An Inconvient Truth -- Exaggeration by Gore?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Corn ethanol is a joke. It's merely recycled fossil fuels. The only reason it exists is because Arthur daniels midland is such a powerful lobbying firm and corn gets subsidized out the rear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds reasonable. Ethanol is fermented from sugar, so yeah, sugar cane is going to work much better. I have a feeling the only thing backing corn ethanol is the cry from the blue collar democrats that it will "create new jobs for americans" even though the Brazilian stuff is much better.

[ QUOTE ]
Who knows how many species will be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand ecology better than I do, so I'd like to ask what exactly is the problem with extinction? Is there some inherent moral urge to preserve the lives of species, or are they important to the environmental balance? (And if so, are they more essential that the environmental benefits from using ethanol instead of oil?)

[ QUOTE ]


"Without the slightest doubt, the technology for a hydrogen economy exists or can be developed in reasonable time. .... But hydrogen can never establish itself as a dominant energy carrier. It has to be fabricated from high grade energy and it has to compete with high grad energy in the marketplace. Hydrogen cannot win this fight against its own energy source. Physics is eternal and cannot be changed by man. Therefore, a "Hydrogen Economy" has no past, no
present and no future. The road to sustainability leads to an "Electron Economy".

Ulf Bossel
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E15.pdf<br />
[/ QUOTE ]

Will comment later, looks interesting.

[ QUOTE ]

Silicon is everywhere. Sand is silicon. It's just expensive to make. But physicists are extremely confident that we can make solar cells without using silicon. But that is technology we don't have......... yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely interesting. I will have to learn more about this.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You understand ecology better than I do, so I'd like to ask what exactly is the problem with extinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I heard 25% of the pharmaceuticals we use come from rainforest ingredients. And less than 1% of the plants in the rainforest has been tested for pharmaceutical value.

That is a pretty strong reason there. When it comes to rainforest ecology I do not have the expertise to comment on anything other than moral value.

[ QUOTE ]
(And if so, are they more essential that the environmental benefits from using ethanol instead of oil?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Man I can't comment on the relative value. But if super capacitors or solid state batteries are invented then we won't have to make that choice. Oil and ethanol will look like a slow, expensive, and cumbersome technology.

Here is a list of techs you might find interesting.

http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

[hmkpoker]

Excellent links, thanks.

One more question: do you have any sources of info on energy companies lobbying to destroy alternative energy? (The incentives are obvious, and our government is basically run by Mr. Burns, but I don't know how the legislation actually works)

[John Feeney]

Note that Utah could be right if, by "insular" he meant, "only including scientists actively conducting climate research." [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Okay, I broke down and posted in this thread. I'll be on my way now.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that Utah could be right if, by "insular" he meant, "only including scientists actively conducting climate research."

[/ QUOTE ]The problem is that it is only an inbred group and it doesnt represent all scientists conducting climate research. The dishonest boys at climatewatch.org refuse to listen anyone who critizes their work or presents alternative viewpoints. These types of assclowns are one the worst types to get information from as they cannot be trusted.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent links, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem. You seem like a reasonable anarcho that is interesting in learning. It's a pleasure to talk to you.

[ QUOTE ]
One more question: do you have any sources of info on energy companies lobbying to destroy alternative energy? (The incentives are obvious, and our government is basically run by Mr. Burns, but I don't know how the legislation actually works)

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out numbers 5, 6 and 7

http://tinyurl.com/y65kfh

I will dig up some more info later. But that should get you started. There are several books out on that analyzes Bush's behavior.

One is here:
http://www.waronscience.com/

The Union of Concerned Scientists have a petition w/ 10,000 signors that explains some of the stuff.

Honestly it seems to me that Bush is a milder version of the 1960's Barry Goldwater that was very pro nuke and very anti-intellectual elite.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it is only an inbred group and it doesnt represent all scientists conducting climate research. The dishonest boys at climatewatch.org refuse to listen anyone who critizes their work or presents alternative viewpoints. These types of assclowns are one the worst types to get information from as they cannot be trusted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time we talked you sent John Feeney and I on a wild Goose chase. Are you ever going to provide links to those baseless and subsequently debunked accusations you made against man? Or are you still trying to protect those that slander mainstream scientists?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that the sea levels are going to rise 80 feet is pretty rediculous, but its alarmist stuff like this that sells.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not ridiculous at all, and not even the worst case. Eighty feet is what we get if Greenland melts out. If Antarctica melts out too, it's more like 300 feet. I actually think Greenland melting out may not be preventable at this point. Antarctica may not melt out, or may not melt out completely, but it's certainly not impossible.

[The Don]

I saw this movie stoned as hell. It was hilarious. Obviously the planet is [censored], we might as welll live like kings while we can though.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
also, opinions as to whether you feel al gore is a stand up guy, a crook or just a moron are also welcomed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe stand up, probably a crook, almost certainly not a moron. Both sides of the global warming debate use lies and deception to make their cases, but you often can't tell who's lying and who's simply buying into the propaganda. Buying into the propaganda of either side doesn't make one a moron... well, compared to the rest of the human race anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]