enough to remember when some of these same scientists warned of a coming ice age if we didn't change our consumption etc, blah blah....

That was on the cover of TIME Magazine in the 60's I think......

[PatriYacht]

Good morning Paul :USA:

[Ratickle]

This is a section of a paragraph I wrote for an essay:
----
Buildings represent approximately 50% of all green house gas emissions in The United States of America. Most of these greenhouse gasses are formed by the electricity consumed to light the buildings as well as cool and heat them. In 2006, 37% of all electricity produced in the U.S.A. was consumed by residential buildings, while 36% was consumed by the commercial sector (Buildings Energy Data Book, Page 28).
----



Nobody argues against energy inproved appliances. The argument is that it will make some big difference.

Look, you guys all know I blame our stupid politicians for almost all of this. And once again, I do. What's happened is that no one is elected anymore with any experience, smarts, business sense, or common sense.

France, a country with basically zero natural resources, coal or otherwise, has been completely self sufficient for years on their electricity requirements through the use of Nuclear Energy. But, because we allow pacs to control part of our politicians through bribes designed as donations, we don't have any Nuclear Plants to speak of as a percentage of electrical requirements. And Nuclear Plants are basically pollution free.

Germany, during WWII, was refining coal to fuel their war machine. How much do we refine here or in Canada? Not exactly new technology.

Natural gas and Propane. My grandfather worked for a gas company in Portland Oregon. We had vehicles that could run on natural gas or propane back in the 60's. I had a 454 modified 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4 pickup. Ran great, no pollution. We have an abundance of natural gas in the US and Canada. How many vehicles do you see running around on that? It is actually easier to convert a vehicle with a carb over to natural gas than to convert one over to E85. Again, almost no pollution and very little expoense per vehicle.

We could do all of these things within 20 years and halve the US's carbon footprint. If you combine these things worldwide with a comprehensive, far reaching, birth control supply and education program, the issue is solved.

Instead, through the use of bribes and payoffs, we do moronic things like Alcohol in gas by subsidizing farmers, conversion plant builders, distribution systems, etc. And what do we get in return? More expensive fuel and a food shortage around the world to produce a product with a Larger Carbon Footprint than just burning gas would have.....

In the future, that would not be the case if you had Nuclear Plants to make the energy to convert the corn or ? to alcohol.

But, until we stop allowing bribes to career politicians, this will not change and we will continue to decline as a nation, and a world.

[Ratickle]

Good morning Paul :USA:

Morning Ian. I was busy on a rant.....:sifone:

[cuda]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it takes more in fossil fuel to grow the crops for E85 than we save by using it, not to mention the loss of mpg.

[Ratickle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it takes more in fossil fuel to grow the crops for E85 than we save by using it, not to mention the loss of mpg.

It takes more in fossil fuel to grow and convert it, than just burning the fossil fuel. It's a big scam.....

[PatriYacht]

I agree on the nuclear part. If we had enough of these we could even heat our homes with electricity. Once they are built and fueled they make electricity almost for free. I read a story in a business mag. saying all of the nuke plants built are paid for now and are making about a million dollars a day profit for their owners. A number of them would like to expand but Washington can't even decide on the standards for how to build them. Useless. Population control's not a bad idea but we'll be long gone before anything noticable happens. The developed world already controls their population anyway. Russia and Japan are already shrinking, Europe will be soon and the U.S is at replacement rate and only grows because of our porous southern border.

[Ratickle]

That's why I say Worldwide......

[Perlmudder]

Most appliances produced in the U.S. in ther last 10 years have been of the energy efficient kind. My house was built about 10 years ago and it has all of them including high efficiency furnace and water heater and about 16 inches of insulation in the attic. There isn't much I can do to increase efficiency except to move to a smaller house. I am sure that there are many in my situation given the number of house built in the last 10 years. My energy bill for one year is about 10,000.00. About 3000.00 goes to gasoline to get to work. Another 3000.00 goes in the boat. I use 3000.00 in natural gas to heat the house, about 3500 sq. feet, water and cook. About a thousand goes to electricity. I am already doing everything practical to save because it is so expensive. The house is kept fairly cool in the winter and the air is set about 78 in the summer. There is no way in hell I can cut more than 10% of my energy use without selling my house or my boat. That is what coming legislation is going to do to us. They will make it so expensive that we will have to downsize everything. Like I said, it's not just a matter of walking occasionally or using less toilet paper or even buying a new appliance. It means wholesale lifesyle changes some of which we won't like.

Well then IMO you are doing a good job. :)

[Perlmudder]

Nobody argues against energy inproved appliances. The argument is that it will make some big difference.

Look, you guys all know I blame our stupid politicians for almost all of this. And once again, I do. What's happened is that no one is elected anymore with any experience, smarts, business sense, or common sense.

France, a country with basically zero natural resources, coal or otherwise, has been completely self sufficient for years on their electricity requirements through the use of Nuclear Energy. But, because we allow pacs to control part of our politicians through bribes designed as donations, we don't have any Nuclear Plants to speak of as a percentage of electrical requirements. And Nuclear Plants are basically pollution free.

Germany, during WWII, was refining coal to fuel their war machine. How much do we refine here or in Canada? Not exactly new technology.

Natural gas and Propane. My grandfather worked for a gas company in Portland Oregon. We had vehicles that could run on natural gas or propane back in the 60's. I had a 454 modified 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4 pickup. Ran great, no pollution. We have an abundance of natural gas in the US and Canada. How many vehicles do you see running around on that? It is actually easier to convert a vehicle with a carb over to natural gas than to convert one over to E85. Again, almost no pollution and very little expoense per vehicle.

We could do all of these things within 20 years and halve the US's carbon footprint. If you combine these things worldwide with a comprehensive, far reaching, birth control supply and education program, the issue is solved.

Instead, through the use of bribes and payoffs, we do moronic things like Alcohol in gas by subsidizing farmers, conversion plant builders, distribution systems, etc. And what do we get in return? More expensive fuel and a food shortage around the world to produce a product with a Larger Carbon Footprint than just burning gas would have.....

In the future, that would not be the case if you had Nuclear Plants to make the energy to convert the corn or ? to alcohol.

But, until we stop allowing bribes to career politicians, this will not change and we will continue to decline as a nation, and a world.

You hit the nail on the head there, its the government that is pushing this way out of perspective. There are definitely negatives to using nuclear (think Chernobyl, three mile island, etc) but with the amount of money wasted in other parts of government, I have no doubt that the kinks could easily be worked out.

[Perlmudder]

I think you guys think that I am a global warming activist, but in reality I am a sustainability activist. Its not that I want to stop boating or driving SUV's, I do both of those quite a bit. I just feel that after reading everything I have, that reducing our ecological footprint by implementing energy saving techniques in our home is a good idea (which everybody else here also agrees with).

It is actually quite refreshing to debate a topic with other people rather then other students in my classes.

[Ratickle]

You hit the nail on the head there, its the government that is pushing this way out of perspective. There are definitely negatives to using nuclear (think Chernobyl, three mile island, etc) but with the amount of money wasted in other parts of government, I have no doubt that the kinks could easily be worked out.

They use those as excuses as to what "could" happen. How many accidents in France or South Africa where the newest Nuclear Technology is used and the most powerplants exist?

Compared to how many people die from mining and processing coal each year over the same period of time???? Or working in oil fields???? It's a joke to even think that there is an issue with safety overall for the US population.....

But we teach this crap in our schools and universities because of the rhetoric, and money, that comes out of Washington. Do you think it's an accident that many Universities have some of the few budgets, supported largely by the government, which have outpaced inflation over the past few years?

[Wobble]

It takes more in fossil fuel to grow and convert it, than just burning the fossil fuel. It's a big scam.....


Not really, people point to it as being green, they dont get that this was the last way to maintain octane. MTBE, LEAD and all the other octane/anti-knock additives commonly used to maintain the octane we want have been proven to end up in our ground water or our food supply.

I'm not saying that alcohol is the right answer but it's a better one than the alternatives

[Ratickle]

Not really, people point to it as being green, they dont get that this was the last way to maintain octane. MTBE, LEAD and all the other octane/anti-knock additives commonly used to maintain the octane we want have been proven to end up in our ground water or our food supply.

I'm not saying that alcohol is the right answer but it's a better one than the alternatives

According to those who have been paid off. It is not smart to use something which takes more fossil fuel to grow and process than just usinf the fossil fuel. Take a look at the fuel efficient turbo diesels used in Europe for years. How much octane booster do they use?????

Anyway, here are the most common octane boosters currently used in fuel.

MMT, Ferosene, Alcohol, and Toluene

Methyl cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and ferosene are used in limited amounts in off-the-shelf boosters. The majority of commercial boosters use MMT. Another type of booster uses alcohols or aromatics as the active ingredient. Many tuners use toluene as a home-style octane booster. Toluene, an aromatic circular hydrocarbon chain, is a regular component of pump gas and is available in various grades at chemical supply stores. Premium street gasoline carries roughly 3- to 5% toluene, which partially helps octane characteristics. Unocal's 100-octane race gas has almost 25% toluene.

[Wobble]

According to those who have been paid off. It is not smart to use something which takes more fossil fuel to grow and process than just usinf the fossil fuel. Take a look at the fuel efficient turbo diesels used in Europe for years. How much octane booster do they use?????

Anyway, here are the most common octane boosters currently used in fuel.

MMT, Ferosene, Alcohol, and Toluene

Methyl cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and ferosene are used in limited amounts in off-the-shelf boosters. The majority of commercial boosters use MMT. Another type of booster uses alcohols or aromatics as the active ingredient. Many tuners use toluene as a home-style octane booster. Toluene, an aromatic circular hydrocarbon chain, is a regular component of pump gas and is available in various grades at chemical supply stores. Premium street gasoline carries roughly 3- to 5% toluene, which partially helps octane characteristics. Unocal's 100-octane race gas has almost 25% toluene.

I'm well aware of the octane boosters from my racing days:sifone:. Toluene is another nasty chemical that likely will get banned, it has been connected to birth defects and nerve damage.

I'm just saying that when you look at the alternative Alcohol looks good in comparison to just about any octane booster, definitely "greener"

[mosi]

Do we really want to believe the British????

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10912



.

[Ratickle]

I'm well aware of the octane boosters from my racing days:sifone:. Toluene is another nasty chemical that likely will get banned, it has been connected to birth defects and nerve damage.

I'm just saying that when you look at the alternative Alcohol looks good in comparison to just about any octane booster, definitely "greener"

Sorry, I disagree. There may be something out there better, but the harmful elements put into the air and water by processing coal and oil to make the energy to make alcohol is much worse than any study to date for MMT. And there have been major studies done with no finds of harm to humans at the levels used. Some have even hinted a health improvement based on the element required in the human diet.

California residents use close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.

But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.

The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.

"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case. Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."

Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.

Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater, they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is consumed in the process of making it.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL#ixzz0U174qQRZ

[Wobble]

Do we really want to believe the British????

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10912



.


Since they are predicting the North Pole to be ice free within ten years I am trying to persuade Bobthebuilder to add that to his list of destinations on Team Predator. :sifone:

[Wobble]

I guess they are going to have to find a much longer pole now:sifone::sifone:

[Ratickle]

Do we really want to believe the British????

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10912



.

Nope. Ice in the Artic is on a rebound the last three years, making up most of the difference between the low in 2007 and the historical average.. Other scientists are predicting a new ice age. Here's a graph....

[Wobble]

Sorry, I disagree. There may be something out there better, but the harmful elements put into the air and water by processing coal and oil to make the energy to make alcohol is much worse than any study to date for MMT. And there have been major studies done with no finds of harm to humans at the levels used. Some have even hinted a health improvement based on the element required in the human diet.

California residents use close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.

But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.

The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.

"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case. Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."

Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.

Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater, they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is consumed in the process of making it.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL#ixzz0U174qQRZ

MMT has plenty of health risks associated:

Health Effects of Manganese

Manganese has long been known to be a health hazard to workers at high doses. Its effects at low doses are poorly understood. There appear to be three major targets for toxicity: the brain, the lungs, and the testes. At high doses, such as those found in some workplaces, manganese causes a severe, degenerative neurologic condition almost indistinguishable from Parkinson's disease. This disease, known as manganism, begins as a loss of appetite, apathy, fatigue, psychotic behavior, and clumsiness. The final stages include an expressionless, mask-like face, difficulty initiating movements, a shuffling gait, and tremors. At lower levels of exposure, delayed reaction time, poor hand-eye coordination, memory loss and tremors have been reported.

Several studies suggest a subtle effect of manganese on behavioral characteristics and learning ability in children. Infants fed formula enriched with manganese have significantly higher hair manganese levels and more trouble with hyperactivity and learning disabilities.


from this site http://www.psr.org/chapters/boston/health-and-environment/mmt-manganese-in-gasoline.html

there are plenty of others.

I am a big fan of Diesel especially when it is turbo or supercharged:USA:

[Ratickle]

This is from the EPA itself.....


Comments on the Gasoline Additive MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl)

*MMT is a gasoline octane enhancer produced by the Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), formerly known as the Ethyl Corporation. MMT is allowed in U.S. gasoline at a level equivalent to 1/32 grams per gallon manganese (gpg Mn).

*Manganese is a neurotoxin and can cause irreversible neurological disease at high levels of inhalation. However, ingested manganese is a required element of the diet at very low levels. There is a concern that the use of manganese additives in gasoline could increase inhalation manganese exposures.

*After completing a 1994 risk evaluation on the use of MMT in gasoline, EPA was unable, based on the available data, to determine if there is a risk to the public health from exposure to emissions of MMT gasoline. The Agency stated "Although it is not possible based on the present information to conclude whether specific adverse health effects will be associated with manganese exposures in the vicinity of or exceeding the [estimated safe level over a lifetime of exposure], neither is it possible to conclude that adverse health effects will not be associated with such exposures." This assessment was based upon the level of MMT allowed in U.S. gasoline.

And the studies conducted, and ongoing, under the EPA's control have still been inconclusive.

[Wobble]

This is from the EPA itself.....


Comments on the Gasoline Additive MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl)

*MMT is a gasoline octane enhancer produced by the Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), formerly known as the Ethyl Corporation. MMT is allowed in U.S. gasoline at a level equivalent to 1/32 grams per gallon manganese (gpg Mn).

*Manganese is a neurotoxin and can cause irreversible neurological disease at high levels of inhalation. However, ingested manganese is a required element of the diet at very low levels. There is a concern that the use of manganese additives in gasoline could increase inhalation manganese exposures.

*After completing a 1994 risk evaluation on the use of MMT in gasoline, EPA was unable, based on the available data, to determine if there is a risk to the public health from exposure to emissions of MMT gasoline. The Agency stated "Although it is not possible based on the present information to conclude whether specific adverse health effects will be associated with manganese exposures in the vicinity of or exceeding the [estimated safe level over a lifetime of exposure], neither is it possible to conclude that adverse health effects will not be associated with such exposures." This assessment was based upon the level of MMT allowed in U.S. gasoline.

And the studies conducted, and ongoing, under the EPA's control have still been inconclusive.

I'm clear on one thing, MMT, MTBE, LEAD all were in their day the cheapest way.

BTW I have over thirty years in the Petrochemical Industry so I am not out to knock the business. Consumer demand drives the pricing of fuels, the cheapest production method (approved by the EPA)on any given day is going to be the winner.

All of the now banned additives were once legal.

[Ratickle]

I'm clear on one thing, MMT, MTBE, LEAD all were in their day the cheapest way.

BTW I have over thirty years in the Petrochemical Industry so I am not out to knock the business. Consumer demand drives the pricing of fuels, the cheapest production method (approved by the EPA)on any given day is going to be the winner.

All of the now banned additives were once legal.

At least no days the tests are conducted and results usually open to the public.