debate 6 discussion. final debate - Page 3

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

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

O.K. then what are these quote "positive effects?" What has Kyoto accomplished?

jfuh · 05-17-06, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

O.K. then what are these quote "positive effects?" What has Kyoto accomplished?

As I've stated prior, you are still in a true debate contest with another member and for me to give you the information is unfair to your opposition. You claim to be well read on the Kyoto treaty you should know. The true debate rules clearly indicate that you need to cite sources for your claims. You did that quite diligently in your first debate but have failed to do so in this final home stretch.

So tell me, what is your scientific back ground exactly?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

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

It doesn't matter ethanol itself causes polution all on its own so even if your science fiction plan to produce ethanol was grounded in reality it wouldn't matter because ethanol still causes polution all on its own so like I said if your concern is air polution than the only way to go is nuclear power combined with renewable energy sources.

Quote:

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.

So then you admit it water vapor causes global warming and if that is the case than how can hydrogen power be a viable alternative?

Quote:

Keep on changing your questions huh?

I never changed to question you did.

jfuh · 05-17-06, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

It doesn't matter ethanol itself causes polution all on its own so even if your science fiction plan to produce ethanol was grounded in reality it wouldn't matter because ethanol still causes polution all on its own so like I said if your concern is air polution than the only way to go is nuclear power combined with renewable energy sources.

So then you admit it water vapor causes global warming and if that is the case than how can hydrogen power be a viable alternative?

From these two you've shown it is clear you've no idea about equilibriums.
Water's global equilibrium is temperature regulated.
The method of Ethanol production is not sci-fi at all. Ask Captain america, his company does just what I've described. How is that in equilibrium?
Plants renew carbon, nothing sci-fi about it. You simply do not comprehend this simple concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I never changed to question you did.

No?Here's what you said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I have only one question what do you do for energy consumption?

To which I answered

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

As for energy consumption I've shown, you burn ethanol or butanol.

Then you changed the question and asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Again what do you do to reduce energy consumption?

A clear change of question from "for" energy consumption to "reduce" energy consumption.
To which I then answered:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

As for the question of decreasing consumption, I would for now simply say conservation. However that is not something that I should discuss here as you are in the midst of debate with independent on this matter right now. So I will leave it at that for now.

Then you changed the question again to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

No I'm asking what you personally do to reduce energy consumption, only the individual can do anything about it and apparently you do nothing except talk.

Which I replied in the next post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

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.

Then you say this:

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.

Which I clearly answered already in the post preceeding.

And you change the question yet a 4th time here and ask

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Two simple questions what kind of a car do you drive and how much gasoline do you consume?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

So tell me, what is your scientific back ground exactly?

I'm a political science major (granted it's a soft science) but atleast I know the difference between causation and correlation. And besides the global warming fad is a political/social phenomenon anyways, just look at Al-Gore's latest pseudo-science movie he's got coming out called "an inconvenient truth," which prior to he said that it was important to overstate the case for global warming.

jfuh · 05-17-06, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I'm a political science major (granted it's a soft science) but atleast I know the difference between causation and correlation. And besides the global warming fad is a political/social phenomenon anyways, just look at Al-Gore's latest pseudo-science movie he's got coming out called "an inconvenient truth," which prior to he said that it was important to overstate the case for global warming.

Is this what you do when you can not present the science?
This then is no wonder while I've focused on the science and facts of the matter you are focusing only on the political aspect of global warming.
But hey, it's a good thing that you are now at least acknowledging of human causation of global warming otherwise your argument against China and India would be moot.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

From these two you've shown it is clear you've no idea about equilibriums.
Water's global equilibrium is temperature regulated.

Umm so you're saying that all that excess water vapor produced by hydrogen fuel would be in line with the earth's equilibrium? We've deduced already that water vapor causes global warming, hydrogen exhaust is water vapor, ergo replacing fossil fuel with hydrogen fuel won't do anything to solve global warming.

Quote:

The method of Ethanol production is not sci-fi at all. Ask Captain america, his company does just what I've described. How is that in equilibrium?
Plants renew carbon, nothing sci-fi about it. You simply do not comprehend this simple concept.

Um that's not the point you don't get ethanol simply by growing plants you have to extract that ethanol which takes an energy source all on its own; furthermore, once you have extracted that ethanol the ethanol itself still causes pollution not to mention the forests that must be cut down in order to create more lands for agriculture:

Quote:

Air pollution

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]
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 [14]. 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.
[ edit]

Effects of ethanol on agriculture

There is evidence that rainforests are being cleared to make land available for growing crops for bioalcohol. [15] This has been aggravated by an increase in the demand for biofuels in Europe.
More generally, environmentalists have a long list of objections to many modern farming practices, especially those practices most useful for making bioethanol more competitive (" factory farming"). If more third-world land were to be converted to agriculture to feed ethanol fuel demand, there is the possibility of trading today's automotive pollution for tomorrow's farm pollution. Ethanol could become a pollution export scenario, in which poor, ethanol-producing countries suffer the deforestation, extinction pressures, fertilizer runoff, etc. of heavy agricultural expansion, while the rich, heavily motorized ethanol consumers reap the environmental rewards.

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

Quote:

No?Here's what you said.

To which I answered

Then you changed the question and asked:

A clear change of question from "for" energy consumption to "reduce" energy consumption.
To which I then answered:

Then you changed the question again to

Which I replied in the next post:

Then you say this:
Which I clearly answered already in the post preceeding.

And you change the question yet a 4th time here and ask

My question has always been what do YOU do for energy consumption ie what do you personally do to reduce energy consumption. I'm sorry but anyone functioning above a third grade level would have been able to deduce my meaning.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Is this what you do when you can not present the science?
This then is no wonder while I've focused on the science and facts of the matter you are focusing only on the political aspect of global warming.
But hey, it's a good thing that you are now at least acknowledging of human causation of global warming otherwise your argument against China and India would be moot.

I'm not acknowledging anything you still have not presented one shred of evidence to prove that human actions cause global warming all you have done is show a correlation not a causation; furthermore, you focus on pseudo-science and scare tactics just like any radical environmentalist I've ever met, I make the argument that Kyoto would not prevent polution only, because it explains quite clearly why it is such an idiotic plan.

jfuh · 05-17-06, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Umm so you're saying that all that excess water vapor produced by hydrogen fuel would be in line with the earth's equilibrium? We've deduced already that water vapor causes global warming, hydrogen exhaust is water vapor, ergo replacing fossil fuel with hydrogen fuel won't do anything to solve global warming.

Wow you really are ignorant. Where do you think that hydrogen comes from? Oh my god, no, could it be from water?
There's your equilibrium right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Um that's not the point you don't get ethanol simply by growing plants you have to extract that ethanol which takes an energy source all on its own; furthermore, once you have extracted that ethanol the ethanol itself still causes pollution not to mention the forests that must be cut down in order to create more lands for agriculture:

Thus I say again you're demonstrating a total lack of knowledge on the matter.
As ethanol has been made for thousands of years, biologically. Plant carbohydrates are multi chained. The break down of large carbohydrates to simplar molecules such as ethanol RELEASES energy. The very metabolism of various micro-organisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

My question has always been what do YOU do for energy consumption ie what do you personally do to reduce energy consumption. I'm sorry but anyone functioning above a third grade level would have been able to deduce my meaning.

And I answered it plenty. You're clearly avoiding admiting your err. Give it up tot. You're out of your league.

jfuh · 05-17-06, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I'm not acknowledging anything you still have not presented one shred of evidence to prove that human actions cause global warming all you have done is show a correlation not a causation; furthermore, you focus on pseudo-science and scare tactics just like any radical environmentalist I've ever met, I make the argument that Kyoto would not prevent polution only, because it explains quite clearly why it is such an idiotic plan.

Nothing in this argument makes any sense, try again and clear up your argument.