05-23-2017, 11:00 PM
|
#51 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,490
Camryaro - '92 Toyota Camry LE V6 90 day: 31.12 mpg (US) Red - '00 Honda Insight Prius - '05 Toyota Prius 3 - '18 Tesla Model 3 90 day: 152.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 349
Thanked 122 Times in 80 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
I'm glad I'm not the only one with the opinion that global warming is low on the threat to humanity list.
Humans directly harming humans does way more damage than GW ever could.
Disease harms humans more than GW ever will.
Poverty harms people more than GW.
Heck, AI poses a greater existential threat to humanity than GW, and I think that's a long shot.
What really worries me is that there is still enough nukes to completely eradicate humans several times over, and some of them are held by crazy leaders. After that, I worry that biological warfare will become cheap, easy, and untraceable. Any crazy could eventually possess the ability to harm millions.
GW is an extremely small and unfortunate outcome of humanity's psychopathy. Until psychopathy is resolved, GW will remain as a distraction.
|
Why do you think those things are separate from climate change?
Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lobal-warming/
Climate Change Complicates Efforts to End Poverty
Climate change will hopefully not cause the same problems in the US that is has caused or will cause in poorer countries, but it's effects are pervasive.
To be fair, there will be winners too, mostly Russia, but it's a net negative.
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
05-24-2017, 12:18 AM
|
#52 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 663 Times in 478 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasoline Fumes
I'm really glad to hear that 97% of climate scientists are wrong about global warming. From now on I'll get my unbiased information from Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute.
|
you realize, that cut and pasting a lie....doesn't reflect well on you.
The 97% number is bogus.
|
|
|
05-24-2017, 12:23 AM
|
#53 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 663 Times in 478 Posts
|
here is a google search you should try........
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/.../97-of-cli...e-is-100-wrong
Jan 06, 2015 · '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% ... 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are ...
.
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...global-warming...
May 30, 2013 · Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97 ... people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global ... BY FORBES. After Oklahoma ...
.
Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm ...
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/.../15624-cooking...
Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked ... as scientists and statisticians subject it to ... not 97 percent. Moreover, ...
.
Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial - Skeptical Science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/debu...us-denial.html
Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial ... Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research.
.
Popular Technology.net: 97 Articles Refuting The "97% ...
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...es-refuting-97...
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" The 97% "consensus" study, ... "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013) The New American - Climategate 3.0: ...
.
Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked ...
Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: debunked, demolished, staked through the heart - Breitbart...
Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: debunked, demolished, ... Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: debunked, ... of the scientists who expressed a view 97 per ...
.
Blog: Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming
404 Can't Find Page - American Thinker...
Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming . ... Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel ... either the debunking is a ...
.
Debunking the "97% of scientists agree on man made climate ...
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics...-of-scientists...
Debunking the “97% of scientists agree on man made climate change” myth. ... 97% of scientists agree on man made ... that 97% of all scientists agree ...
that went on for at least 5 pages on google search.....just sayin.
|
|
|
05-24-2017, 11:17 AM
|
#55 (permalink)
|
Corporate imperialist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,268
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
|
Either way we don't have to worry about paying for it for another 4 to 8 years.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
|
|
|
05-24-2017, 11:59 AM
|
#56 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 663 Times in 478 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
|
No, it's bogus. it's not a 'little'.
it's a lie.
'mostly true' ?????? wth does that mean!
It's made up.
Has nothing to do with 'relative magnitude' compared to something else.
97 is a specific number. not an estimate or guess.
5 pages (and there are actually more- but I didn't want to 'exagerate' ) debunk the claim.
Last edited by mcrews; 05-24-2017 at 01:04 PM..
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to mcrews For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-24-2017, 12:22 PM
|
#57 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,668
Thanks: 305
Thanked 1,187 Times in 813 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
|
Fighting and humans have been the norm for eternity. As soon as we see the first humans making crude tools we see those same tools embedded in each other's skulls. Ironically taking an observance in science and assigning it to specific human activity, true or untrue , is going to lead to conflicts.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hersbird For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-24-2017, 01:30 PM
|
#58 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC Lowcountry
Posts: 1,796
Thanks: 226
Thanked 1,353 Times in 711 Posts
|
.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth
We should be thankful for the higher CO2 levels helping to green the Earth.
Especially since the global population has more than doubled in the last 50 years. (The current world population is 7.5 billion as of May 2017)
World Population by Year - Worldometers
Lower amounts of CO2 and a decrease in temperature would lead to wide spread famine.
Just think of the " children" when your being stingy with CO2...
>
|
|
|
05-24-2017, 05:04 PM
|
#59 (permalink)
|
It's all about Diesel
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 12,923
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,696 Times in 1,514 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderB
I'm kinda on the fence, the biggest indicator that something is going wrong is the price of vegetable oil in supermarkets. This used to be a few cents a bottle, but is now always a few cents above the diesel price.
|
That's why I'm favorable to using non-edible crops cultivated at brownfields, along other non-conventional plants such as sea-aspargus that can grow on the coast and get irrigated with saltwater, or eventually in any vacant lot where it can be irrigated with wastewater contaminated with organic residues (thus avoiding the need for artificial fertilizers that are expensive and widely used for commercial crops). Animal carcass fats from butcheries and slaughterhouses, and even whitefish liver oil, are other viable options to use as a feedstock for biodiesel.
Quote:
Makes sense, the thing is, we have some pretty big refineries sitting in our port, and they literally have a 200 ft flame out the stack, burning off waste LPG/Methane. So the LPG fuel is considered a byproduct/trash anyway, driving on it is already miles better than just setting it on fire.
|
Here in Brazil it's mostly used as a domestic and industrial fuel. Forklifts and a handful of tractors are the only "vehicles" I know that are allowed to run on LPG.
Notice the LPG tanks.
Quote:
We do have CNG, but after the region of our country where NG is extracted started to experience earthquakes, NG prices have gone up and the acceptance of NG has gone way down.
|
Sounds like a good excuse for turning to biomethane/bio-CNG, which AFAIK is already commercially available at some fuel stations in Germany and Sweden. There are also at least 2 fuel stations operating in my country with bio-CNG too, and there are plans to blend it into the NG stream at least in my state and in São Paulo.
Quote:
LPG is dead easy, and honestly, not scary. The pressure in the LPG tank is not all that much, and (at least here) all the components need to be safety-marked, so you know its all rated to take the pressure safely. CNG on the other hand is easily 20x the pressure, and personally scares me a little more, though as long as decent components are used should be safe just the same.
|
CNG is actually more than 10x the pressure, but not 20x. Anyway, CNG kits usually get more safety features, it also dissipates into the atmosphere quickly in case of a leak and usually stands to higher temperatures before exploding.
Quote:
Here, LPG and CNG installs need to be checked by our national institure for measuring and checking things (TNO) to make sure they comply with safety and emissions requirements. These tests are done (at great expense) for specific parts/vehicle combinations by the manifacturers of those installations, and once tested, the same combination of parts can then be installed in those vehicles by a licenced installer. Lots of "you can't do it but we can because we paid to get a permit" going on.
|
It's quite different here. Conversion kits are certified too, but each vehicle must be assessed individually after the conversion to ensure its compliance to the standards.
Quote:
There are two exceptions, but they come at a price, the price is in the form of triple-road-tax (similar taxation level as diesel cars.)
|
It doesn't happen here, and actually in some states (well, at least in Rio de Janeiro) a vehicle converted to CNG is benefitted from a lower taxation.
Quote:
If your vehicle is from before 1/7/1990 you can DIY the install (as long as you have it inspected at a tech station afterwards.), however, you're still gonna pay the triple tax. Especially painful for classic car owners, the tax exemption for classic cars was recently changed to only be for petrol cars, and be full price for LPG and Diesel, because "if you use those fuels you're just driving a classic to save money and you're not a true car enthousiast, so you should pay tax like everyone else". Really nice towards the single-digit-MPG american classics, classic Mercedes'es and 4x4's. Not!
|
It's really stupid to keep the tax exemption only for the gasoline-powered classics. Anyway, why would a classic car enthusiast be supposed to not care about fuel consumption, and eventually about the environment, considering that older tech is often easier to adapt to work on alternative fuels that have a cleaner overall footprint?
|
|
|
05-24-2017, 05:35 PM
|
#60 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 118
Thanks: 2
Thanked 27 Times in 20 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
It's really stupid to keep the tax exemption only for the gasoline-powered classics. Anyway, why would a classic car enthusiast be supposed to not care about fuel consumption, and eventually about the environment,
|
This was singlehandedly ruined by cheapskate people driving barely-tax-free 80's diesel mercedeses, with big clouds of smoke pouring from the exhaus.
The gov't was going to get rid of all classic car tax exemptions, but some classic car clubs lobbied to keep it, and now the rules are all confusing and against non-petrol fuel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
considering that older tech is often easier to adapt to work on alternative fuels that have a cleaner overall footprint?
|
Yeah, they really don't care about the footprint, they only care about the tailpipe emissions, and old cars don't normally come with modern fuel injection and emissions controls. Other than that, they only care about tax, it seems..
__________________
'97 Ford Escort 2010-2010†
'90 Citroën AX GTI 1.4 mpi 2010-2012†
'96 Citroën AX Diesel 1.5D 2012-2016†
'95 Citroën AX w/ TU5J4 1.6 16V swap 2015-2016†
'92 Citroën AX w/ TU5J4 1.6 16V swap #2 2016-
'02 Renault Mégane wagon 1.6 16V on LPG 2016-
|
|
|
|