Brugernavn: Kodeord:
Ny bruger registrering
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Meddelelser per side:
Liste over diskussionsborde
Du har ikke rettigheder til at skrive meddelelser til dette bord, Mindste medlemsskabsniveau nødvendigt for at skrive til dette bord er BrainBonde.
Tilstand: Alle kan skrive
Søg i meddelelser:  

<< <   9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   > >>
9. April 2013, 22:04:13
Iamon lyme 
"When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out."

Assuming it does all ballance out and as much oxygen as CO2 enters the atmosphere, then you would still see an increase of CO2. If the ratio of oxygen to CO2 remained the same it wouldn't matter to environmentalists, since all of their focus has been on how much carbon is there.

See how this works? Environmentalists focus all of their attention on one little element and convince us it is an evil byproduct produced by the burning of oil procured by evil oil companies.

I thought I was supposed to be the ignorant religious nut here because I believe in God. So what's up with environmentalists trying to scare people by getting them to believe in the evil oil monster?

9. April 2013, 19:39:12
Iamon lyme 
"...during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

I should probably explain how this could happen, seeing as how vegetation takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen. Vegetation actually does both... when photosynthesis is happening it takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen, when photosynthesis isn't happening (primarily at night) then it takes in oxygen and gives off CO2. When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out. But an increase of vegetation also means an increase of animal and insect life because of more available food. Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2, so that's how the ballance tips in favor of an increased level of CO2.

9. April 2013, 18:22:28
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital.
(V): "When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

[[ ?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.]]

If that's true then those sulphur gasses would be reflecting sunlight away from earth, not reflecting the radiant energy back, which I presume is what some scientists are saying CO2 does.

The earth is a very complex system, and comparing water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the main or only cause of weather change is an oversimplification. And yes, when Ice core samples were taken they concluded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere preceded global warming. Later tests revealed the opposite, higher concentrations of CO2 followed periods of global warming. This makes sense, because during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas.

9. April 2013, 15:30:52
(V) 
In memory of Maggie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g9ysArxCdk

Some in the UK are sad she's gone.. others have held street parties.

9. April 2013, 15:29:11
(V) 
Emne: Re: You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital.
Iamon lyme: Without going through tons of reports and stats... I can make this general statement.

... Every new power development in the UK is getting help from HM Gov. Nuclear, renewable, etc.. they all are. Plus various universities are through mixed investment looking into developing more tech and improving on what is already known.

"When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.

9. April 2013, 01:49:09
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?
(V): (V): [[ "French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide...

...puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy...

A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total." ]]


There's that word 'carbon' again. That word is key for supporting wind/solar and even nuclear energy. It's too bad so many people are unaware of what carbon in the atmosphere actually does. Al Gore wouldn't have dared trying to bamboozle the public with his scare for profit scheme if the junk science behind global warming wasn't king. When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming.

9. April 2013, 00:40:02
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry
(V): "Do they..."

Yes. When automobiles were a new thing did the government need to step in so Ford couldn't monopolise the automotive industry? Competition is what prevents monopolies, or breaks them up when someone provides a better choice... that could mean better quality or lower price or more useful features or a combination of those things. That's not a bad thing for the consumer, it's a good thing.


I asked you "Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies?"

You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital. Investors risk losing their investment. But that's okay with me because it's their money being risked, not the taxpayers.

8. April 2013, 23:41:33
(V) 
Emne: Re:Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry
Iamon lyme: Do they.... Not always I have to say has to be held up as being as true as 'they do'.

8. April 2013, 21:06:06
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:
(V): "Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors."

You can't stop monopolies from occurring, they will happen. Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry, unless government partners with that monopoly. A powerful business monopolising an inudstry always attracts the attention of a powerful government intent on holding onto its own power... they will either support the monopoly or oppose it.

I suppose in a perfect world there would be no monopolies. In a perfect world I would also win as many games of chess as I lose, but then I could also forget about any ambition about rising to the top. Fantazising over what life would be like in a perfect world has never improved my game.

8. April 2013, 20:11:19
(V) 
Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

should have read...

Looking back at some of the 'wins', it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

8. April 2013, 20:00:09
(V) 
Emne: Re: Well Al is an idiot.
Artful Dodger: Just follow the instructions.

I like this system. Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

8. April 2013, 19:56:05
Papa Zoom 
Emne: Re: Well Al is an idiot.
(V): haha where do I sign! I'd love to see him put his money where his mouth is!

8. April 2013, 19:51:00
(V) 
Emne: Re: Well Al is an idiot.
Artful Dodger: Such as Iain Duncan Smith are finding out not to be an idiot while being recorded.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

Just over 35,000 more people need to sign it. ;P

8. April 2013, 19:47:59
(V) 
"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."

We don't have that. Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors.

8. April 2013, 19:42:50
(V) 
Emne: Re: Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?
Iamon lyme: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177022147138.htm

"..... Since 2002, Germany has doubled its capacity to generate wind power and has 21,000 turbines producing 7.5% of the nation's electricity. That compares with only about 1% in the U.S. The use of wind has lowered wholesale electricity prices in Germany by as much as 5 billion euros some years, says a study by Poeyry, a Helsinki-based consultant. Spanish prices fell at an annualized rate of 26% in the first quarter due to surging wind and hydroelectric production.

Since October 2008, the abundance of wind power has led to periods where German customers were paid rates that sometimes reached 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, or about as much power as used by a small factory or 1,000 homes in 60 minutes.

One solution: Tying power markets together, allowing temporary surpluses in one area to flow toward electricity-poor zones. That's now done between the Netherlands, France, and Belgium; Germany plans to join them on Sept. 7.

Storing electricity may be another fix. In Scandinavia, Danish wind power pumps water into Norwegian and Swedish reservoirs; the water is later released to drive hydroelectric plants. Until there's more integration like that and better transmission grids, expect more Germans to sleep with the lights on... ."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18979330
"The measures should also reduce the impact on household energy bills, it said, saving £5-£6 a year on average. Under the current arrangements £44 of the average household bill would go towards renewables in 2013-14, rising to £50 in 2016-17. Under the new subsidy levels, that will be £6 less in 2013-4, £5 less in 2014-5, but will be £1 higher in 2015-6 and £3 higher in 2016-7.

Energy firms pass on the cost of investing in new cleaner generation to consumers, and MPs on the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee warned earlier this month that cutting subsidies too fast could increase bills. "

Our government is subsidising the energy firms to keep them from passing on the costs to bill payers as, a cut in stock prices is too much for them to handle???

Or...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/20/coalition-u-turn-nuclear-energy-subsidies

".....The government is already facing a crisis over its hopes for a fleet of new reactors to replace ageing generators. This week French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide, to go ahead with its building plans. This followed the shock cancellation by German companies E.ON and RWE npower, partners in the Horizon consortium, of their plans to build new plants at Wylfa, Wales and Oldbury, Gloucestershire.

Ministers apparently plan to argue that the proposed support system is not a direct subsidy and does not favour nuclear but puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy – chiefly renewables, which will also receive a feed-in tariff. A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total. This is not a subsidy for nuclear power."

But the plans are likely to come under severe attack in the European parliament. The Guardian understands that the Greens in Europe are preparing to take legal action against the government, arguing that the plans amount to state aid for nuclear...."

Nuclear is being subsidised by renewable energy... sorry, "low carbon".

My point from the Guardian story. There are no clear figures.

6. April 2013, 21:09:44
Papa Zoom 
Emne: Re: Well Al is an idiot.
(V): no doubt!

6. April 2013, 21:04:35
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?
(V): "No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work."

Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies? I'm not talking about good vs bad companies here, I'm talking about the economic feasibility of a wind/solar power company working soley within the confines of the free enterprise system. Solyndra was going to fail whether they tried to make it work or not, because even with a hefty start up subsidy the company wouldn't be able to sustain their operation for very long. The top brass at Solyndra knew this, so they didn't bother to tough it out until their company failed... they did the only sensible thing, they took the money and ran. It may not have been the honorable thing to do, but when you have a president as naive as Obama this sort of thing is bound to happen.

By the way, if you want to quibble over what 'free' means in the context of free enterprise, I leave it to you to figure that out.

6. April 2013, 19:29:52
(V) 
Emne: Re: in a free market
Iamon lyme: But we don't have a 'free' market.

6. April 2013, 19:28:20
(V) 
Emne: Re: Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?
Iamon lyme: No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work. It's like the difference between Amazon (big tax dodger) and a UK based business who pays their way.

"....It used a much larger converter of course..."

So it looks like a many smaller cell conversion system being fed by a main water tank could work for a standard sized vehicle. ;P

"You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda."

Not for the water at least.. it's not hard to do at home. Moonshiner's have been doing it for... well, a long time.

6. April 2013, 00:10:04
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.
Iamon lyme: "Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Okay, you meant solar powered charging stations are not free. Not only that, but it's doubtful they could pay for themselves and make a profit without tax payer "contributions". That was MY point. Solyndra was given a big government subsidy to get started, but it all ended very quickly with the CEO and top brass giving themselves big retirement packages. How long was Solyndra in business?

Yeah, solar powered charging stations costing someone a pretty dime (if not the people using it) wasn't your point, I got that.

So what WAS your point? That even if an enterprise can't sustain itself in a free market it can still do what it was designed to do?

5. April 2013, 23:51:23
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.
(V): "Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them?"

Not only just willing, it's already starting to happen.

"Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?

"I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device."

If you mean running a car on only water, that's already happened as well. Saw a video where someone was able to run a pick up truck with no gas in the tank. It was even able to accelerate going uphill without losing pressure. It used a much larger converter of course, but it fit in the back of the truck with no problem.

"Wow, it's legit!"

[ .... Just say I believe you V ;P ]

I do now... I'm a believer in trust but verify. When I saw water in glass jars my first thought was the cold fusion hoax a few years back... cold fusion supposedly taking place in glass jars.

You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda.

5. April 2013, 21:45:16
(V) 
Emne: Re: Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.
Iamon lyme: Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them? Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point.

"If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply"

I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device.

"for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system."

No, the gasses fed to the engine are changed. Our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and does not burn. HHO being two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen means the gasses are more reactive, hence more power for the same amount of fuel.

"without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine."

No, the water would need topping up and the electrodes will only last so long.

"Wow, it's legit!"

.... Just say I believe you V ;P

5. April 2013, 21:37:23
(V) 
Emne: Re: Well Al is an idiot.
Artful Dodger: I think he was an idiot well before he became a democrat!! lol

5. April 2013, 05:36:03
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car.
(V): Wow, it's legit! And it's catching on quick. By this summer some HHO water converters will be on the market in someplace called Bear County... I didn't pay attention to the state this is in, so I'll go back to find the video again. They'll sell for about 1,500 hundred dollars, but there are much cheaper ones you can put together on your own. I suspect the homemade ones will be cropping up all over the place.

4. April 2013, 23:18:04
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car.
(V): "but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

[ Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places. ]

I stand corrected. Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.

"The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!"

When I have time I'll look at those videos and then do a little research of my own. But I suspect having an onboard system for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system. If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply, without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine.

But even if we are only a few years away from a practical self sustaining hydrogen car, how do you propose we keep any of our aircraft in the air using only hydrogen power? Maybe we could convince the entire world to give up air travel. Also, there are products we use every day made from oil that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. I suppose we could live without those too. And when global warming finally kicks in, we can give up wearing clothes... we can use parasols for when we're out in the hot scorching sun.

4. April 2013, 21:56:38
Papa Zoom 
Emne: Re: Well I'd want to find out the truth behind the technology and if it proved true, I'd urge congress.....
(V): Well Al is an idiot.

4. April 2013, 21:55:35
(V) 
Emne: Re: Well I'd want to find out the truth behind the technology and if it proved true, I'd urge congress.....
Artful Dodger: So would I. If police officials are stating it works......

But... imo, it'd just turn into "lets bring up Al Gore time" :/

4. April 2013, 21:26:28
(V) 
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

This petition calls for Iain Duncan Smith, the current Work and Pensions Secretary, to prove his claim of being able to live on £7.57 a day, or £53 a week.

On Monday's Today Programme David Bennett, a market trader, said that after his housing benefit had been cut, he lives on £53 per week. The next interviewee was Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who was defending the changes. The interviewer then asked him if he could live on this amount. He replied: "If I had to, I would."

This petition calls on Iain Duncan Smith to live on this budget for at least one year. This would help realise the conservative party`s current mantra that "We are all in this together".

This would mean a 97% reduction in his current income, which is £1,581.02 a week or £225 a day after tax* [Source: The Telegraph]

Please join me.

>>>>>> Currently over 427,000 signatures with only 500,000 needed.

4. April 2013, 21:11:45
Papa Zoom 
Emne: Re: If I'm the President, I hire and independent firm to substantiate the claims in the videos and then I put up a few billion in tax money to fun production of these things. (if it's true).
(V): Well I'd want to find out the truth behind the technology and if it proved true, I'd urge congress to pass some regulations OR I'd have the Regulatory agency pass something AND I'd offer financial incentives for car manufactures to create the technology in their cars. Money talks.

Remember Solyndra.

4. April 2013, 20:05:54
(V) 
Emne: Re: Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car.
Iamon lyme: .... The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!

"but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places.

... you could use a manure powered battery to charge your cars battery.
... Dynamo attached to a bike can charge.
... small windmill (same as used to pump water on farms) could generate power.
... focused reflector system..
... etc.

;P

4. April 2013, 18:31:16
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car.
(V): "Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?"

We've learned how to tap into the cars own inertia and convert that back into electricity, but it's not like a perpetual motion machine... inertia can only give back a small part of the energy used to run the car.

I was talking about the power needed to get the fuel for running the car. These cars don't run on water, they run on the hydrogen we get from water. It takes power to separate the hydrogen from water, that's how we get the fuel for powering the car. The cars engine causes hydrogen to bond to oxygen (converting it back into water) which creates enough energy for powering the car. In a worse case scenario you would need to burn coal to power the turbines that make the electricity used to extract the hydrogen from water. Getting the juice from a hydroelectric plant is more environmentally friendly, but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free... people who work for the power companies need to eat too.

My point is we don't need to use energy to create fossil fuels because they already exist. It's less expensive to get that fuel and process it than to create a fuel like hydrogen. In the future, if technology is allowed to progress naturally, I don't doubt we will have sources of energy that make fossil fuels obsolete. But we don't live in the future... not yet. <(:op

4. April 2013, 15:07:22
(V) 
Emne: Re: Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car.
Iamon lyme: Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?

"Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down."

... yes.... can. Sometimes not though. Concorde was a government run project.

4. April 2013, 15:03:34
(V) 
Emne: Re: If I'm the President, I hire and independent firm to substantiate the claims in the videos and then I put up a few billion in tax money to fun production of these things. (if it's true).
Artful Dodger: But that would be classed by many in the USA as government interference... wouldn't it!!

"I suspect that hidden in the secrets of science are a vast number of ways to produce clean energy (or cleaner energy) and we ought to be exploring some of these claims on a grand scale."

Grand scale manure batteries supplying cheap energy to remote towns who have lots of cattle near. :P

They do work, but I think the thought of it for some is toooo retro.

3. April 2013, 22:26:53
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil.
(V): I've said this before, the reason we've been able to advance so fast technologically is because private enterprise was allowed to do what it does naturally. Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down. Not only that, but it can also create unforeseen conditions and problems in other areas of society as well.

It's called the law of unintentional consequences, and we've already seen what can happen when we tried to make some beneficial changes in nature. An Island somewhere has too many of one kind of non indigenous animal, an invasive species that may have got there aboard a merchant ship. So we decide to correct the problem by introducing another species that will prey on the one that shouldn't have been there to begin with. But now the predatory species has taken over the Island, and is creating unforeseen problems as bad as or maybe worse than the species we were trying to control. Overreaching governments are notorious at doing the same thing, interjecting themselves into a natural process in an effort to control it.

3. April 2013, 21:36:06
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: The only "pollution" we've had to deal with lately is debris from last years Japanese tsunami.
(V): "The pollutants pumped out into the air never disappear into thin air, as we might like to believe."

I said pollutants dissipate. I did not say they disappear.

3. April 2013, 21:30:09
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil.
(V): Iamon lyme: "...fitting hydrogen converters to their cars, which are powered by water."

Clean efficient energy, and the only by product is water. Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car. This can get a bit expensive, seeing as how we must first use energy to get something that can make energy.

3. April 2013, 20:39:46
Papa Zoom 
Emne: Re:Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil.
(V): If I'm the President, I hire and independent firm to substantiate the claims in the videos and then I put up a few billion in tax money to fun production of these things. (if it's true).

I suspect that hidden in the secrets of science are a vast number of ways to produce clean energy (or cleaner energy) and we ought to be exploring some of these claims on a grand scale.

I also suspect that the big oil lobby is working hard to squelch such and idea.

3. April 2013, 20:07:54
(V) 
Emne: Re:Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil.
Iamon lyme: No they are not enough... But with other stuff, they can reduce our reliance on it. When you see your countrymen fitting hydrogen converters to their cars, which are powered by water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nld6HzEjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgUF5M3FTI

3. April 2013, 19:52:19
(V) 
Emne: Re: The only "pollution" we've had to deal with lately is debris from last years Japanese tsunami.
Iamon lyme: Wrong...

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5615

"As Jaffe explains, the commonly heard phase “air pollution knows no boundaries” takes on a new meaning when we start to understand how pollution is travelling around the globe. The pollutants pumped out into the air never disappear into thin air, as we might like to believe.

Typical westerly wind flows across the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere mean air pollution from China is often carried over the Pacific Ocean. If the weather conditions are right, contaminants including mercury, ozone, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, black carbon and desert dust, can reach the west coast of the US within days.

The most visible recent examples were the giant dust storms originating from the Gobi desert in 1998 and 2001, which carried significant levels of pollutants across to the US. At the time, researchers feared this could be the start of an era of Chinese pollution dumping itself on the US. However, a similar large event has not occurred since, although smaller dust storms are still frequent.

Far more common, says Jaffe, have been the ozone events. These are not visible in the same way as giant dust storms, so haven´t garnered the same level of interest, but have proven to be damaging to public health and air quality standards. Levels of ozone detected at the mountaintop research centre have been "creeping up" over the past decade, according to data collected at the site, a result linked to, among factors, rapidly increasing vehicle emissions from Asia."

..........."Ironically, the US could also be contributing to its own mercury pollution too if it pushes through plans to scale up the export of coal to China.

US coal is already being exported to China through Canada. Just south of the west coast port city of Vancouver, the Westshore Coal Terminal ships 22 million tonnes of coal a year, of which 59% goes to China. There are now plans to build dozens of new terminals in the states of Washington and Oregon, on the west coast of the US, and export 150 million tonnes of coal a year to Asia.

"It's a classic jobs versus environment," says Jaffe, who lives in Washington state, which is phasing out its only coal-burning power station. "It's a dumb idea. We ship coal to China, they burn it and we get the pollution back.""

3. April 2013, 07:21:28
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:
(V): "No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that you think is wrong with the USA."


I wasn't talking about "everything". They are responsible for most of the goofy ideas we Americans are treated to on an almost daily basis. I was also talking about the game liberals play when it comes to oil...

They approach it from an environmental angle. This gives them their excuse for limiting oil production and refining. They push for "energy alternatives" for two reasons. They say it's better for the environment. And it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil... which is a crock, because if they hadn't been working so diligently to limit our production of oil, which includes not allowing the Alaskan pipeline to be finished, then dependence on foreign oil wouldn't be an issue. But if oil production has been rising all this time (according to you and the New York times) then apparently liberals have been lying about our dependence on foreign oil.

Whenever the US goes to war in a country that has oil, they automatically assume the reason for that war is to get control of their oil. This is also a crock, and for the same reason liberals push for energy alternatives. They claim it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and then we wouldn't have to invade other countries to get their oil... I think some of them have been smoking weed for so long anything they dream up seems reasonable to them.

Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil. But even if I assume liberals are correct about the US going to war for oil, they can't avoid the obvious... they are the ones who created the conditions that led to those wars. It's fascinating how their reasoning process works... they see themselves as blameless, but even in their fantasies they can't avoid pointing the same finger back at themselves.

The claim that wars are fought over oil is not related to their efforts to limit our oil production, it just happens to be a convenient complaint they are able to tie to our lack of adequate domestic oil... and who can we thank for that?

2. April 2013, 22:16:20
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: "at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?
(V): The Chinese pollution problem is easy enough to fix, we'll just send our presently unoccupied occupy wall street protesters over to disrupt operations in China. And I will personally sent a strongly worded letter of protest. That alone should be enough to get results, but we should still send the protesters. The Chinese and the US manufacturers in China will have no choice but to shut down their manufacturing operations... permanently.

2. April 2013, 21:36:39
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: "at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?
(V): By the time that pollution reaches the west coast most of it is gone... dissipated in the air and washed from the sky into the pacific ocean. The only "pollution" we've had to deal with lately is debris from last years Japanese tsunami.

I saw something in the news about dust from a Chinese dust storm reaching the west coast... which is pretty remarkable, since dust from our own dust bowl disaster (before I was born) only made it as far as a few miles past the atlantic coastline.

2. April 2013, 20:01:13
(V) 
Emne: Re: "at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?
Iamon lyme: More to the point. Your air quality.... or is it just yours.... Asian pollution is impacting on your West coast, much of that pollution is from manufacturing plants contracted (as the labour is cheaper and regs less bothersome) to make your stuff for you... so, added onto your own home grown crap is stuff from Asia.

There is a nice island of plastic forming in the Pacific ocean.

2. April 2013, 17:46:11
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: "at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?
(V): "Seriously, that was just an avoidance answer."

Look who's talking. Avoid this... who is in control of air/water standards in China? The US, or China?

2. April 2013, 13:45:14
(V) 
Correction...

"No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in the USA."

Should read...

"No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that you think is wrong with the USA.

2. April 2013, 10:21:21
(V) 
Emne: Re: "at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?
Iamon lyme: It is?? The New York Times says any such increase is temporary and that US domestic production is up 10%

"No it isn't."

Yes it is. You think all those toppled governments by the CIA were just for the good of the people whose country it was?

"Yes they are."

No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in the USA.

"Yeah, and the US is also responsible for everything that happens in the UK. Seriously, grow up."

Seriously, that was just an avoidance answer. 0 points for that. I'll give points if you can tell me what new man made island exists? Or what state is reporting pollutants from China via the Jet Stream?

2. April 2013, 06:30:56
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re: This is a contradiction for which I have never heard a reasonable explanation. How can anyone justify saying we want someone elses oil when we have more than enough of our own?
(V): "You didn't at the time."

"at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?


"It is true."

No it isn't.

"Are they?"

Yes they are.


"The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation."

[ Do you? Including or excluding pollution from China based firms manufacturing goods for American companies to sell to the world?? ]

Yeah, and the US is also responsible for everything that happens in the UK. Seriously, grow up.

1. April 2013, 12:45:00
(V) 
Emne: Re: This is a contradiction for which I have never heard a reasonable explanation. How can anyone justify saying we want someone elses oil when we have more than enough of our own?
Iamon lyme: You didn't at the time.

"We don't go to war to gain control over someone elses oil, but just for the sake of argument let's assume this is true."

It is true.

"what is the liberal's explanation for effectively making us dependent on foreign oil? Liberals in this country are responsible for stopping oil companies from drilling."

Are they?

"The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation."

Do you? Including or excluding pollution from China based firms manufacturing goods for American companies to sell to the world??

"We weren't arguing about religion... we were laughing at liberals."

I was laughing at both conservatives and liberals in the USA on this one... It's just alll stoooopid imo. :)

1. April 2013, 08:33:49
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:We have Spring Break, and Easter here as well. Or if your in New York, it's Spring Break and Spring Holiday (they forgot that Holiday mean Holy Day)
(V): "I think you guys need to stop arguing about religion so much in the USA."

Who's arguing about religion?

A boy was suspended from school for nibbling a pop tart in the shape of a gun. The size of soft drinks have been limited in New York because the mayor is concerned about how much sugar people get. Football players won't be allowed to drop their heads anymore when rushing down the field, because they might hurt someone... with their heads. Apparently it's better if their heads are vulnerable when rushing down the field. Can't play dodge ball anymore??? I played dodge ball when I was a kid, it was a blast. How can you get hurt by a soft rubber ball? I think schools should ban pencils, and compasses with their sharp metal points... no one can stab you with a soft rubber ball.

The list goes on and on and on. Liberals take all of their silly ideas very seriously, including what we should and shouldn't say. We shouldn't say Merry Christmas, we should say Happy Holidays. AD pointed out that the word holiday (probably the origin of the word) means Holy day, so we shouldn't be surprised if one day liberals decide we must stop saying 'holiday'.

We weren't arguing about religion... we were laughing at liberals.

1. April 2013, 07:15:01
Iamon lyme 
Emne: Re:So often the powers go overboard without considering the unintended consequences.
(V): I don't get this "for the sake of oil" argument. If liberals are so distraught over what they say is US effort to grab oil from other countries, then why do they resist US efforts to access it's own oil?

This is a contradiction for which I have never heard a reasonable explanation. How can anyone justify saying we want someone elses oil when we have more than enough of our own?

We don't want control over 'their' oil, we want control over OUR oil. The most recent estimates show our own sources at least matches (and might exceed) how much middle eastern oil is available.

We don't go to war to gain control over someone elses oil, but just for the sake of argument let's assume this is true... what is the liberal's explanation for effectively making us dependent on foreign oil? Liberals in this country are responsible for stopping oil companies from drilling, and have resisted the building of new refineries, so if anyone is responsible for what they call a 'war for oil' it would be be them.

If they think the US goes to war just to get control over someone elses oil, then I can't think of a better way to solve that problem than by allowing the US to access it's own oil. Liberals may be able to have it both ways (restrict drilling and claim war for oil) but they can't adequately explain any of this away with so called environmental concerns... that's BS. The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation. So if a clean environment is what they are really concerned about, they should go grip about it to countries who don't care how much pollutant they pile into the air.

<< <   9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   > >>
Dato og klokkeslæt
Venner online
Favoritborde
Sammenslutninger
Dagens tip
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Tilbage til toppen