What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Me too! I can't wait for the Palm trees to start sprouting along Lake Erie. Screw Winter.

Doesn't concern me - I like things a little warmer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Garbage = global warming? COME ON.

Come on, Dev...keep up with the argument. The contention by the GW denyers is that humans can't have an impact on the environment, or at least a more elusive thing as climate change. Sometimes seeing is believing....at least for the doubting thomasses.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

An argument that most skeptics make is that people are completely oversimplifying climate. I don't put much faith in my daily weather forecast, why would I put faith in weather forecasts for 50 years in the future?

Well, see now, meterologists & climatologists study PATTERNS of weather & climate change as a basis for PREDICTIONS.

And their actual knowledge base is inherently limited. That said, there is no concensus among climatologists, even though a lot of people claim there is.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Garbage = global warming? COME ON.

Come on, Dev...keep up with the argument. The contention by the GW denyers is that humans can't have an impact on the environment, or at least a more elusive thing as climate change. Sometimes seeing is believing....at least for the doubting thomasses.

Apples and oranges.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Global warming is overblown and there are economic reasons for it. People are trying to sell greenhouse gas reduction technologies. If Gore's buddies can get it mandated, they're even richer.

Given that we haven't exactly defined who these people are who are selling these "gas reduction" technologies (outside of Al Gore's buddies), I can't imagine how those people have more influence to direct a public debate, and indeed to influence government policy than the multinational oil corporations. I dunno - that sounds a little spurious to me.

I do know however that the current US Govt got itself into hot water a little while ago for having one of their lobbyists rewrite climate change reports to exaggerate doubts about the science. That's been confirmed by Dr James Hansen, who was pretty much the guy who brought the issue of GW to the fore in the 1980's.

While "An Inconvenient Truth" has been written off as something of a hack job, I do find this rather interesting.

There is a short clip in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth that shows Hansen being questioned by Al Gore on May 8, 1989, at what appears to be a Congress meeting. Gore criticizes Hansen for apparently contradicting himself in a written testimony on global warming. At that point, Hansen reveals that the last paragraph in the testimony was not written by him, but added by someone else.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Given that we haven't exactly defined who these people are who are selling these "gas reduction" technologies (outside of Al Gore's buddies), I can't imagine how those people have more influence to direct a public debate, and indeed to influence government policy than the multinational oil corporations. I dunno - that sounds a little spurious to me.

I'm in no way standing up for big oil here. Giant drug corporations have less clout than big oil, but that doesn't change the bias they push in Washington.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given that we haven't exactly defined who these people are who are selling these "gas reduction" technologies (outside of Al Gore's buddies), I can't imagine how those people have more influence to direct a public debate, and indeed to influence government policy than the multinational oil corporations. I dunno - that sounds a little spurious to me.

I'm in no way standing up for big oil here. Giant drug corporations have less clout than big oil, but that doesn't change the bias they push in Washington.

But they too have lobbyists with a heck of a lot of money behind them, that's fine - but I'm wondering who these people are pushing these "greenhouse gas reducing technologies" and how they are able to apply more political influence on US energy policy than the oil companies. I say "how" because I really see no evidence of that. There is however plenty of evidence of the other...

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Given that we haven't exactly defined who these people are who are selling these "gas reduction" technologies (outside of Al Gore's buddies), I can't imagine how those people have more influence to direct a public debate, and indeed to influence government policy than the multinational oil corporations. I dunno - that sounds a little spurious to me.

I'm in no way standing up for big oil here. Giant drug corporations have less clout than big oil, but that doesn't change the bias they push in Washington.

But they too have lobbyists with a heck of a lot of money behind them, that's fine - but I'm wondering who these people are pushing these "greenhouse gas reducing technologies" and how they are able to apply more political influence on US energy policy than the oil companies. I say "how" because I really see no evidence of that. There is however plenty of evidence of the other...

Do you not believe that greenhouse reduction has the ability to make some people a LOT of money? It's not that difficult to comprehend. Again, there are lobbyists working against it. I don't dispute that.

l live in Cancer Alley. I have much more vested in emissions reductions than most on this board. In fact, I took a job paying me about $15K less than I could have made elsewhere because energy efficiency and environmental protections are things I am very passionate about.

That said, I cannot say anything more on this.

[jundp 191]

Exactly. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. A huge amount of methane is produced yearly by the flatulence of cattle. Cattle are more prevalent now because of enormous population growth. Carbon dioxide is another huge greenhouse gas and the main subject of sequestration. Each time a person exhales, they release CO2. It may not be THAT much, but it compounds. A grain of sand is tiny, but I've seen some beautiful beaches.

Turning Cow Poop Into Car Power Cuts Harmful Gases

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BELLINGHAM -- Udderly fantastic, you say. An alternative-energy project at Western Washington University would power cars with natural gas harvested from cow manure.

Students at the state university's Vehicle Research Institute have developed a scrubber that removes the corrosive chemicals from the gases released by manure so it can power a natural-gas car.

Eric Leonhardt, director of the institute, said the fuel, which he calls "biomethane," is less flammable than gasoline and produces fewer greenhouse gases than manure left to decompose naturally in fields.

He estimates that the natural gas would cost about half the current price of gasoline to produce, but emphasizes that that is not the real benefit of cow power.

"If we can get farmers to put in anaerobic digesters, that's going to be the environmental impact," he said. "The gas is really an aside. The real impact is getting manure out of the water supply."

This new kind of natural gas isn't ready to be pumped into your car at a service station -- yet. Only one farm in Washington has started turning its cow manure into natural gas, although the process is catching on more quickly in some other states where utility companies are helping farmers buy anaerobic digesters.

An anaerobic digester on Darryl Vander Haak's dairy farm in Lynden processes manure from about 1,000 cows into electricity to sell to Puget Sound Energy. At full capacity, the digester can produce enough energy to power 180 homes.

The raw biogas contains highly corrosive hydrogen sulfide, so it must be processed before it can be used in motor vehicles that run on natural gas.

Leonhardt says his institute is working on creating a commercially viable bioscrubber to turn that idea into a reality.

One of Leonhardt's students, Matt Wilson, said the scrubber they have developed from PVC pipe and spare parts removes both hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from methane gas. The gas is then compressed before it can be pumped into a special natural-gas-powered car.

Waste produced by 15 cows has been enough to run the institute's natural-gas car for 250 to 300 miles, Wilson said.

Leonhardt said to convert a standard engine to cow power would be expensive, possibly costing thousands of dollars.

But Wilson seemed confident biomethane would eventually be a fuel source for cars.

"It's not going to take care of the whole fuel need," he said. "It can't replace gasoline, but it can play a big part in ending our dependency on fossil fuels."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/272065_cowpower30.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given that we haven't exactly defined who these people are who are selling these "gas reduction" technologies (outside of Al Gore's buddies), I can't imagine how those people have more influence to direct a public debate, and indeed to influence government policy than the multinational oil corporations. I dunno - that sounds a little spurious to me.

I'm in no way standing up for big oil here. Giant drug corporations have less clout than big oil, but that doesn't change the bias they push in Washington.

But they too have lobbyists with a heck of a lot of money behind them, that's fine - but I'm wondering who these people are pushing these "greenhouse gas reducing technologies" and how they are able to apply more political influence on US energy policy than the oil companies. I say "how" because I really see no evidence of that. There is however plenty of evidence of the other...

Do you not believe that greenhouse reduction has the ability to make some people a LOT of money? It's not that difficult to comprehend. Again, there are lobbyists working against it. I don't dispute that.

l live in Cancer Alley. I have much more vested in emissions reductions than most on this board. In fact, I took a job paying me about $15K less than I could have made elsewhere because energy efficiency and environmental protections are things I am very passionate about.

That said, I cannot say anything more on this.

Some people sure. I just dispute the idea that they have anything approaching an equal influence on US energy policy. That has always been, and continues to be the domain of big oil.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Exactly. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. A huge amount of methane is produced yearly by the flatulence of cattle. Cattle are more prevalent now because of enormous population growth. Carbon dioxide is another huge greenhouse gas and the main subject of sequestration. Each time a person exhales, they release CO2. It may not be THAT much, but it compounds. A grain of sand is tiny, but I've seen some beautiful beaches.

Turning Cow Poop Into Car Power Cuts Harmful Gases

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BELLINGHAM -- Udderly fantastic, you say. An alternative-energy project at Western Washington University would power cars with natural gas harvested from cow manure.

Students at the state university's Vehicle Research Institute have developed a scrubber that removes the corrosive chemicals from the gases released by manure so it can power a natural-gas car.

Eric Leonhardt, director of the institute, said the fuel, which he calls "biomethane," is less flammable than gasoline and produces fewer greenhouse gases than manure left to decompose naturally in fields.

He estimates that the natural gas would cost about half the current price of gasoline to produce, but emphasizes that that is not the real benefit of cow power.

"If we can get farmers to put in anaerobic digesters, that's going to be the environmental impact," he said. "The gas is really an aside. The real impact is getting manure out of the water supply."

This new kind of natural gas isn't ready to be pumped into your car at a service station -- yet. Only one farm in Washington has started turning its cow manure into natural gas, although the process is catching on more quickly in some other states where utility companies are helping farmers buy anaerobic digesters.

An anaerobic digester on Darryl Vander Haak's dairy farm in Lynden processes manure from about 1,000 cows into electricity to sell to Puget Sound Energy. At full capacity, the digester can produce enough energy to power 180 homes.

The raw biogas contains highly corrosive hydrogen sulfide, so it must be processed before it can be used in motor vehicles that run on natural gas.

Leonhardt says his institute is working on creating a commercially viable bioscrubber to turn that idea into a reality.

One of Leonhardt's students, Matt Wilson, said the scrubber they have developed from PVC pipe and spare parts removes both hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from methane gas. The gas is then compressed before it can be pumped into a special natural-gas-powered car.

Waste produced by 15 cows has been enough to run the institute's natural-gas car for 250 to 300 miles, Wilson said.

Leonhardt said to convert a standard engine to cow power would be expensive, possibly costing thousands of dollars.

But Wilson seemed confident biomethane would eventually be a fuel source for cars.

"It's not going to take care of the whole fuel need," he said. "It can't replace gasoline, but it can play a big part in ending our dependency on fossil fuels."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/272065_cowpower30.html

Another similar science being used is the capture of methane and other small-molecule hydrocarbon gases from landfills. There is no one thing that will get us away from petroleum, but we are starting to find alternatives that can help us get there.

Most biofuels are not the answer as the fertilizer needed to grow the corn or cellulosic material damages ocean ecosystems in an extreme manner.

[GaryC 7]

I hardly follow you. Your ego never ceases to amaze me. I rebut things that are lies, BY ANYONE, not just you. You bring up Hillary anytime you can, not me.

It's a public message board Gary - why should I ignore you? Skip the baiting, it's so childish. If you don't like what I say, ignore me - I'm sure i can get over it.

So what I say IS important to you. I thought so.

Oh and BTW. I don't bait you. I just speak what I feel. Your the one with the problem with what I say. I guess that is why you feel compelled to come back with anything I say about Hillary. It seems you must be very insecure about Hillary or you wouldn't be coming back at me. But I do have fun watching you pop a vein whenever I mention her. I find your egomania very entertaining. Please carry on.

[no name 1]

I hardly follow you. Your ego never ceases to amaze me. I rebut things that are lies, BY ANYONE, not just you. You bring up Hillary anytime you can, not me.

It's a public message board Gary - why should I ignore you? Skip the baiting, it's so childish. If you don't like what I say, ignore me - I'm sure i can get over it.

So what I say IS important to you. I thought so.

Oh and BTW. I don't bait you. I just speak what I feel. Your the one with the problem with what I say. I guess that is why you feel compelled to come back with anything I say about Hillary. It seems you must be very insecure about Hillary or you wouldn't be coming back at me. But I do have fun watching you pop a vein whenever I mention her. I find your egomania very entertaining. Please carry on.

:crying:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

lmao

Gary you mean old man you made her cry

[no name 1]

lmao

Gary you mean old man you made her cry

Get your t-shirt ready Gupt.

Edited December 12, 2007 by devilette