Odale
Active Member
I know its a pretty fine like with this conversation, but could we leave excess politics talk out of it?
"Inconvenient Truth" and incovenient fallacy?
- Thread starter ChickenSoup
- Start date
I know its a pretty fine like with this conversation, but could we leave excess politics talk out of it?
Odale
Active Member
If youre going to spam random trash you arent willing to backup, then take your spam elsewhere.
But you were already banned.
This is a serious thread.
Spam somewhere else.
I see a difference in trying to help the environment and scaring people into it. By all means I agree that the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous and unhealthy. Do I think something needs to be done about it? Yes. But terror isn't the answer. No, the world isn't about to end. No, the ocean level isn't going to rise 8 meters in the next 50 years. You can almost see Gore's method of awareness as quasi-terrorism.
ChickenSoup
Banned
If he knowingly lies to get people to respond, then he is not worth changing for.
Durruck
Pirate!
My problem with Gore is that he doesn't practice what he preaches. His house is horrible for energy consumption, he had his land strip-mined, and then to make up for it, he holds a 24-hour concert in which he flies bands all over the world in jumbo-jets?
How can he tell me I should "get green" when he does the exact opposite?
For the record, my current vehicle gets good mileage, I drive conservatively, I mow my grass when it's supposedly best to do so...I fuel up early in the morning or late in the evening, I've got 3 trees and 6 bushes on my little yard... So I'm not anti-green... I'm just against these people that, like TJ said, are trying to scare us into overhauling our lifestyles.
My next car? Probably a small hybrid SUV, which gets even better mileage than my current car. I'm seriously looking forward to alternative sources of fuel. I'm not convinced that Ethanol is the way to go, but the battery packs in hybrids aren't great for the environment, either. I want a hydrogen car!
How can he tell me I should "get green" when he does the exact opposite?
For the record, my current vehicle gets good mileage, I drive conservatively, I mow my grass when it's supposedly best to do so...I fuel up early in the morning or late in the evening, I've got 3 trees and 6 bushes on my little yard... So I'm not anti-green... I'm just against these people that, like TJ said, are trying to scare us into overhauling our lifestyles.
My next car? Probably a small hybrid SUV, which gets even better mileage than my current car. I'm seriously looking forward to alternative sources of fuel. I'm not convinced that Ethanol is the way to go, but the battery packs in hybrids aren't great for the environment, either. I want a hydrogen car!
ChickenSoup
Banned
Me too! I mean, a car that runs on what you can get from the air? How much cheaper would that be, you know? I mean the initial cost of the car would be atrocious for the first couple years, but still.
Stc95
Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
Ya, i dont think that we are against bad air quality. I do believe that humans have had an effect on the world (Garden of Eden, Flood, just to name a few). But its the way hes saying it.
2 words:
Hydrogen bomb..
2 words:
Hydrogen bomb..
vibrokatana
New Member
hmm, Makes you wonder. Of course we are driving around rolling bombs right now, 5+ gallons of gasoline will cause a nice fireball.
Stc95
Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
ChickenSoup
Banned
You don't seem to understand the differences in construction between an engine that runs on hydrogen and a bomb that uses hydrogen.I think this is more of a bigger fireball
Hydrogen bomb:
That's not anywhere near what a hydrogen car's engine looks like, hmm?
This is also interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster
vibrokatana
New Member
iirc most nukes require an implosion to start a nuclear reaction. Hydrogen is very flammable though so who knows what would happen, that said HPA tanks are very strong and if they were to open up unintentionally it would likely not be a single explosion resulting.
The Gerbil is non-polluting you could even say he's "Sqweak-y" clean hehehe
What I've heard about hydrogen cars is a mixed lot. From my understanding the design that people are talking about most relies not on burning hydrogen, but, on a process wherein oxygen and hydrogen is combined which creates water and releases electricity in the process. This has problems as this process uses an extremely fine screen placed between compartments of oxygen and hydrogen to capture electricity. These screens wear out and must be replaced thus you get pollution from used screens.
In addition to get the hydrogen in the first place requires a reverse of the process in which hydrogen and oxygen are separated using electricity (electrolysis) this means you are in essence only passing the buck in that whatever you use to generate the needed electricity must be a non-polluting source to begin with. The reason you don't see cars that generate oxygen and hydrogen on the fly is because the electrolysis process used to do so requires more energy than you get out of it. Of course there are people who have claimed to have found another way to do the separation process with much less energy creating a surplus
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044 , but, whether they are con artists or being suppressed by Arabs, the government, and big oil I cannot say. Stanley Meyers did die under mysterious circumstances and timing though.
Also consider that electric cars, hybrid electric/hydrogen or solar/electric cars use many more batteries than gas cars which will wear out (although I've heard of some new expensive type that supposedly does not). These batteries have to be disposed of in some manner as well or you get pollution once again.
As far as hydrogen being dangerous yes it's true, however, I think this is overplayed. I believe a lot of the stigma of hydrogen dates back to the Hindenberg disaster after which hydrogen use was restricted for a time. The interesting part is the hydrogen was not responsible for the disaster. In a modern investigation it was found that on the disaster flight the Germans had coated the blimp in a new protective coating composed of aluminum oxide. Today aluminum oxide is used as the primary component of rocket fuel... doh. Eyewitness accounts bore this out saying the blimp burned red not blue as hydrogen does meaning it was burring from the outside in not inside out (they had safeguards for the other) (you may want to look this up as I saw the show about this a while back and may not remember it exactly)
Regarding the global warming debate the left seems to continually paint a picture of a right that cares nothing for reducing pollution. This just isn't true BOTH sides are for reducing pollution the difference is the urgency needed, reason for and the manner in which it should be done. The only reason for the left to do this is to lionize themselves "as the hero" in the public's eye. Rushing into a technology that is unviable or using a stopgap solution will only create more problems and seems typical of the left. The left is called after all "liberals" meaning their approaches are usually excessive. It is also worth noting that because of human nature sin is characterized much more often by excess than by restraint.
Now whether Al Gore has been trumpeting global warming for years or not is irrelevant. It speaks nothing to his motivations for doing so. Considering the political mileage he has gained from it he is far from the "outcast hero fighting a lone fight to save the world" the media wants to paint him as. What political candidate on either side doesn't do the "soaring music, triumphantly American, is that a tear in the candidates eye" political ad? Global warming can be used in the same manner.(Side note anyone who votes based on those political feel good ads that state little and sell much should be banned from voting IMO (I'd insert a gagging smiley here if there was one
))
If I may suggest Gerbils as the ultimate clean energy source! Each car could have a few hundred running on wheels under the hood!
Gerbil subliminal message: That is until we rise up against the humans to take our rightful place as rulers of this world and make them run on the wheels Mwhahahahaha!
What I've heard about hydrogen cars is a mixed lot. From my understanding the design that people are talking about most relies not on burning hydrogen, but, on a process wherein oxygen and hydrogen is combined which creates water and releases electricity in the process. This has problems as this process uses an extremely fine screen placed between compartments of oxygen and hydrogen to capture electricity. These screens wear out and must be replaced thus you get pollution from used screens.
In addition to get the hydrogen in the first place requires a reverse of the process in which hydrogen and oxygen are separated using electricity (electrolysis) this means you are in essence only passing the buck in that whatever you use to generate the needed electricity must be a non-polluting source to begin with. The reason you don't see cars that generate oxygen and hydrogen on the fly is because the electrolysis process used to do so requires more energy than you get out of it. Of course there are people who have claimed to have found another way to do the separation process with much less energy creating a surplus
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044 , but, whether they are con artists or being suppressed by Arabs, the government, and big oil I cannot say. Stanley Meyers did die under mysterious circumstances and timing though.
Also consider that electric cars, hybrid electric/hydrogen or solar/electric cars use many more batteries than gas cars which will wear out (although I've heard of some new expensive type that supposedly does not). These batteries have to be disposed of in some manner as well or you get pollution once again.
As far as hydrogen being dangerous yes it's true, however, I think this is overplayed. I believe a lot of the stigma of hydrogen dates back to the Hindenberg disaster after which hydrogen use was restricted for a time. The interesting part is the hydrogen was not responsible for the disaster. In a modern investigation it was found that on the disaster flight the Germans had coated the blimp in a new protective coating composed of aluminum oxide. Today aluminum oxide is used as the primary component of rocket fuel... doh. Eyewitness accounts bore this out saying the blimp burned red not blue as hydrogen does meaning it was burring from the outside in not inside out (they had safeguards for the other) (you may want to look this up as I saw the show about this a while back and may not remember it exactly)
Regarding the global warming debate the left seems to continually paint a picture of a right that cares nothing for reducing pollution. This just isn't true BOTH sides are for reducing pollution the difference is the urgency needed, reason for and the manner in which it should be done. The only reason for the left to do this is to lionize themselves "as the hero" in the public's eye. Rushing into a technology that is unviable or using a stopgap solution will only create more problems and seems typical of the left. The left is called after all "liberals" meaning their approaches are usually excessive. It is also worth noting that because of human nature sin is characterized much more often by excess than by restraint.
Now whether Al Gore has been trumpeting global warming for years or not is irrelevant. It speaks nothing to his motivations for doing so. Considering the political mileage he has gained from it he is far from the "outcast hero fighting a lone fight to save the world" the media wants to paint him as. What political candidate on either side doesn't do the "soaring music, triumphantly American, is that a tear in the candidates eye" political ad? Global warming can be used in the same manner.(Side note anyone who votes based on those political feel good ads that state little and sell much should be banned from voting IMO (I'd insert a gagging smiley here if there was one
))If I may suggest Gerbils as the ultimate clean energy source! Each car could have a few hundred running on wheels under the hood!
Gerbil subliminal message: That is until we rise up against the humans to take our rightful place as rulers of this world and make them run on the wheels Mwhahahahaha!
Last edited:
vibrokatana
New Member
There was a guy working on using electricity to make "clean" cutting torches, it would cut through metal easily yet do absolutely nothing to his hand when he placed his hand under the stream. From what I read the charge broke the molecules down and rearranged them such that the polarity was the opposite. Very interesting, and he had been working on a engine prototype using similar tech.
The main problem with hydrogen IMO is that I don't think we can harvest enough of it cheaply enough for it to become widespread. If only we could harvest antimatter faster then a few molecules a day :\
The main problem with hydrogen IMO is that I don't think we can harvest enough of it cheaply enough for it to become widespread. If only we could harvest antimatter faster then a few molecules a day :\
Odale
Active Member
Tell me a better way to get peoples attention. Fear is the medium people use to get people to be quiet and listen up or get people on your side (US affairs in the Middle East for example..."WMD's"). You simply cannot ask people to be conscious of their actions, it wont work.
Same thing, but do people change for him or for the environment?
I'd also like to point out that there is no explanation for the "Government's Scientists" conclusions on that site.
Why?
You failed to mention that the concerts were powered by alternative energies. Explain to me how you would get artists to a concert? I'm sure they would not have agreed to travel long distances in Toyota Priuses, Honda Hybrids and Ford Escape Hybrids. And I don't think any of those double as boats to cross the Atlantic.
If you want a fuel efficient car, Hydrogen is the way to go, the technology is out there, but it is not cost effective yet. Hybrid cars and SUVs imo, still do not get appropriate mileage despite the technology behind them. Diesels are your best bet. A TDI Jetta from Volkswagen will get ~50MPG, thats a good 10 or 15 more miles than any Hybrid SUV on the market. (Ive had people argue with me that Hybrids are inherently better than normal cars or diesels. Which ever car has the most MPGs is the best.) And, another upside to Diesels is you can burn used grease in them. How cleanly that will burn, I'm not sure.
Prius Movie - watch this to the end.
The Toyota Prius uses the same hybrid technology as the Toyota small SUV hybrids, and the same technology is in the Ford Escape Hybrid.
The Honda FCX.
Last edited:
Durruck
Pirate!
I'll be honest that I don't know here, but doesn't diesel burn less cleanly than gasoline? There's also the thing to factor in that a diesel can cost several thousand dollars more up front, as well as 30-40 cents per gallon more at the fillup. I do know for certain that maintenance costs for diesel engines is higher.
If my whole focus was "green" I'd do it regardless of the cost... but it's not. I may decrease my damage done if it were cheaper or easier, but not if it's going to cost me 10-15% more over the life of the vehicle. I don't buy into global warming - there is data to indicate that the earth goes through cycles - and there used to be plant life in northern Greenland 10,000 years ago...now encapsulated in ice. That leads me to the conclusion that the earth used to be much warmer.
Anyway, straying from the main topic a bit...
Saying it's okay to scare people into thinking green is (to me) the same as saying it's okay to scare people into Christianity by saying "if you don't believe, you're going to burn in Hell!" Which is correct, but a relationship based on fear isn't really a relationship. Find a woman that was in an abusive relationship for a long time... they were scared to leave... they weren't in love.
The point is, there is a better way to do it. Maybe you'll get a few less people to play along, but the ones that do will support it more.
If my whole focus was "green" I'd do it regardless of the cost... but it's not. I may decrease my damage done if it were cheaper or easier, but not if it's going to cost me 10-15% more over the life of the vehicle. I don't buy into global warming - there is data to indicate that the earth goes through cycles - and there used to be plant life in northern Greenland 10,000 years ago...now encapsulated in ice. That leads me to the conclusion that the earth used to be much warmer.
Anyway, straying from the main topic a bit...
Saying it's okay to scare people into thinking green is (to me) the same as saying it's okay to scare people into Christianity by saying "if you don't believe, you're going to burn in Hell!" Which is correct, but a relationship based on fear isn't really a relationship. Find a woman that was in an abusive relationship for a long time... they were scared to leave... they weren't in love.
The point is, there is a better way to do it. Maybe you'll get a few less people to play along, but the ones that do will support it more.
Odale
Active Member
New diesel engines burn cleaner than the older ones do, and you also must figure in the cost of the repairs the electrical motor may need; which I assure you are not cheap.
Al Gore isn't trying to court people, he is conveying a message. The truth sucks sometimes. If you jump off a 1000' cliff, you WILL die, so guess what, you don't do it. It's the same situation. After a few hundred years of injecting the atmosphere with gases it shouldn't contain, I think its fair that we *try* change for the better. Granted, the world wont end tomorrow because we wont buy hydrogen powered cars now, but someday, the world will be a pretty crummy place to live if things don't change.
I think some of you are taking this issue a little too seriously.
XionTawa is right on one issue; God is in control of what's going on. Does that mean we should sit back and do nothing? No, absolutely not. But, he's not demanding that anyone else share his beliefs and lifestyle, as some of you have done to him.
Odale is also right in that we can be a bit more considerate in taking care of the earth. However, that doesn't mean you should fork over $30,000 for a new hybrid vehicle, which is what some in here seem to be suggesting.
TJ is right about his theories post. Many people get worked up about something when a scientist or other individual posts what at first seems to be critical information, and then it turns out that it never was. If people got as much worked up about Christianity as they did anything else we'd be a lot better off. "Do not worry" seems to be one of the Bible's undertones, and I encourage us to remember that. And, exercise good judgment.
Lastly, I encourage all of us to be kind to each other. It feels like many have taken a personal stance in the "debate", and have sometimes, I think, worded their posts in a negative way. Let's remember that our attitudes are just as important as the ideas we bring to the table.
XionTawa is right on one issue; God is in control of what's going on. Does that mean we should sit back and do nothing? No, absolutely not. But, he's not demanding that anyone else share his beliefs and lifestyle, as some of you have done to him.
Odale is also right in that we can be a bit more considerate in taking care of the earth. However, that doesn't mean you should fork over $30,000 for a new hybrid vehicle, which is what some in here seem to be suggesting.
TJ is right about his theories post. Many people get worked up about something when a scientist or other individual posts what at first seems to be critical information, and then it turns out that it never was. If people got as much worked up about Christianity as they did anything else we'd be a lot better off. "Do not worry" seems to be one of the Bible's undertones, and I encourage us to remember that. And, exercise good judgment.
Lastly, I encourage all of us to be kind to each other. It feels like many have taken a personal stance in the "debate", and have sometimes, I think, worded their posts in a negative way. Let's remember that our attitudes are just as important as the ideas we bring to the table.
Odale
Active Member
I don't think anyone here is out of control, or is taking the issue too seriously.
Just a little debating is happening.
Everyone is holding their points down, and everyone is respecting other's views.
Just a little debating is happening.
Everyone is holding their points down, and everyone is respecting other's views.
Last edited:
On that note, I'd like to chime in a little and offer my take.
I don't buy the whole idea that hybrids are more economical than gasoline or diesel engines on a number of reasons. I've driven two Ford Escape hybrids and have found they only get approximately 22mpg around town with the A/C on. I'd rather spend $10,000-20,000 on a vehicle that I actually like than $30,000 on one that is "politically-correct". Furthermore, the life of gasoline / diesel engines is much longer than that of the hybrids. Lastly, the battery packs eventually, as I understand it, have to be replaced. Granted, I'm not sure if this is true or not. Regardless, they're not as easily recyclable as gasoline engines are.
I also don't buy the idea of global warming. #1 - the people who initiated this claim are not scientists, but are rather environmentalists. #2 - some "facts" of this claim are skewed. Take, for example, the claim of the polar ice caps melting. They don't melt because of the warming environment's temperature, which is what proponents of the global warming theory seem to be advertising (the temperature at the caps is still well below 32 degrees). They melt because of direct sunlight, which has little to do with the theory of global warming. #3 - The area in Texas which I live is typically one of the hottest and most humid regions of the United States, and yet this summer has been the most mild we've had in tens of years; it's been absolutely beautiful this year. Global warming would lead me to believe it should be getting progressively warmer every year, and that is just not the case. #4 - Ultimately, I think "global warming" can simply be amounted to the aging of the earth.
I do agree in that we should be more conscientious and conservative in how we use and discard products; I'm just not ready to put much faith into something that is still very much a new idea. I consider Matthew 7:15.
I don't buy the whole idea that hybrids are more economical than gasoline or diesel engines on a number of reasons. I've driven two Ford Escape hybrids and have found they only get approximately 22mpg around town with the A/C on. I'd rather spend $10,000-20,000 on a vehicle that I actually like than $30,000 on one that is "politically-correct". Furthermore, the life of gasoline / diesel engines is much longer than that of the hybrids. Lastly, the battery packs eventually, as I understand it, have to be replaced. Granted, I'm not sure if this is true or not. Regardless, they're not as easily recyclable as gasoline engines are.
I also don't buy the idea of global warming. #1 - the people who initiated this claim are not scientists, but are rather environmentalists. #2 - some "facts" of this claim are skewed. Take, for example, the claim of the polar ice caps melting. They don't melt because of the warming environment's temperature, which is what proponents of the global warming theory seem to be advertising (the temperature at the caps is still well below 32 degrees). They melt because of direct sunlight, which has little to do with the theory of global warming. #3 - The area in Texas which I live is typically one of the hottest and most humid regions of the United States, and yet this summer has been the most mild we've had in tens of years; it's been absolutely beautiful this year. Global warming would lead me to believe it should be getting progressively warmer every year, and that is just not the case. #4 - Ultimately, I think "global warming" can simply be amounted to the aging of the earth.
I do agree in that we should be more conscientious and conservative in how we use and discard products; I'm just not ready to put much faith into something that is still very much a new idea. I consider Matthew 7:15.
moxie
New Member
It's been interesting reading the responses of everyone here. I currently drive a Toyota Prius, and I get anywhere from 40-50 MPG driving around town with the AC on full blast. It's been worth it's weight in gold to us, since we normally fill up 1-2 times a month and each fill-up is around $20-25. We consider the savings on gas to be worth the slightly higher price we paid to purchase it. Not all hybrids are equal though... when we were doing our research, we found that the Prius got much better mileage and had better reviews than the Camry, Accord, and SUV hybrids. And as weird-looking as it is, the car has grown on us.
Why did we get the Prius? The $$$ savings was definitely the biggest factor. However, there are other reasons... we personally believe that our need for oil is the main reason the situation in Iraq is what it is, and because of that we have tried to minimize our personal need for oil. But that's a whole other topic.
More than that though, God gave man the responsibility of taking care of the earth, to subdue it, and to take care of the animals and plantlife. While we're not tree-huggers or members of PETA, we are interested in sustainable energy sources, even to the extent that we are considering building a house/farm that is "off the grid" using other energy sources to replace/supplement traditional power. Part of this is the geek in us... the other part is just wanting to take care of what God has given us.
Each person should consider what is applicable and practical in their life, and adjust accordingly. Not everyone can go off the grid. Not everyone can afford to buy hybrids right away (although we hope that eventually gasoline IS replaced by something better). As for Al Gore... I'm pretty much indifferent to him. He has a decent message, but he's not the end-all and be-all of environmentalism.
Why did we get the Prius? The $$$ savings was definitely the biggest factor. However, there are other reasons... we personally believe that our need for oil is the main reason the situation in Iraq is what it is, and because of that we have tried to minimize our personal need for oil. But that's a whole other topic.
More than that though, God gave man the responsibility of taking care of the earth, to subdue it, and to take care of the animals and plantlife. While we're not tree-huggers or members of PETA, we are interested in sustainable energy sources, even to the extent that we are considering building a house/farm that is "off the grid" using other energy sources to replace/supplement traditional power. Part of this is the geek in us... the other part is just wanting to take care of what God has given us.
Each person should consider what is applicable and practical in their life, and adjust accordingly. Not everyone can go off the grid. Not everyone can afford to buy hybrids right away (although we hope that eventually gasoline IS replaced by something better). As for Al Gore... I'm pretty much indifferent to him. He has a decent message, but he's not the end-all and be-all of environmentalism.