Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 62945 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

litesong

Everett, WA

#45131 Mar 27, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
http://www.nationaljournal.com /energy/biofuels-producers-bla me-big-oil-for-epa-plan-to-cut -renewable-fuel-standard-20131 115
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/gr...
they don't complain, huh, son?
You quote an ethanol website & an ethanol propagandist, both of which you disagree with, to get a dig at me. Yeah, your hatred is deep & continuing. You can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, while standing inside the barn.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45132 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
However, ethanol produces 25%-30% less energy just due to its lack of btus. & due to its inefficient use(improperly burned) in low compression ratio gasoline engines, ethanol power loss is down by 40% or more.
link please....or is this your math?
litesong

Everett, WA

#45133 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]my sentiments exactly!!![/QUOTE]

So we agree. Let's get back to arguing!
litesong

Everett, WA

#45134 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]link please....or is this your math?[/QUOTE]

Here are btu comparisons between a number of fuels.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_compari...

Along with the misery of ethanol btus, ethanol's use(not burned) in a low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) conservatively drops to 60%. Some reports have even shown greater drops. Ethanol needs high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engines to extract its energy properly. That is what INDY cars & their ethanol engines are all about, getting the energy out of ethanol.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45135 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You quote an ethanol website & an ethanol propagandist, both of which you disagree with, to get a dig at me. Yeah, your hatred is deep & continuing. You can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, while standing inside the barn.
well here, son.
like i've told you numerous times.....your beef is with the EPA!!!

they obviously disagree with you. they feel renewables emit less ghg emissions.

OR....DO THEY HAVE AN AGENDA, I WONDER?!?!

http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fuels/renewablefuels/

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45136 Mar 27, 2014
what's a little lost efficiency when the planet is at stake????

HMMMMMMMM?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45137 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text> Let's get back to arguing!
why? you like losing?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45138 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You quote an ethanol website & an ethanol propagandist,
here's a petroleum institute "propagandist" site........but you stand with them, right?

also....if you read it you can clearly see that your claim of big oil supporting ethanol is total litesongBS

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45139 Mar 27, 2014

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45140 Mar 27, 2014
if it weren't for the corrupt EPA, litesong, you could get all the 100% gasoline you want!

they say they impose this law in order to help control GHG emissions.

the EPA is the sole reason you can't find conventional gas and the sole reason it costs more. it has nothing to do with refiners!!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45142 Mar 27, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not convoluted at all. It's logical & correct, if you choose to single out climate change as questionable science.
Actually, it's the warmists saying it's "settled science", so you've only offered a self-serving qualification. I've not seen any other 'science' make that claim.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45143 Mar 27, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So much for that "settled science" argument.
Warmists foil themselves.
Love it!
It is settled that the Earth is warming. It is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is settled that burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you dispute this? If so give us the scientific evidence that supports your dispute. Of course all we will get is some cut and paste from a RW denial blog or think tank. Nothing approaching solid science. But we have come to expect this from you. Not sure why I bother to respond to your bias. Entertainment I suppose.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45144 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]what's a little lost efficiency when the planet is at stake??[/QUOTE]

That's how the "ethanol in gasoline" industry figured it, as they piled on 10% ethanol blends. They figured few would notice how poor their gasoline consumption was getting. Then, the "ethanol in gasoline" industry showed their greed with E85, but that was rejected by consumers. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry tried an end-around with E15, but the auto industry threw them for loss. Meanwhile, increasing percentages of drivers were having ethanol damage to their vehicles. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry plowed as much ethanol into gasoline as they could, up to 10%. But, some blenders got caught adding excess ethanol, even as high as 63%. Now you know why increasing percentages of people had problems with ethanol destructions to their gasoline engines.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45145 Mar 27, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is settled that the Earth is warming. It is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is settled that burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you dispute this? If so give us the scientific evidence that supports your dispute. Of course all we will get is some cut and paste from a RW denial blog or think tank. Nothing approaching solid science. But we have come to expect this from you. Not sure why I bother to respond to your bias. Entertainment I suppose.
this is what the EPA says, but litesong gave them the finger. talk about bias!!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45146 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how the "ethanol in gasoline" industry figured it, as they piled on 10% ethanol blends. They figured few would notice how poor their gasoline consumption was getting. Then, the "ethanol in gasoline" industry showed their greed with E85, but that was rejected by consumers. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry tried an end-around with E15, but the auto industry threw them for loss. Meanwhile, increasing percentages of drivers were having ethanol damage to their vehicles. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry plowed as much ethanol into gasoline as they could, up to 10%. But, some blenders got caught adding excess ethanol, even as high as 63%. Now you know why increasing percentages of people had problems with ethanol destructions to their gasoline engines.
you're really going out on a limb and grasping at straws now, son!!!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1136855...

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45147 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
. But, some blenders got caught adding excess ethanol, even as high as 63%.
LINK PLEASE?????

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45148 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The "ethanol in gasoline" industry plowed as much ethanol into gasoline as they could, up to 10%.
The "ethanol pushers" involvement ends at the barge to refiners and blenders. why would petroleum businesses do that? you're clearly making shyt up now!!!

LOL
litesong

Everett, WA

#45149 Mar 27, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It is settled that the Earth is warming. It is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is settled that burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you dispute this? If so give us the scientific evidence that supports your dispute. Of course all we will get is some cut and paste from a RW denial blog or think tank. Nothing approaching solid science. But we have come to expect this from you. Not sure why I bother to respond to your bias. Entertainment I suppose.
//////////
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" gushed:
this is what the EPA says, but litesong gave them the finger. talk about bias!!
//////////
litesong wrote:
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" & I agreed on something. Now,
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" thinks it can use it as a wedge. Took
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" about 5 minutes to fashion its wedge.
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name,
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
Sam

New York, NY

#45150 Mar 27, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>The "ethanol pushers" involvement ends at the barge to refiners and blenders. why would petroleum businesses do that? you're clearly making shyt up now!!!
LOL
I see you have managed to steer the conversation to some bull sh it that is not applicable.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45152 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It is settled that the Earth is warming. It is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is settled that burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you dispute this? If so give us the scientific evidence that supports your dispute. Of course all we will get is some cut and paste from a RW denial blog or think tank. Nothing approaching solid science. But we have come to expect this from you. Not sure why I bother to respond to your bias. Entertainment I suppose.
//////////
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" gushed:
this is what the EPA says, but litesong gave them the finger. talk about bias!!
//////////
litesong wrote:
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" & I agreed on something. Now,
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" thinks it can use it as a wedge. Took
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" about 5 minutes to fashion its wedge.
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name,
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
all we agree on is that you don't care what the EPA deems good for the planet if it goes counter to your personal choices. talk about self serving! how can you support a hoax that you're not 'all in' for?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Cheech the Conser... 1,481,649
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Jacques in Orleans 234,237
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr RACE 2,385
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr RACE 3,540
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Sublime1 104,728
amy1-19-17 again edited for space 2 hr RACE 5
abby1-19-17 2 hr RACE 3

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages