Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59532 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.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#45117 Mar 27, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Have medical scientists ever argued their science was "settled" based on "consensus"?
You embarrass yourself but are too thick to see otherwise.
I do love holding warmists to their own standards.
LOL
Absolutely! This is where you are 100% wrong, if any new drug coming onto the market that prevents a certain disease then it must be approved by consensus. In other-words it must work for a start and it is safe for consumption. This applies to every science finding, whether its a new planet that has been found or genetic modified crops. All face a peer review, so as much as you WISH it were not so, I'm afraid the science is in. Warming is real and it is man made!

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#45118 Mar 27, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely! This is where you are 100% wrong, if any new drug coming onto the market that prevents a certain disease then it must be approved by consensus. In other-words it must work for a start and it is safe for consumption. This applies to every science finding, whether its a new planet that has been found or genetic modified crops. All face a peer review, so as much as you WISH it were not so, I'm afraid the science is in. Warming is real and it is man made!
How many approved drugs are recalled each year because of flawed science.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45119 Mar 27, 2014
flack wrote:
100% gasoline is more fuel efficient than 10% ethanol.
Yes, I have a decade+ of records for 3 gasoline vehicles, showing 8%, 7% & 5% increases in mpg for 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends. Many other people have grassroots records agreeing with my records. A small minority of drivers have stated their individual vehicles show a 10% increase in mpg above 10% ethanol blend mpg, when switching to 100% gasoline. In their particular gasoline vehicles, the ethanol shows no power production.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45120 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"] it's an expense to them and cuts their market share[/QUOTE]

Big Oil knew the "ethanol in gasoline" industry would use MORE oil than it would save. With the lack of power production from ethanol, the total market went up because gasoline engine drivers had less mpg, due to the ethanol. Big Oil loved getting BIGGER, despite ethanol being in the market.

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name, "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45121 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have a decade+ of records for 3 gasoline vehicles, showing 8%, 7% & 5% increases in mpg for 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends. Many other people have grassroots records agreeing with my records. A small minority of drivers have stated their individual vehicles show a 10% increase in mpg above 10% ethanol blend mpg, when switching to 100% gasoline. In their particular gasoline vehicles, the ethanol shows no power production.
Translation: green energy is nonsense. I stand with big oil when it benefits me. if i can get better mpg and save my own money....i could care less how much ghg i emit.

litesong is a confessed global warming hypocrite!!

lol

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45122 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Big Oil knew the "ethanol in gasoline" industry would use MORE oil than it would save. With the lack of power production from ethanol, the total market went up because gasoline engine drivers had less mpg, due to the ethanol. Big Oil loved getting BIGGER, despite ethanol being in the market.
"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name, "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
that's utter bullchyt!!!!
E10 alone takes 10% away from gasoline sales for refiners!
RVP is removed form gasoline because of EPA mandates!
if refiners sell pure gasoline they're penalized via the RIN market...also EPA mandated!
Big oil is very opposed to RFS....in spite of what you imagine!
you just hate being on their side of the issue, hypocrite!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45123 Mar 27, 2014
CARBOB (california formulated gas is even more expensive because it cost more to a. blend and b. even more RVP is removed) all in the name of lowering GHG emissions.

wake up!!!!!!!!!!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45124 Mar 27, 2014
LOL

just follow barry's advice and inflate your tires, square wheels!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#45125 Mar 27, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely! This is where you are 100% wrong, if any new drug coming onto the market that prevents a certain disease then it must be approved by consensus. In other-words it must work for a start and it is safe for consumption. This applies to every science finding, whether its a new planet that has been found or genetic modified crops. All face a peer review, so as much as you WISH it were not so, I'm afraid the science is in. Warming is real and it is man made!
Wow... such a convoluted argument.

But go ahead... Google "settled science" and report all the hits you get back about medical science.

FAIL.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45126 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]The Dept. of Energy states that ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 19%![/QUOTE]

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.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45127 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]global warming hypocrite!!
[/QUOTE]

Never have supported ethanol in gasoline. "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" earns its name, "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y".
litesong

Everett, WA

#45128 Mar 27, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]...... inflate your tires,[/QUOTE]

Use my advice, use a featherfoot, inflate tires(billions of gasolines of fuel are wasted due to underinflated tires), & use 100% gasoline, which in modern refinements, give low emissions & low GHGs per mpg produced. Using these simple techniques, & a few others, 1900 gallons of fuel & ~$7500 can be saved over a lifetime of driving.

PLUS.....the more distance you travel in your lifetime, the more savings will you gain.

PLUS..... the more of a leadfoot you may be, the more savings you will gain by using these techniques.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#45129 Mar 27, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow... such a convoluted argument.
But go ahead... Google "settled science" and report all the hits you get back about medical science.
FAIL.
No it's not convoluted at all. It's logical & correct, if you choose to single out climate change as questionable science. Given that it has overwhelming support by the science community then by definition you should question everything, even your existence. From the food you put in your mouth to the air you breathe. As a denier who has no substance to any of their claims all you can do is circular argue there is no slam dunk from your lot. The slam dunk was the IPCC findings that man is contributing to climate change and CO2 emissions need to be reigned in.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#45130 Mar 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
use 100% gasoline, which in modern refinements, give low emissions & low GHGs per mpg produced..
my sentiments exactly!!! that's what i've been for all along, son. it's your crowd who insists on fixing what isn't broken!!

and.....if you have a problem with cbob px's blame it on the EPA!!! It belongs in their lap, not in producers!!
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?

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) 1 min Old Surfer Dude 1,383,754
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Jacques Orleans 214,567
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 min SweLL GirL 8,446
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 10 min Ize Found 70,608
Word (Dec '08) 33 min GEORGIA 6,174
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 34 min GEORGIA 2,443
News Man Charged With Sex Trafficking For Second Tim... (Jun '13) 1 hr Milton 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 20 hr Sublime1 102,044
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages