So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along? - Page 3 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-23-2009, 10:09 PM   #41
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKman View Post
I think we are in actually in agreement on the first point. The need to go green has nothing to do with the environment or global warming, it has to do with the cost savings you mentioned.
I would disagree that it has nothing to do with the environment. Certainly ROHS had everything to do with the environment. The ultimate reason for "going green" is the environment, but, the forcing function to go green is the cost savings over time.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 10:47 PM   #42
SLVR JDM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Work
Posts: 1,566
My Ride: E39 M5
Quote:
Originally Posted by dniper71 View Post
So because human industrial activity makes up like 1X10^-10% of the total time that the earth has been around, you're not buying that we could have detrimental effects on it? In the last 50 years, there has been enough weapons technology created that every living thing on earth can be vaporized in the matter of seconds.... but according to SLVR JDM, because the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that can't happen

Ever heard of Love Canal... Chernobyl maybe? How about living in an area full of smog, see how your lungs react to that. Also, our entire society is petroleum based, when you take billions pounds of CO2, CO, CH4 etc that is trapped under ground in what we can refer to as "oil" and release it into the atmosphere, do you think that has no impact on anything? If you're buying that it has zero impact - you'd have to be retarded to do so.
You're likening our pollution to catastrophic nuclear events? Interesting. Who said anything about having zero impact?

Yes, I meant what I said - you have to be very arrogant to think that our 150ish years of industrial pollution has all but destroyed the earth. Give it another thousand years of pollution and accurate data and I'll buy it.

For the record, I think that exploring other forms of energy production and technology is great. I don't believe that punishing those who do not switch over is fair - they already to it in Europe and it is just a matter of time before they do it here.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SLVR JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 11:26 PM   #43
rapier7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq
To be fair, it does pollute. The used material has to go somewhere. But, one big, deep, whole in the ground in a desert region of the country would do quite well to contain it for decades if not centuries.
The radioactive waste can be processed and used as additional fuel (though at a greater cost) or you can design reactors that have minimal waste that you can even store them on site. That's what France does right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq
Biofuels and ethanol could be useful to replace gasoline. I just don't see a normal car on the road bing powered by a nuclear reactor.
Bad idea. If we had nuclear reactors everywhere, electricity would be so cheap that we could actually afford the insane costs of electrolysis for hydrogen. Plus, additional research could eventually bring the size of a reactor to fit in a car's engine bay. They used to be the size of a large 4 story house. Now we can make them the size of a small apartment room.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 11:44 PM   #44
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
You're likening our pollution to catastrophic nuclear events? Interesting. Who said anything about having zero impact?

Yes, I meant what I said - you have to be very arrogant to think that our 150ish years of industrial pollution has all but destroyed the earth. Give it another thousand years of pollution and accurate data and I'll buy it.
So you agree that several atomic bombs can create a nuclear winter that would have catastrophic consequences for life on earth, yet you claim that constantly pumping out smoke and toxins into the atmosphere from factories, cars and whatnot won't make a dent at all?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 11:46 PM   #45
Guest100615
Account closed per your request
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post

Biofuels and ethanol could be useful to replace gasoline. I just don't see a normal car on the road bing powered by a nuclear reactor.
biofuel and ethanol will never replace gas in this country.

biofuel is not sustainable without govt subsidies.
And neither is ethanol/methanol.

Methanol produced from corn in this country costs 1.25 for every 1.00 of fuel produced. Without subisidies it will die overnight. And no one bothers to mention that ethanol gets 20-30 percent less fuel mileage than gas.

the reason it is hyped so much is because Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane. But for every unit of energy used to produce methanol from sugar cane you get 8 back. Whereas, you actually lose with corn. And they use cheap labor ( practically slaves and I am not kidding ) to produce it whereas we have higher labor costs . Brazil also has offshore drilling and they are energy free. I think all their cars have to use methanol now instead of gas.
Brazil has done well with their energy program. A1 job.

But you can't compare the US and Brazil. It is like comparing apples and oranges. they are both fruits but they are still different.

The only reason methanol exists in this country is because of the govt subsidies for corn to maufacture it. It is not research or progressive green technology, it is just vote buying and pandering to the masses. That is all.

biodiesel has similar characteristics. but I can't recall them. however, if biodiesel was a valid substitute, other nations would have figured it out a long time ago. it is not like the US is the only country that has agricultural waste.
Guest100615 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 09:27 AM   #46
SLVR JDM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Work
Posts: 1,566
My Ride: E39 M5
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
So you agree that several atomic bombs can create a nuclear winter that would have catastrophic consequences for life on earth, yet you claim that constantly pumping out smoke and toxins into the atmosphere from factories, cars and whatnot won't make a dent at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
Who said anything about having zero impact?

Read much?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SLVR JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 02:45 AM   #47
2000_328CI
Registered User
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,086
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
Scientists do not become rich or famous by doing their job.
Tell that to Al Gore
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
The world-wide consensus IS that global warming is indeed an observed phenomenon. Only the US has there been a concerted, well-funded effort to dispute this. The way they do it is not by facts, but by loudness. I am not surprised that people whose hard work is getting buried by efforts of lobbies are going to get pissed off and use harsh language in an e-mail.
You do realize that the same scientists who Al Gore cited as agreeing with his point spent their own money to produce a video disproving the "theory". Global warming is not a fact.... not even close to it.

You need to start listening to both sides of the discussion here and not just assume everything spouted in opposition of gore and other liberals is inaccurate.



That said, we certainly could take better care of our planet and I'm all for it but that doesn't mean i have to kiss al gore's shoes and claim to buy into the global warming idiocy he spews.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

| 435 HP 328Ci | RRT Racing | Designer Wraps | Active Autowerke | Vorsteiner | STATUS Racing |
Timeless Motor Group
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 03:52 AM   #48
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Chase, Chase, Chase...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Tell that to Al Gore

You do realize that the same scientists who Al Gore cited as agreeing with his point spent their own money to produce a video disproving the "theory". Global warming is not a fact.... not even close to it.

You need to start listening to both sides of the discussion here and not just assume everything spouted in opposition of gore and other liberals is inaccurate.



That said, we certainly could take better care of our planet and I'm all for it but that doesn't mean i have to kiss al gore's shoes and claim to buy into the global warming idiocy he spews.
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[7][32] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[33], and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:
"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous-because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important-diametrically opposite to the point I was making-which is that global warming is both real and threatening."[7]
Filmmaker Durkin responded:
"Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."[33]
Although Wunsch has admitted that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global climate change debate distasteful [7] he wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component".
Wunsch has said that he received a letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agreed to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled. Wunsch refused,[34] although he states he was forced to hire a solicitor in the UK.[35]
Following Wunsch's complaints, his interview material was removed from the international and DVD versions of the film.

On December 7, 2007, Wunsch restated his critique on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline programme after the film was screened, saying: "It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement." In the same interview, reacting to what he claimed were new and further distortions by Durkin, Wunsch said: "Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this".[36]

...

Further controversy followed the broadcast of the film after it emerged that Martin Durkin had fallen out with geneticist Armand Leroi (whom Durkin was due to make a documentary with), after Leroi questioned the accuracy of the data used in the film in an email to Durkin. Leroi copied the e-mail to various colleagues including Guardian journalist and Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre and science writer and mathematics expert Simon Singh. Durkin replied to Leroi copying in the others with the single sentence: "You're a big daft ****". Singh then sent an email to Durkin that said: "I have not paid the same attention to your programme as Armand has done, but from what I did see it is an irresponsible piece of film-making. If you can send me a copy of the programme then I will examine it in more detail and give you a more considered response...it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather just resorting to one line replies".

...

An OfCom enquiry in July 2008 found that this programme "did not fulfill obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues" and "it treated interviewees unfairly" (including Carl Wunsch). However the programme was not found to have mislead viewers "so as to cause harm or offence". According to OfCom, the reason the program was not deemed to have caused harm, however, was not that it was accurate but that it was so blatantly outside of what is not scientifically established: the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy[17].
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by 'busa; 11-25-2009 at 03:56 AM.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:25 AM   #49
Attaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas/Cali
Posts: 459
My Ride: '03 330Ci
Just an example of bunk science -

R12 was banned because of its harmful effects on the environment. Some of you already know that R12 is a fuel, and was used during space shuttle launches. One takeoff was equivalent to every car in America simultaneously venting all of its R12 refrigerant into the air. Yet somehow cars, not space shuttles are the blame for environmental problems. R12 is not banned in Mexico, and people have been caught trying to bring some back for those without an R134 conversion. The penalty for smuggling cocaine is less severe.

R134a is something like 100 times cleaner than R12, yet it is being removed from the market for the same reasons.

I think it has less to do with actual impact and more to do with money. A single transatlantic flight uses more fuel than an entire season of F1 racing, yet not long ago racing was being scrutinized for its impact on the environment.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'03 330Ci 5spd PP
Alpine Type R, MRP 500

Last edited by Attaus; 11-25-2009 at 04:31 AM.
Attaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:51 AM   #50
Owtlaw333
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: HB, CA
Posts: 7,155
My Ride: 2009 Mazdaspeed 3 GT
First of all, I thought everyone already agreed "global warming" was a misnomer and "climate change" was the appropriate terminology?

With that said, change is inevitable and undeniable... the only debate is our impact on it and whether what we see is from us or a natural phenomenon. The facts are, what we pump out CAN effect the climate... has anyone seen those photos from China? It's unreal. But are the changes we have observed thus far directly related? And how immediate will our actions make waves, so to speak? So while these are the real questions, this doesn't excuse that our actions WILL have consequences and that we DO need to start focusing our efforts on changing our habits regardless of whether the current climate changes are from us or not... because those changes will speed up from our misdeeds if we don't do something about it. THAT is the real reason for change. Forget the political BS about what's causing what now and think about the future...

Having said all that, do I really care about the future? Saving money would be nice though...
__________________
Bringing it back for the new people...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Owtlaw333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 09:30 PM   #51
zhp6mt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Coast Ca.
Posts: 226
My Ride: 03 330i ZHP 6MT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. He will insist America is ready to tackle global warming despite resistance in Congress over higher costs for businesses and homeowners.

Cap and trade...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
zhp6mt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 10:13 PM   #52
BB BMW
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Right Here
Posts: 747
My Ride: 04 330ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by DME46 View Post
You guys need to stop listening to the inventor of the internet.
and Nobel Peace Prize.

This was for his talks about globel warming.

I believe he also won an oscar, a tony, an emmy and more than $100k for each of his speaches.

Now that's a con man.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
BB BMW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2009, 03:17 AM   #53
dmon_101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diggity, CA
Posts: 5,074
My Ride: has sexy fogs/shoes
Send a message via AIM to dmon_101
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are a lot of Fs and too many Ks in the F/M/K scenario <- posted before I met my wife
To answer your question, it's something you can find by
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or using
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dmon_101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2009, 04:18 AM   #54
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by BB BMW View Post
and Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, BB. You should stop listening to the inventor of the Nobel Peace Prize, after all, the dude has been dead for 140 years.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2009, 04:53 AM   #55
scott0482
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 676
My Ride: 1997 M3
Send a message via AIM to scott0482
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
Amortized over the life of the power plant, nuclear power is as cheap as coal, which is the cheapest form of energy. We don't need biofuels or ethanol or solar or wind or any of that. We need nuclear power. I don't know why environmentalists are so opposed to it. Or the average joe, with their rampant NIMBYism clogging up the permit procedure for years making it impossible to build new reactors.
The Simpsons
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
scott0482 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2009, 05:09 AM   #56
scott0482
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 676
My Ride: 1997 M3
Send a message via AIM to scott0482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attaus View Post
for environmental problems. R12 is not banned in Mexico, and people have been caught trying to bring some back for those without an R134 conversion. The penalty for smuggling cocaine is less severe.
I find this one a little hard to believe.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
scott0482 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 08:14 AM   #57
Raine
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 310
My Ride: e39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
The radioactive waste can be processed and used as additional fuel (though at a greater cost) or you can design reactors that have minimal waste that you can even store them on site. That's what France does right now.


Bad idea. If we had nuclear reactors everywhere, electricity would be so cheap that we could actually afford the insane costs of electrolysis for hydrogen. Plus, additional research could eventually bring the size of a reactor to fit in a car's engine bay. They used to be the size of a large 4 story house. Now we can make them the size of a small apartment room.
Sure, because driving around at 80 mph with a nuclear reactor underneath your hood is a great idea.
Raine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 08:19 AM   #58
Raine
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 310
My Ride: e39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
biofuel and ethanol will never replace gas in this country.

biofuel is not sustainable without govt subsidies.
And neither is ethanol/methanol.

Methanol produced from corn in this country costs 1.25 for every 1.00 of fuel produced. Without subisidies it will die overnight. And no one bothers to mention that ethanol gets 20-30 percent less fuel mileage than gas.

the reason it is hyped so much is because Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane. But for every unit of energy used to produce methanol from sugar cane you get 8 back. Whereas, you actually lose with corn. And they use cheap labor ( practically slaves and I am not kidding ) to produce it whereas we have higher labor costs . Brazil also has offshore drilling and they are energy free. I think all their cars have to use methanol now instead of gas.
Brazil has done well with their energy program. A1 job.

But you can't compare the US and Brazil. It is like comparing apples and oranges. they are both fruits but they are still different.

The only reason methanol exists in this country is because of the govt subsidies for corn to maufacture it. It is not research or progressive green technology, it is just vote buying and pandering to the masses. That is all.

biodiesel has similar characteristics. but I can't recall them. however, if biodiesel was a valid substitute, other nations would have figured it out a long time ago. it is not like the US is the only country that has agricultural waste.
+ 1

Not to mention, people starve so we can sit in traffic jams. Using food to fill our gas tanks is retarded. What America needs FOR NOW is more domestic oil drilling and more efficient internal combustion engines. Id like to see more automakers adopt diesel passenger cars in the U.S.
Raine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 12:36 PM   #59
DKman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 62
My Ride: 325xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raine View Post
Sure, because driving around at 80 mph with a nuclear reactor underneath your hood is a great idea.
Irrelevant. The military can shoot an ICMB across an ocean and have it land without detonating.
DKman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 01:10 PM   #60
palindrome
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: </\>
Posts: 50
My Ride: ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attaus View Post
Just an example of bunk science -

R12 was banned because of its harmful effects on the environment. Some of you already know that R12 is a fuel, and was used during space shuttle launches. One takeoff was equivalent to every car in America simultaneously venting all of its R12 refrigerant into the air. Yet somehow cars, not space shuttles are the blame for environmental problems. R12 is not banned in Mexico, and people have been caught trying to bring some back for those without an R134 conversion. The penalty for smuggling cocaine is less severe.

R134a is something like 100 times cleaner than R12, yet it is being removed from the market for the same reasons.

I think it has less to do with actual impact and more to do with money. A single transatlantic flight uses more fuel than an entire season of F1 racing, yet not long ago racing was being scrutinized for its impact on the environment.
I recently read that just 16 of the largest cargo container ships equate the amount of pollution that all the cars on earth do.
__________________
____________________________________________________________ ________________________

Last edited by Palindrome; December 4, 1986.
palindrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.