|
|
#21
11-09-2007, 10:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] You guys know "the Weather Channel Founder", John Coleman, is just a TV weatherman and not a climatologist, right?: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ "I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril." Well, I feel better already! A TV weather guy has "read dozens of papers", "studied", and "talked to numerous scientists" and he's sure there's no problem. I'm not sure why anyone even takes global warming seriously after this. After Al Roker announced his skepticism, I thought we'd be done with this debate, but now that the TV weather guy who dreamed up The Weather Channel has thrown in his two cents, I think we should pretty much forget about this nonsense now. 
|
|
#23
11-09-2007, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. And the fools in congress want MORE corporate welfare to expand this crappy spurce of energy. Ethanol can not stand up on its on two legs in the free market. In a free market, comparing ethanol to gas would be like comparing Rosie O'Donnel to Michael Jordan in his prime in a game of basketball. But give Rosie stilts, allow her to goal tend, and attack a 200lb ball and chain of each of Jordan's legs.....and then MAGICLY....Rosie can beat Micahel Jordan in basketball. The democrats in the congress and senate have been doing everything in their power to sabotage the American oil industry. The technology for renewable resources is not ready for prime time. It is time to removes the ball and chains from American oil and let them drill for oil.... The democrats vote EXACTLY like an agent from foreign country whose mission was to pass laws to sabotage the American oil industry.... EXACTLY....so are these Dems traitors? Probably not....just stupid...
|
|
#24
11-09-2007, 12:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid...
|
|
#25
11-09-2007, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated [/ QUOTE ] I did and this is what I found in the first linky: Was this: Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. maize-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per litre, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[6] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun. U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import Brazilian ethanol because of strict U.S. trade barriers (tariffs) corresponding to a levy of a 54-cent per gallon. These are promoted by the powerful American sugar lobby, which does not want a competitor to high-fructose corn syrup, and domestic sugar interests. Any chance of a transfer of wealth to U.S. farmers and U.S. sugar growers with a protective tariff that amounts to a subsidy more or less? [ QUOTE ] Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole [/ QUOTE ] Ah the oil robber baron argument. Except that the U.S. public owns oil companys more or less. Edit: For new members of this forum, EliotR likes to parrott the liberal, Democratic party talking points as in his oil company rant. When I say the public owns oil companys I mean that the shares are owned by instutions like mutual funds, pension accounts, etc. Stuff people put there money in for retirement and such. Here's an article that appeared in the NYTimes about who owns oil companies: What Is an Oil Company, Anyway? Are we angry, then, at the owners of the oil companies? Maybe, but then it's self-hatred. Roughly 41 percent of Exxon Mobil stock is owned by retirement funds, private, public (federal, state and local) and individual retirement accounts. In other words, by us. It is demonstrable that many retirement funds hold a great deal of oil stocks, including Exxon Mobil. Of the other owners, the largest holdings by far are at mutual funds and exchange-traded funds — generally vehicles for middle-class investors and retirees. No individuals own more than 1 percent of the stock, and the largest single personal holding, representing far less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the company, is owned by Lee R. Raymond, the retired chief executive, who took the company through some very rough sailing to arrive at its present, fairly secure position. ONE of the largest holders is the College Retirement Equities Fund, for higher-education teachers and others. Are we angry at them? If teachers get a bigger retirement because oil company profits are up, are we sad?
|
|
#26
11-09-2007, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid... [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, easy there. You can review all my posts and find that I almost never agree with Felix, but I think he's right about this. Tell me why, if ethanol or ANY other renewable energy source is ready to take on oil, it has to be massively subsidized WHILE taxing oil? There is huge money to be made for anybody who can come up with a competitive energy source. They don't need our tax money. They just need ideas, innovation, and working capital - which private companies and venture capital groups have in spades. The truth is, there are no alternative sources RIGHT NOW, and subsidizing things will only slow down our efforts to find/produce reliable alternatives. If ethanol can eventually compete with crude oil, then great! But let's not sink BILLIONS into something to make it look like it's our energy savior when really it's not. I don't think anybody here would be adverse to having their own solar units replacing their power meter, but let's not pretend that heavy government subsidies to sub-standard oil alternatives are a great idea.
|
|
#27
11-09-2007, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid... [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, easy there. You can review all my posts and find that I almost never agree with Felix, but I think he's right about this. Tell me why, if ethanol or ANY other renewable energy source is ready to take on oil, it has to be massively subsidized WHILE taxing oil? There is huge money to be made for anybody who can come up with a competitive energy source. They don't need our tax money. They just need ideas, innovation, and working capital - which private companies and venture capital groups have in spades. The truth is, there are no alternative sources RIGHT NOW, and subsidizing things will only slow down our efforts to find/produce reliable alternatives. If ethanol can eventually compete with crude oil, then great! But let's not sink BILLIONS into something to make it look like it's our energy savior when really it's not. I don't think anybody here would be adverse to having their own solar units replacing their power meter, but let's not pretend that heavy government subsidies to sub-standard oil alternatives are a great idea. [/ QUOTE ] We've been through the arguments before regarding why corn based ethanol is not feasible. The amount of land needed to provide for U.S. energy needs is astounding. All kinds of data on how farm land has risen and the price of corn has I believe more than doubled. If the politicians were sincerely looking for an alternative to gasoline they'd lift the protective tariff from imported ethanol. Study: U.S. near corn-based ethanol tipping point
|
|
#28
11-09-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep...Sugar Cane Ethanol is Superior
I first learned of Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol from my brother-in-law is from Brazil. Brazil had to subsidize their ethanol industry and perhaps/or perhaps not it is able to stand on its own two legs now. Gas is 45%+ more efficient (ethanol is about 2/3 as efficient as gas) than ethanol as a fuel. Therefore it is CHEAPER to power an engine with gas. Corn ethanol is the pond scum of energy. The energy pecking order goes like this:
Gas > SugarCane-Ethanol > Corn-Ethanol If congress really wanted to promote ethanol, they would remove tariffs and allow the cheap Brazillian ethanol in this country. Then corn can be used for food and it will become more affordable to ranchers and households. The whole purpose of free trade is to sell what you are good at making in exchange for a product another country is good at making. The Brazillian ethanol is FAR SUPERIOR (cheaper) than corn based ethanol. US ethanol is just a giant welfare program for rich farmers.... It is that simple.... If the main reason was to decrease our reliance on middle east oil, then we would remove the tariffs and let the Brazillians sell us their ethanol...
|
|
#29
11-09-2007, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Yep...Sugar Cane Ethanol is Superior
The fact that the Iowa primaries are so relatively important makes ordinary citizens throughout all the states subject to these boondoggles that have global effects. Apparently the wealthy are buying farmland in the West in droves, and the price of highly rated corn farmland has doubled in 12 months.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
