• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of global warming II

Deuce said:
Look, ptif, if you don't understand the difference between a rate and a total amount, there's not much I can do to help you understand this. Think back to the bucket. We're still pouring into the bucket, just a little slower, and only for one year. That's not going to stop the water from rising, is it?

Driving down the highway, you step on your brakes for a short time. You're still moving forward, right?

Our pollution is still going forward. Just slower. And only for one year, due to the economy. It's not spin, it's not playing it off, you just aren't understanding what I'm actually saying.

Bman made the same error, probably because you were posting something that supports his side so he didn't bother to think about it at all.

To reiterate one last time for you, you have the bolded part wrong. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have not decreased. They increased, but by 6% less than the year before.
Click to expand...

So that means a decrease in the temp rise. You want it both ways no matter what happens GW does not change. Problem is that makes no sense. If green house gases slow so should the rate of warming. If the rate slows nature will better handle it
 
bus said:
I've read here and there in both threads, and plenty of other reading on my own. This is my conclusion: Regardless of global warmings hoax, myth, reality or fact - will a greener outlook econimcally and physically boost society is my core question. If the answer is yes then we should pursue greener ideals. If the case turns out to be a big no, we really havent lost anything. As we are in the same boat then as now.

My core ideal is that the majority our energy in the United States is dependant on another country(ies) and that we should obtain an energy source that is not dependant upon another nation. Green alternatives are simply alternatives and they do not hurt us. Global Warming seems to be a hype that is overplayed in the role that it should be.
Click to expand...



I would argue current green alternatives hurt because they do little to nothing. For instance ethanol does nothing for pollution and causes us to use more gas.

When the find a alternative that actually works and is economical let me know. It seems that is not what is wanted. What the GW community want is more taxes and lager financial burden on taxpayers
 
ptif219 said:
So you agree what the GW community is making us do with ethanol and wind turbines and light bulbs does almost nothing.

By using ethanol free gas I have so far improved my fuel mileage on my pick up over 1 mile per gallon. As I continue to burn out the crap left from the ethanol I expect it to improve even more
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I mean at all. I was responding to your statement:

When the find a alternative that actually works and is economical let me know.
Click to expand...

Well now you know. What will you do now with this new knowledge Ptif?
 
ptif219 said:
Wrong if the main greenhouse gases slow that means less warming. If not then the greenhouse affect is a scam
Click to expand...
It means less warming compared to what it would've been if the rate of increase of the gases hadn't slowed down. If the rate of the increase of greenhouse gases slows that doesn't mean that the amount of greenhouse gases in out atmosphere decreasing.
 
ptif219 said:
I would argue current green alternatives hurt because they do little to nothing. For instance ethanol does nothing for pollution and causes us to use more gas.

When the find a alternative that actually works and is economical let me know. It seems that is not what is wanted. What the GW community want is more taxes and lager financial burden on taxpayers
Click to expand...
Corn based ethanol is currently inefficient and a stupid thing to mandate.
 
ptif219 said:
So you agree what the GW community is making us do with ethanol and wind turbines and light bulbs does almost nothing.

By using ethanol free gas I have so far improved my fuel mileage on my pick up over 1 mile per gallon. As I continue to burn out the crap left from the ethanol I expect it to improve even more
Click to expand...

The "GW community"? Does that include all of the rational people in the world?

Do you have any evidence that:

1. The use of ethanol proves that AGW is a hoax?
2. That ethanol does any damage to engines?
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
Corn based ethanol is currently inefficient and a stupid thing to mandate.
Click to expand...


Not according to the big corn growers, whose lobbyists are behind the mandate. It increases the profits of their employers, which is why they want it.

But for the rest of us, no, the use of ethanol is not much of a benefit at all, especially when we buy groceries.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not according to the big corn growers, whose lobbyists are behind the mandate. It increases the profits of their employers, which is why they want it.

But for the rest of us, no, the use of ethanol is not much of a benefit at all, especially when we buy groceries.
Click to expand...

Companies got lobbyists pushing government into taking actions that do not benefit the people in general... That's a conspiracy theory.
 
Catawba said:
No, that is not what I mean at all. I was responding to your statement:



Well now you know. What will you do now with this new knowledge Ptif?
Click to expand...

What new knowledge. I have seen nothing that helps.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
It means less warming compared to what it would've been if the rate of increase of the gases hadn't slowed down. If the rate of the increase of greenhouse gases slows that doesn't mean that the amount of greenhouse gases in out atmosphere decreasing.
Click to expand...

Yes it does because nature absorbs part of it so not all is added. You can spin but what you are saying is reduction will not lower temp. That tells me the greenhouse claim is a scam
 
Dittohead not! said:
The "GW community"? Does that include all of the rational people in the world?

Do you have any evidence that:

1. The use of ethanol proves that AGW is a hoax?
2. That ethanol does any damage to engines?
Click to expand...

It proves the AGW people have no solutions since Ethanol makes us use more gas and does almost nothing for pollution

E10 Ethanol: Recommended engine precautions

E15 and Engines - Can Ethanol Damage my Engine - Popular Mechanics

List: E10 Engine Damage & Performance Issues.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not according to the big corn growers, whose lobbyists are behind the mandate. It increases the profits of their employers, which is why they want it.

But for the rest of us, no, the use of ethanol is not much of a benefit at all, especially when we buy groceries.
Click to expand...

If you include the subsidies taxpayers are paying our ethanol gas is even more expensive
 
BmanMcfly said:
Companies got lobbyists pushing government into taking actions that do not benefit the people in general... That's a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

No, that's politics and happens literally every day in nearly every field.
 
ptif219 said:
If you include the subsidies taxpayers are paying our ethanol gas is even more expensive
Click to expand...

Correct. Ethanol is a bad idea for everyone except the corn growers who profit from higher prices due to increased demand for corn. It's not necessary for modern engines, according to the Popular Mechanics link you gave, and can cause problems if not handled properly.

The other thing ethanol is not is a proposed or actual solution to the issue of global warming. It was originally mandated to help decrease carbon monoxide, which, unlike carbon dioxide, is highly toxic.

From your link:

This alcoholic cocktail was originally mandated by the EPA as a replacement for MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), an oxygen-bearing petroleum-sourced chemical that was added to pump gasoline starting in 1979 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in some regions that had problems meeting government air-quality standards. The oxygen in the MTBE (and ethanol) molecules can substantially reduce CO emissions in vehicles without modern closed-loop fuel-injection systems, which were introduced *starting in the '80s.
Click to expand...

So, it did have a purpose before the '80s, but global warming had nothing to do with that purpose. The only purpose it serves currently is to line the pockets of its supporters.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct. Ethanol is a bad idea for everyone except the corn growers who profit from higher prices due to increased demand for corn. It's not necessary for modern engines, according to the Popular Mechanics link you gave, and can cause problems if not handled properly.

The other thing ethanol is not is a proposed or actual solution to the issue of global warming. It was originally mandated to help decrease carbon monoxide, which, unlike carbon dioxide, is highly toxic.

From your link:



So, it did have a purpose before the '80s, but global warming had nothing to do with that purpose. The only purpose it serves currently is to line the pockets of its supporters.
Click to expand...

Ethanol is not just the corn growers profit. It is Big Corporate Chemical companies and the Centralized Distribution Network that includes this network paying the pump taxes to states and fed. It prevents a threat to the status quo of big Energy. Nobody is asking you to make your own ethanol at home. Easy to make. Keep it clean and savor some. No tax to states and fed. Wait a minute, are we on to something here. This is the answer.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct. Ethanol is a bad idea for everyone except the corn growers who profit from higher prices due to increased demand for corn. It's not necessary for modern engines, according to the Popular Mechanics link you gave, and can cause problems if not handled properly.

The other thing ethanol is not is a proposed or actual solution to the issue of global warming. It was originally mandated to help decrease carbon monoxide, which, unlike carbon dioxide, is highly toxic.

From your link:



So, it did have a purpose before the '80s, but global warming had nothing to do with that purpose. The only purpose it serves currently is to line the pockets of its supporters.
Click to expand...

You make no sense. Ethanol has been forced on us in the name GW it was not forced on us in the 80's
 
ptif219 said:
You make no sense. Ethanol has been forced on us in the name GW it was not forced on us in the 80's
Click to expand...

He makes factual statements, you make unfounded emotive assertions. Who should we believe?
 
Manc Skipper said:
He makes factual statements, you make unfounded emotive assertions. Who should we believe?
Click to expand...

I stated facts. We were not forced to use ethanol until Global warming become an issue. It came from IPCC reports and is about politics. The problem is almost everything about GW is based around politics and money. Ethanol is claimed to be about helping the environment yet facts do not show that. It is more about subsidies and special interest groups.
 
Catawba said:
This is explains much grasshopper! :sun
Click to expand...

Yes it does it means GW has given us failed programs and no solutions. Now states will start road usage taxes because of electric cars. GW is nothing but an excuse to gouge money from consumers and taxpayers
 
ptif219 said:
You make no sense. Ethanol has been forced on us in the name GW it was not forced on us in the 80's
Click to expand...

It was touted as renewable energy, not as a solution to global warming. Those aren't necessarily the same thing. Ethanol still emits CO2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom