Dispelling myths about global warming

Mar 25, 2013 Full story: NorCalBlogs 31

The difference between a good idea and a bad idea is often a quantitative matter.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Mar 25, 2013
Another denier piece to confuse the public. Read from this instead:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#3 Mar 26, 2013
Is it the liar or the denier that causes the confusion?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#4 Mar 26, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Is it the liar or the denier that causes the confusion?
First, deniers are liars in this context.

Second, deniers want confusion. Hopefully, the public is not fooled.
PHD

Overton, TX

#5 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>First, deniers are liars in this context.
Second, deniers want confusion. Hopefully, the public is not fooled.
More and more that’s all the "spacedoutblues” has more and more diarrheas.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#7 Mar 27, 2013

The past is a an observation of history that can identify the flaws of and or benefits of previous experiences. Whether we use that to determine our future will be determined by our abilities to recognize their flaws and benefits. How do we distinguish a flaw or a benefit? Some will say this is a flaw another would contend it is a benefit. Are we then to decipher the information, to what we determine to be the “Norm”. Is it by a majority or can we deduce facts that are universal? What is normal.? Various cultures will address normal differently. Example Judah, Islamic, Hindu, etc… Measure their success rate for humanities’’ existence in say a peaceful nature. Past indicates a failure rate. Do we continue? Some say yes. Majority? Is this correct base to progress from?
How then do we determine success in any application of a theory that we have deciphered from the past to determine our future? Do we construct a theory that can be tested and measured. As the theories prove or disprove themselves we continue to question and experiment. Beliefs take a back seat to facts that are tested and proven correct or false. Note this will not require thousands of years to identify false facts from correct facts {so far }. Observe the evolution of science in the efficiency to discerning facts from false to correct , in the past 200 years. No correct fact is taken as absolute but continuously seeking to prove it incorrect. There in lays the fundamental difference of beliefs vs. science. Beliefs obstruct those that seek to prove them to be incorrect. Trudging on for thousands of years on false premises before they dissolve from the shear weight of their ignorance of the prevailing realities. Similar to what is occurring presently with our populace in their observations of “Global Warming”. Note how beliefs are being escorted to the back seats of our sciences’. Majority or not… Beliefs is a callow expression of our past, nothing more.. There are no exact same conditions. Space time continuum does not support that theory.
Now would it not be interesting to have a thread on Psychophysical?

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#8 Mar 27, 2013
So, seems pretty simple and convincing. Where, SB, do you claim he went wrong?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#9 Mar 27, 2013
Wattsupmybutt?

Should be "Dispensing myths about global warming".

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#10 Mar 27, 2013
FG:
Such a valuable communication... NOT.

Do you have anything productive to add?
litesong

Everett, WA

#11 Mar 27, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Where, SB, do you claim he went wrong?
Couldn't get half-way through the first paragraph without a standard AGW denier statement...... which is of course, in error:

if the intent is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels then switching to electric motors would not help unless the electricity was generated without burning fossil fuels.

Electric motors are 3 times more efficient than internal combustion engines(ICE). Even if the electricity production power plant fuel is coal, electric motor car motion is less CO2 production intensive than an ICE vehicle.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#12 Mar 27, 2013
Interesting, and maybe correct though I've seen plausible arguments from both sides. But since the first paragraph is only preface (and needless at that), might I suggest you screw up your courage and finish reading the article? It is the remainder that is of such interest.
litesong

Everett, WA

#13 Mar 27, 2013
litesong wrote:
Electric motors are 3 times more efficient than internal combustion engines(ICE). Even if the electricity production power plant fuel is coal, electric motor car motion is less CO2 production intensive than an ICE vehicle.
//////////
"KitemanSA" coughed:
Interesting, and maybe correct.....
//////////
litesong wrote:
No argument, no maybe. Electric motors are 3 times more efficient than ICE. In our wind & hydro electric producing Pacific Northwest, electric motors produce only 4% of the CO2 of ICE....... & almost no pollution within cities.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#14 Mar 27, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
FG:
Such a valuable communication... NOT.
Do you have anything productive to add?
No. If you really think a retired engineer has discovered a flaw in science which has been around for half a century, and is accepted by the whole of the scientific community, even the handful sceptical of the risks of AGW, be my guest: join the band of idiots at wattsupmybutt lapping up the latest nonsense.

"Global warming is real and the second warming of the 20th century- people have something to do with it. Get over it."

Alarmist scientist? No, Pat Michaels, oil-funded global warming sceptic.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#15 Mar 28, 2013
Litesong:
Way to change your statement mid-stride!
All else being equal, a coal fired plant providing electricity thru the standard grid to batteries that can be charged as quickly as one can fill a gas tank and provide the same range as a typical ICE powered car will, with all the compounded inefficiencies, produce as much, or more, CO2 per mile driven as an ICE. Where the EV _TENDS_ to do better is in capturing the braking energy. But in doing so, it is not "all else being equal". If you add a hydraulic brake recuperator to a typical ICE, its efficiency goes way up too.
If your goal is low carbon footprint, perhaps you should investigate nuclear ammonia for transportation fuel.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#16 Mar 28, 2013
My question:
Do you have anything productive to add?
Your response:
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
You could have stopped right there.
litesong

Everett, WA

#17 Mar 28, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Litesong:
Way to change your statement mid-stride!
..... batteries that can be charged as quickly as one can fill a gas tank and provide the same range as a typical ICE powered car will.......
I never changed. You did. You mentioned problems other than the electric motor, itself. Whatever problems there are with electric vehicles, it is NOT the motor....... which is 3 times more efficient than ICE, simple, more reliable, elegantly smooth, vibrationless, quieter & more wondrous to ride than ICE can be.
PHD

Overton, TX

#19 Mar 28, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I never changed. You did. You mentioned problems other than the electric motor, itself. Whatever problems there are with electric vehicles, it is NOT the motor....... which is 3 times more efficient than ICE, simple, more reliable, elegantly smooth, vibrationless, quieter & more wondrous to ride than ICE can be.
More and more that’s all the "pinheadliteout” has more and more diarrheas.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#20 Mar 28, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I never changed. You did. You mentioned problems other than the electric motor, itself. Whatever problems there are with electric vehicles, it is NOT the motor....... which is 3 times more efficient than ICE, simple, more reliable, elegantly smooth, vibrationless, quieter & more wondrous to ride than ICE can be.
Your original post didn't stop with the one sentance about the motors.
Electric motors are 3 times more efficient than internal combustion engines(ICE). Even if the electricity production power plant fuel is coal, electric motor car motion is less CO2 production intensive than an ICE vehicle.
. I was responding to the whole paragraph, not just the first sentance.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#21 Mar 28, 2013
Consider an electric source can be obtained from various fuels. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar Parabolic Trough, Solar panels,{Hey Make Your Own Fuel}, Wood, Hydro to name just a few. Now which source is up to you.
Now an Electric Vehicle {EV} is NOT hostage to only one source of fuel as with Internal Combustion. Now does one prefer to pay the ever increasing ransom or does one choose to remove the oily shackles and embrace the wind of change. Hmmm…
litesong

Everett, WA

#22 Mar 28, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
I was responding to the whole paragraph, not just the first sentance(sic).
& you are wrong in any way you think. Electric motors produce less CO2 than ICE, even when using coal.
ICE produces 19pounds of CO2 per gallon. But ICE is even worse than that number. Including CO2 emissions of gasoline tankers delivering gasoline to local gas stations, ICE produces 28 pounds of CO2 per gallon. The average ICE produces well over 1 pound of CO2 per mile. Many ICE autos & trucks that owners are proud to own, produce 2+ pounds of CO2 per mile.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23 Mar 29, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
& you are wrong in any way you think. Electric motors produce less CO2 than ICE, even when using coal.
ICE produces 19pounds of CO2 per gallon. But ICE is even worse than that number. Including CO2 emissions of gasoline tankers delivering gasoline to local gas stations, ICE produces 28 pounds of CO2 per gallon. The average ICE produces well over 1 pound of CO2 per mile. Many ICE autos & trucks that owners are proud to own, produce 2+ pounds of CO2 per mile.
More and more that’s all the "pinheadliteout” has more and more diarrheas.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxid... (Mar '13) 1 hr The Fact Is 4
Why Cold Weather Doesn't Mean Global Warming Is... 1 hr SpaceBlues 24
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 2 hr One way or another 27,705
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr ritedownthemiddle 33,294
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr ritedownthemiddle 48,595
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 2,204
Global Warming Deniers and 7 Key Arguments They... 10 hr Fair Game 52

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE