Bio Fuel

[davereid]

Who is the UNFCCC? who sponsors their research? is this research that is funded (I'm sure) by several interested 'parties' impartial? or are these relevent bodies interpreting this research to their own means to benefit from global 'fear'? I have done quite a bit of research of my own over recent years and I'm not totally convinced either way into climate change etc. Scientists do not agree! Scientists on both sides of the argument are at this very moment exploring some extremely interesting theories and it is of no benefit that we displace these theories altogether and I wait in anticipation on the findings of all these theories. Bio fuels is already turning out to be a dud.

"Global warming".. of course its morphed into "climate change" as its simply not happening, so much easier to blame any weather event that didn't happen last year on petrol.

Scientists don't agree - of course they don't - the global average temperature is cooler than it been since 1936.

That biofuel ? Why is it supposed to be carbon neutral ?

When you burn ethanol you release exactly the same amount of carbon as if you burned diesel.

Yet, somehow, idiots like to tell you its a better option.

Here is why they are idiots.

You were growing rice. And eating it. And it was cheap. And you ran your car on an organic natural product called oil.

Then you were told that the world was warming, and it was your fault.

But if you grew the fuel you used it was "carbon neutral" and you were "sustainable" and sweet.

So, you still grow the rice.

But now you use a big tractor to gather it up.
And then you ferment it.
And then you use fuel to distill it. And then you burn it instead of oil.

What have you really done ?

Well you have put the price of food up, heaps.

You have absorbed no carbon, as you were growing rice anyway.

You have added a massive inefficiency by distilling it.

And then you burn it, carelessly as its carbon neutral.

Starving the third world, but fuck most of them are muslim anyway.

[bobbydazzler]

there are going o be arguments both ways forever more "yes we are damaging the planet and no its all natural". i have seen many documentaries and read loads of books/magazines about it. by what i have read or seen i have been turned the way of its all natural etc. examples starting with a simple one. last year in the the uk it was the warmest april since 1947, "it beat the average by less than half a degree" so was global warming an issue way back then, no of course not. TWO. wasnt an iceberg spotted off the cost of nz this year, "yet again blamed on global warming" but didnt the same thing happen in the early to mid 1900's.
scientists say that the sun goes through cycles of letting off heat, they say its at solar maximum or there abouts at the moment.
the earth has been going through cycles of warm and cold periods for thousands of years, science has proved this.
"global dimming" a scientists working for the usgs in california, was carrying out and creating climate models, taking atmospheric readings of solar radiation etc etc, he was doing this during 9/11 before during and after. he found that after the total stoppage of flights over american air space the mean temperature of the area he was researching climed by two degrees in just two days even though the output of the sun had remained the same. in noticing this he carried out analisys of the air samples he had collected, he found that in the period tested general pollutants gases and particlulates in the air had dropped a considerable amount, thus allowing more solar radiation to reach the planets surface. he and his colleagues then used the data to make a computer model, which showed cleaning up our air would actually warm the planet, due to the fact that the impurities in the air filter solar radiation. but then there is the argument that taking oil out of the ground is causin the planet the warm, not by burning it by products, but the earth is warming from the inside, the oil is a natural insulator of the earth's core keeping in the heat, without the oil the ground heats up causing more evaporation which inturn makes heat. so there will aways be arguments both ways we may never know the truth, but i say majority of it all is natural.

[kevfromcoro]

Whoow..that was a bit of a maize,,,,
Good post.. but u can push the enter button to start a new sentice
Starting with caps aint a bad idea either.
Cheers.............

[motorbyclist]

oil, a reasonably scarce/rare substance that is a semi-reasonable conductor of heat, insulating the earth's atmosphere from the heat below?


i think the heat released in burning the stuff would have a greater effect than that!


the best part about using the internet for research, is that it's far easier to find the sensationalist news articles/dodgy sources either making up, misinterpreting, or misrepresenting scientific literature than the original papers where you have to read a large amount to fully understand the scope, limits, and assumptions made by/during the study/experiments

[Ice_Monsta]

I thought bio fuel was just a temporary solution to drag out the use of fossil fuels so they last us longer? When did it become all about the environment?

[bobbydazzler]

motorbyclist, yeah the oil thing is a bit hard to believe, i was just adding it as an example of what the sciency people that think global warming is totally man made come up with, sounds like clutching at straws to me coz they cant prove there points. but the atmosphere one i mentioned was either a discovery or BBC documentary i see a couple of years ago, maybe able to find the show in the archive's.

[idleidolidyll]

motorbyclist, yeah the oil thing is a bit hard to believe, i was just adding it as an example of what the sciency people that think global warming is totally man made come up with, sounds like clutching at straws to me coz they cant prove there points. but the atmosphere one i mentioned was either a discovery or BBC documentary i see a couple of years ago, maybe able to find the show in the archive's.

there isn't a scientist on the planet who thinks global climate change is "totally man made". That's a bullshit fallacy propagated by the ignorant, fundamentalist religions and right wing corporate types who care more for profit now than quality of life for the next generations.

the scientific consensus is, is that mankind has tipped the scales and created an environment where our added atmospheric change through industry and farming, have unbalanced the natural cycles of change.

In effect, we have not specifically done anything that might not have happened without us (due to volcanism etc), but we HAVE made conditions rife for climate change that will more than likely mean mass extinction of plants, animals and marine life to the detriment of humanity.

We are likely to see rises in the height of the oceans that will make large areas of land uninhabitable and create storms in areas that never has killer storms before (in human experience).

I will see the effects of this before I die but worst affected will be my grandchildren.

To shove your head up your arse and deny that mankind has any responsibility, or can change what is likely to happen, is ignorance of the highest order and a crime that your children and grandchildren will condemn you for.

Most will blame someone else, that's what humans do. Fact is, it's all of our responsibility, particularly us in 'The West".

Yes, you can sit on your lazy arse and deny that the billions of tonnes of pollution humans pump into the air every year does anything. You personally will die before the worst happens.

However, future mankind will look back on the period from 1850 to the 21st century and blame you for having the facts but not the morality to do shit to protect the future.

We have always been the same, that's why superannuation and retirement income is of little relevance to most people: we don't care about the future, we care more for ourselves than those who will come after us.

You denyers sicken me.

[Mom]

Is there a web site you copy and paste from?

[idleidolidyll]

motorbyclist, yeah the oil thing is a bit hard to believe, i was just adding it as an example of what the sciency people that think global warming is totally man made come up with, sounds like clutching at straws to me coz they cant prove there points. but the atmosphere one i mentioned was either a discovery or BBC documentary i see a couple of years ago, maybe able to find the show in the archive's.

oooh! warning! warning! warning will robinson!

watch out for the wierd scientist' types .
Much better to rely on superstition and dogma than carefully researched and documented facts anyday.
Fuck it, only christians will go to heaven anyway; all those goddammit heretics deserve to burn in hell

.................................................. .......what a bunch of tossers, ignorance is such bliss eh!

[idleidolidyll]

Is there a web site you copy and paste from?

i did notice that none here have the cojones to tackle the references i posted; instead they fall back on childish superstition, dogma and religious fanaticism like uneducated morons have done for thousands of years

[Mom]

i did notice that none here have the cojones to tackle the references i posted; instead they fall back on childish superstition, dogma and religious fanaticism like uneducated morons have done for thousands of years

Huh?

You missed the p/t.

Dont bother to reply...LOL

[motorbyclist]

what i find interesting is the approach people take to the problem.

to ensure our best chances of survival/success, we should always assume a worst case scenario and prepare for it. engineers/designers do it, bikers who live more than 6 months do it, anyone with a valuable possesions does it.

yet here we are trying to disprove global warming? shouldn't we be trying to prove global warming? that way if it's true we find out about it, and if it's false we can never prove it.

so here we are with all this evidence for it, theories against it, we know our safety margins and what we can best hope to acheive and we know what has to be done to stop things getting worse provided it is really going to happen.
so i put this to you:

if it is true, and we do nothing, we're fucked.
if it's false and we do nothing, we're just going to extend our total oil dependance another 50 years till wars over the stuff or breakthrough new technologies change force us to change anyway

it it's true and we do something, we're much better off for having done something
if it's false and we do something, we end our oil dependancy and create a sustainable lifestyle with better air quality.

so please tell me why we would do nothing rather than something?

either way rising oil prices (among other things) are ruining the global economy

[davereid]

...to ensure our best chances of survival/success, we should always assume a worst case scenario and prepare for it. engineers/designers do it...

yet here we are trying to disprove global warming? shouldn't we be trying to prove global warming? that way if it's true we find out about it, and if it's false we can never prove it.

if it is true, and we do nothing, we're fucked.
if it's false and we do nothing, we're just going to extend our total oil dependance another 50 years till wars over the stuff or breakthrough new technologies change force us to change anyway

it it's true and we do something, we're much better off for having done something
if it's false and we do something, we end our oil dependancy and create a sustainable lifestyle with better air quality.

so please tell me why we would do nothing rather than something?

either way rising oil prices (among other things) are ruining the global economy

IMHO....

Regardless of the evidence regarding global warming, its a great idea that we consider our footprint on the world.

The trouble with Climate Change policy is that it is driven by politics, not engineers.

So, many of our "solutions" may be WORSE than doing nothing.

Example1 - Kyoto.
Carbon trading has to be a cruel joke.

Places like NZ that are keen to avoid Nuclear power, are being cautious about flooding more valleys for Hydro power, are avoiding coal, and have an economy dependant on carbon belching animals will be writing cheques for carbon.

We will be posting billions of dollars to Estonia or Russia, or somewhere that is entirely happy to build nukes without regard to the disposal of waste. Or countries that will cheerfully flood valleys for hydro power without any consideration of the environment.

(The alternative - Levy the tax on carbon at exactly the kyoto rate. But spend it domestically. Use it to improve rail and public transport. Use it to improve roads - flatten them and reduce delays thus saving fuel.)

Example 2 - The Hybrid.
All around the world we are buying Hybrid cars because we think they are better. Some towns only allow hybrids in the CBD because of their lower emissions. But in actuality, a hybrid has lower point-of-use emissions, but higher lifetime emissions. Of course it would ! its got a standard engine, plus an elecric engine, plus a dynamo, plus a massive rare-metal battery. Common sense tells us it cost more environmemtally to make. It will cost more environmentally to dispose of. It weighs more, so it needs more fuel overall just to accelerate its mass.

(The alternative - simply smaller cars, and better public transport.)

Example 3 - Public Transport.
Public Transport has the ability to be both part of the solution, and a massive part of the problem.

That because public transport can be very transport efficient. That when transport routes go everywhere. Thats when there is a bus every 3 minutes, and fares are cheap. But its not very fuel efficient. Because most of the time the bus is empty.

The alternaive is fuel efficient public transport. Thats where the bus waits at the bus stop until its full. Trouble is its not very transport efficient.

Real public tranport manages the worst of both, being neither transport efficient, or fuel efficient.

ie Public Transport = an expensive and fuel inefficient way of travelling slowly from not quite where you are, to not quite where you want to be, at an inconvenient time, in the company of people you may find offensive.

The Solution ?
Abandon social public transport. Concentrate on commuter transport. Move as many people as you can at peak times, in the most efficient manner possible, and abandon the rest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many more rants on this subject available !

I watch the climate change idiots wanting to ban my car, let my mum freeze to death in her pensioner flat, and return us to the dark ages, all so they can propose poorly planned ideeas that won't help !

[motorbyclist]

The trouble with Climate Change policy is that it is driven by politics, not engineers.

+1 (and for the rest too)

and even then there is still too much commercial interest involved

[bobbydazzler]

lol quite amusing really, the bigwigs could have released hydrogen power cars 10 years ago, but no, why money. so to you people that think we should all basically stop burning oil. are you gonna stop riding your bike and buying plastic crash helmets and pretty much stop living. we cant stop the inevitable, just slow it down. and why would the sea levels rise? go put an ice cube in a glass of water, then sit and watch it melt, you may notice something, the glass wont suddenly over flow, water just fills the gap left by the ice