The Coming Of Biofuels: Study Shows R...

The Coming Of Biofuels: Study Shows Reducing Gasoline Emissions...

There are 49 comments on the Pollution Online story from Jun 2, 2009, titled The Coming Of Biofuels: Study Shows Reducing Gasoline Emissions.... In it, Pollution Online reports that:

President Barack Obama and Energy Secretary Steve Chu are consistent in their message that when it comes to transportation fuels, carbon-neutral biofuels as an alternative to gasoline are coming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pollution Online.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#41 Jun 9, 2009
Then what’s your point, experimentation isn't necessary? We can use consensus to find the truth?

You fail to understand how science works; it's all about the experiments. Experiments are the test. How else do you test a theory? Coin flips?

You don't have a valid point.

Back to the main point, ethanol is an immoral fuel. We need a new temperance movement for our energy markets.
MattJ

San Francisco, CA

#42 Jun 9, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
Then what’s your point, experimentation isn't necessary? We can use consensus to find the truth?
Aren't you paying attention? Of course that is not it.
You fail to understand how science works;
No YOU fail.
it's all about the experiments.
So tell us what 'experiment' you use to verify the Chandrasekhar Limit. Or the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#43 Jun 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you paying attention? Of course that is not it.
<quoted text>
No YOU fail.
<quoted text>
So tell us what 'experiment' you use to verify the Chandrasekhar Limit. Or the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram.
What a dope.
Since we don't use certain experiments because the subject is a bazzillion light years away we therefore the peddlers are justified to not have to do experiments with what is all round us and in us. Thus the AGW crisis peddlers never have to prove anything they say. How convenient.
Like using a thermometer to take the temperature of air containing various amounts of CO2.
What a dope.

And besides the mental midgets get to google and throw around impressive sounding stuff to make them appear to be all wise gurus "the Chandrasekhar Limit. Or the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram"

----------

$36.31 Proves AGW crisis peddlers are idiots.

Video at link:

When I did this experiment on Feb. 1 the stimulus package included $400 million for Global Warming research. Now that number is up to $2.8 Billion. I think the money only goes to people who are trying to prove Global Warming however, not disprove it like my experiment did.

The identical thermometers represent the earth and the garbage bags represent the atmosphere. Both thermometers were at 41ºF at 3:00 which was 9º warmer than the air temperature which was at 32º.

At 3:30 pm they had both warmed even more, the bag with the car exhaust was 49º and the bag with air was 50º. At 4:00 pm the bag with exhaust went back down to 41º but the bag with air was still at 45º. I think the bag with regular air stayed warmer because air contains water vapor, which is the major source of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. Car exhaust doesn't have much water vapor and is not a great greenhouse gas.

I filled the bag with 100% car exhaust as an extreme example to show that it is not a major greenhouse gas. To actually show the amount of CO2 mankind puts into the atmosphere I would have only needed to put in 1 ml of car exhaust in to a 30 Gallon trash bag, which is just the very bottom of an eye dropper.

Of course if you are an alarmist you could conclude by this experiment that car exhaust could cause Global Cooling, and that the new hydrogen burning cars could really cause Global Warming because they emit water vapor.

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2...
MattJ

San Francisco, CA

#44 Jun 9, 2009
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a dope.
You and Brian are the dopes, not me. You prove this with your unending barrage of REALLY dopey excuses for ignoring the scientific consensus: AGW is real, it is a real threat, we must cut CO2 NOW to deal with it.
Since we don't use certain experiments because the subject is a bazzillion light years away we therefore the peddlers are justified to not have to do experiments with what is all round us and in us.
You show off your low level of integrity and/or intelligence with this pathetic pervesion of what I wrote.

By NO means did I imply any such thing. Rather, I wrote it SPECIFICALLY to refute Brian's repeated nonsense about experimental science being the only science.

It is not. Astronomy, geology and climatology are ALL observational sciences.

But as a Fundamentalist, you don't understand ANY science, you have no CHOICE but to reject the scientific method root and branch.
neighbour

High River, Canada

#45 Jun 9, 2009
JRS wrote:
What a dope.
......

What a dope

......

I think the bag with regular air stayed warmer because air contains water vapor, which is the major source of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. Car exhaust doesn't have much water vapor and is not a great greenhouse gas.

....

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2...
Apparently this brilliant researched doesn't know that the products of gasoline combustion are mostly CO2 and water vapor.

C8H18 + oxygen yields 8 molecules of CO2 and 9 molecules of water.

And JRS thinks this guy knows more than the scientists. What a pair of dopes.
MattJ

San Francisco, CA

#46 Jun 9, 2009
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a dope.
No, the dope is the person who thought this 'experiment' proves anything about AGW.

It does not. Rather, it proves your obsession with garbage and gas.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#47 Jun 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
...
It is not. Astronomy, geology and climatology are ALL observational sciences...
There you go, climatology is an observational science, it has no business promoting this climate mitigation scheme. End of story.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#48 Jun 10, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I said I helped code it. I did NOT say I was in the UI group.
On the contrary: one of the most challenging parts of my job wsa getting certain un-named OEMs to move away from their incredibly bad UI decisions.
BTW: they were much worse before Sprint decided to enforce a UI standard across ALL OEMs.
AT&T did the same thing, but I don't think their standard was as good.
So what were you, One of the test moneys? The guy who made coffee and copies?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#49 Jun 10, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
That 'someone' would be YOU. I do no such thing.
Try again, your the one who either denying or stretching the truth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Biomass Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bill supporting renewable energy advances Apr '17 Solarman 1
News Scientists harness solar power to produce clean... Mar '17 Solarman 1
News Biomass, no-till could play major role in limit... Feb '17 maybe 1
News More UK electricity 'from wind turbines than co... Jan '17 Solarman 1
News Costa Rica Ran On Renewable Energy For Over 250... Jan '17 Solarman 1
News Claim: Reservoirs play substantial role in glob... (Oct '16) Nov '16 Earthling-1 4
News The ethanol in your gas tank should come from a... (May '16) Jul '16 longtail 3
More from around the web