debate 6 discussion. final debate - Page 2

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

The 3rd and final question, kudos to independent. Hope for the best prepare for the worst. We go to war into Iraq on questionable intelligence, yet still with the mountain of evidence on global warming still refuse to do anything about it.
Tot in his response brings up the failures of Kyoto, but omits the positive aspects of Kyoto nor any links or sources to back up his claims yet again.
You have an international treaty on green house gases, the US instead of sticking in and fixing those portions of the treaty decide to pull out all together. This is not because of any economic factor but because of the lucritive market of the oil industry and the strong oil industry lobbyers. Hell they have one in the white house.

Postitive effects of Kyoto? You mean like destroying our economy without solving the problem of air polution? Tell me what positive aspects are you speaking of?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

For the second question, Tot seems to have failed quite miserably. Not a single source to back his claim up nor any explaination furthering his opinion. This is the true debate not opinion debate.
Independents response is Paints a very accurate representation of just how humans are indeed affecting the environment as well as how we react to it.
For what we can not see? speculative. For what we can see? well something needs to be done.

So correlation is the same thing as causation now? I take you have never passed a basic science course.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

That's not my argument. I'm not debating of the exhaust from the combustion of hydrogen. I'm stating that CFC's Chlorofluro carbons are not combustion related. You can not compare the two.
As for my concept of solar energy producing Ethanol, let me elaborate. Plants are indeed solar powered, the original energy source. You get ethanol from the fermentation of carbohydrates from plants. Thus the energy source is solar. Not solar energy creating ethanol.. Ethanol is not bio-diesel at all. Ethanol is CH3CH2OH, 2 carbons one oxygen and saturated with hydrogens. Biodiesel is diesel just made from biological oils - peanut oil. The two are completely different.

My mistake but it makes no difference ethanol is still not much better for the environment than regular fossil fuels; furthermore, it takes energy to create the ethanol in the first place and today the major source for creating ethanol is in fact natural gas.

Quote:

Compared with conventional unleaded gasoline, ethanol has fewer carbon monoxide emissions, but larger emissions of volatile organic compounds such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. [11] The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination so that ethanol remains the only alternative additive, despite evidence that it is not effective in improving air quality. [12]
Bio-ethanol production contributes to additional air pollution beyond that from the combustion of ethanol fuel. While growing crops removes carbon from the atmosphere, one study shows that the total corn-for-ethanol cycle releases 40% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than use of the equivalent amount of gasoline. [13]
All of these studies focus on the use of the product in an internal combustion engine, neglecting the production of the fuel prior to use in an engine. The production of ethanol takes approximately 167 percent of the energy it produces in an engine, whereas the production of gasoline takes 80 percent of the energy it takes to produce. This, in addition to the pollutants generated in the refining process (effectively zero when refining gasoline to substantive quantities in ethanol production), also means that ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline. [14]
In considering the potential for pollution reduction with ethanol, however, it is equally important to consider the potential for environmental contamination stemming from the manufacture of ethanol. In 2002, monitoring of ethanol plants revealed that they released volatile organic compounds at a much higher rate than had previously been disclosed [15]. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently reached settlement with Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, two of the largest producers of ethanol, to reduce emissions. However, the fact that these plants emitted carcinogens (such as formaldehyde) and other pollutants at a high volume must be considered as a serious concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

Quote:

First, that doesn't refute my argument at all.
Secondly, regional vs global. Europe with a significantly lower consumption of fossil fuels then the US, China or India would of course get it's rising temperatures locally from water. Europe is much warmer then similar latitude regions because of none other then the gulf stream, or mid atlantic current. Thus obviously the warmth is from water.

What are you talking about? That completely refutes your argument that wator vapor doesn't cause global warming.

Quote:

First you never made that argument.
2nd it's not only the individual that can do anything (which ironically I thought you used to argue we can't do anything about the climate to change anything).
3rd I've evidently changed your position on conservation and environmental protection, as well as many others. You used to say that humans had no ability whatsoever to affect the climate. Seems like your singing a different melody now.
I've also started an exchange program in the community I live in to swap old incadecents out for flourescents, the compost of lawn waste and kitchen waste, water conservation through low-flow toilets and shower heads. Sponsered by Home Depot
4th and finally I've worked on fermentation of the stalk portion of corn. Much richer in carbohydrates and an additional source of wasted biomass.

Any other questions of what I've done personally for environmental protection and global warming?

I never asked you what you do to prevent climate change I asked what you do to promote energy conservation two separate issues sir. Two simple questions what kind of a car do you drive and how much gasoline do you consume?

jfuh · 05-17-06, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

So correlation is the same thing as causation now? I take you have never passed a basic science course.

Did I say that? Please point out to where I did, good luck trying.
As for never passing a single science course, fair enough, I'll humor you. I have three degrees in the sciences. A double major whilst in College and a masters in materials, right now I'm persuing my PhD degree in materials science. What's your scientific background tot?

jfuh · 05-17-06, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Postitive effects of Kyoto? You mean like destroying our economy without solving the problem of air polution? Tell me what positive aspects are you speaking of?

Going right back to big oil rhetoric after I already explained and yet again not a single source to back up your claims.
This is the commentary of your debate with independent. It's not right that you are here talking about this while you are still debating with independent. Presents an unfair advantage.
so go back to the actual debate.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Did I say that? Please point out to where I did, good luck trying.

Right here:

Quote:

Independents response is Paints a very accurate representation of just how humans are indeed affecting the environment as well as how we react to it.

When in fact all he did was show a correlation and as for your scientific credentials I don't think you're getting much bang for your buck because throughout the ongoing debate on global warming you continiously make the assertion that correlation proves causation.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Going right back to big oil rhetoric after I already explained and yet again not a single source to back up your claims.
This is the commentary of your debate with independent. It's not right that you are here talking about this while you are still debating with independent. Presents an unfair advantage.
so go back to the actual debate.

I don't see that in the rules so no. Furthermore; you evidently know nothing about Kyoto, how can you assert that Kyoto would solve global warming when the 2nd and 3rd largest oil consumers are not bound by its stipulations? What positive effects does Kyoto have what positive effects has it had? Have CO2 levels dropped at all since the signing of Kyoto?

jfuh · 05-17-06, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

My mistake but it makes no difference ethanol is still not much better for the environment than regular fossil fuels; furthermore, it takes energy to create the ethanol in the first place and today the major source for creating ethanol is in fact natural gas.

That is only one of the technologies used today. I've already clearly illustrated of the alternative renewable technology for fermenting ethanol from biomass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

What are you talking about? That completely refutes your argument that wator vapor doesn't cause global warming.

I never said water vapor doesn't cause global warming. Go ahead point out any part of my arguments where I've made such a claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I never asked you what you do to prevent climate change I asked what you do to promote energy conservation two separate issues sir. Two simple questions what kind of a car do you drive and how much gasoline do you consume?

Keep on changing your questions huh?
You've asked me this question before already and I've already answered in you another thread. I guess you were not paying much attention.
For that matter what relevance does that make in this argument anyway? Trying to say ohh look at you the hypocrite?
Firstly the top consumption of fossil fuels of the average american is not from transportation but energy requirements in home and office, air conditioning, water heating, electricity ect.
Secondly as per said in another thread to your same irrelevant remark, I drive a VW golf TDI and I fill up just once a month. Why? because I bike to work, wow what a concept? Yes live close to where you work and you needn't drive! wow amazing.

You're way out of league in trying to attack me on conservation and environmental issues tot.

jfuh · 05-17-06, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Right here:

When in fact all he did was show a correlation and as for your scientific credentials I don't think you're getting much bang for your buck because throughout the ongoing debate on global warming you continiously make the assertion that correlation proves causation.

He was talking about SMOG as was I. Look up in the sky and you will see what that is, know what a commentary is?

I don't pay for my education, my scholarships and grants have taken care of that. Hmm wow, you're paying for my degrees.
Still you haven't answered the question, what is your scientific background?

jfuh · 05-17-06, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I don't see that in the rules so no. Furthermore; you evidently know nothing about Kyoto, how can you assert that Kyoto would solve global warming when the 2nd and 3rd largest oil consumers are not bound by its stipulations? What positive effects does Kyoto have what positive effects has it had? Have CO2 levels dropped at all since the signing of Kyoto?

Where did I say that? I believe what I said specifically was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Tot in his response brings up the failures of Kyoto, but omits the positive aspects of Kyoto nor any links or sources to back up his claims yet again.
You have an international treaty on green house gases, the US instead of sticking in and fixing those portions of the treaty decide to pull out all together. This is not because of any economic factor but because of the lucritive market of the oil industry and the strong oil industry lobbyers. Hell they have one in the white house.