It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I get 70 mpg on my 250 cc honda helix.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Humbug. We are not ignorant, the rest of the world is looking for a way to strike America and global warming as in it a solution, but a very weak one at best. Don't be surprised for a second if we are smarter than others because we know the true nature of global warming. Understand, we did not become a great nation because we are stupid.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   


As far as hydrogen production being fuel efficient...
Super-Efficient Electrolysis


Linky no worky...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the "science" of global warming. We have less than 100 years of good recorded weather data from a rock that is 6 billion years old. We know that the weather has changed in the past and that humans had nothing to do with those changes. According to the current data the Earth "may" have warmed up to 1 degree total in a system that is plus or minus one degree of error. Go back 30 years and you will see that these same scientists were warning the world of an oncoming ice age - well that didn't happen so they changed gears. Scientific data also suggests that the sun and other planets in our solar system are slightly warmer - like Mars for example. I'm sorry but I believe most scientists involved in this study (on both sides) are using it for political purposes and it is not only smart to question these studies and the motives of these scientists but it is a responsibility.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the "science" of global warming. We have less than 100 years of good recorded weather data from a rock that is 6 billion years old. We know that the weather has changed in the past and that humans had nothing to do with those changes. According to the current data the Earth "may" have warmed up to 1 degree total in a system that is plus or minus one degree of error. Go back 30 years and you will see that these same scientists were warning the world of an oncoming ice age - well that didn't happen so they changed gears. Scientific data also suggests that the sun and other planets in our solar system are slightly warmer - like Mars for example. I'm sorry but I believe most scientists involved in this study (on both sides) are using it for political purposes and it is not only smart to question these studies and the motives of these scientists but it is a responsibility.


I think it's reasonable to question as well. I did, and I made my decision. I find it odd to think that you distrust global observations that have been made with 1000 times the accuracy as a study of extraterrestial planets, but cite temps on other planets as a key fact. So... we can't possibly have accurate data for this planet, but we can for others? This is part of your arguement? I dunno about that... that seems real odd.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
lolll the outburst of the volcano PINATUBA puts moore co2 in the air as we produced teh last 200 years!!!!!.....global warming is a natural process...ofcourse you canput human role in it..but it wo'nt make any differance in the natural process!



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The Saturn Ion has a supercharger. Turbo chargers work by using the waste exhuast from your engine to spin a turbine to push air into cylinders to allow more gas to enter the piston. This then consumes more gas by way of forced induction.

A superscharger is an electric motor that gives you horsepower by using your cars battery power to spin a turbine to force air into your cylinders. Again, uses more gas. This is more efficient than a turbocharger, yet, still consumes more gas.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Volcanoes produce millions of tons of C02 the US alone produces Billions of tons. That is 1 million million tons. That is a lot.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
the governments of the big knows that the process is natural....the methane bells in the sea's are coming free too....the only reason they make it a problem is the trading of co2 emmisions!!!!!!! a superb market to make profit!...after all it is all gread.....



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
The Saturn Ion has a supercharger. Turbo chargers work by using the waste exhuast from your engine to spin a turbine to push air into cylinders to allow more gas to enter the piston. This then consumes more gas by way of forced induction.

A superscharger is an electric motor that gives you horsepower by using your cars battery power to spin a turbine to force air into your cylinders. Again, uses more gas. This is more efficient than a turbocharger, yet, still consumes more gas.


WHAT?????????????????????????

OMG... ok, no disrespect... but did you even look ANY of this up???

A supercharger is NOT electric driven, unless you're a fool and bought one of those ebay specials.

Forced induction works by both raising the effective compression ratio & the amount of oxygen in the motor, and by allowing a motor to have a volumetric efficiency of 100%. This is not possible without forced induction.

A turbcharger, or exhaust driven supercharger, as they were first referred to, is the same principle.

A supercharger is driven off the main crank of the motor, and it doesn't make the car consume extra fuel, it makes the car use a small portion of it's horsepower to generate a large amount extra. For instance, my car pushes 20psi, and this requires about 40hp, but generates well over 120. In a turbos case, it is an obstruction in the exhaust system at low rpms, which costs it horsepower.

However, none of this occurs at part throttle due to wastegate and bypass valve operation. At 60mph my car consumes 1hp at cruise. Where the SLIGHT loss of gas mileage comes in, is becuase off boost, you're driving a lower compression car.

A turbochager is more efficient then a blower becuase it's reclaimign lost energy. Similar to what a hybrid's braking system would do. Yet different.

I really didn't mean for this to turn into a car discussion, but the hybrid thing bothers me. It's not even close to what people think, yet it gets all the good press.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by sp00ner]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
take a look at germany..the want a law that big emmision cars are paying moore tax....nice! but the germans will sell that cars wich will be driving than in romania ect ect.....instead of schrapping them....the problem stays! ..but in other country's.......nice deals for the car manufactures...and labor.....but defenatly ot solving the problems!....thats the hoax!...and we pay for it!



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
lolll the outburst of the volcano PINATUBA puts moore co2 in the air as we produced teh last 200 years!!!!!.....global warming is a natural process...ofcourse you canput human role in it..but it wo'nt make any differance in the natural process!


lol... yet another non-researched fact. Please show me the data that you have on this, so I can show you the actual data. The cars in just Hawaii equal the output of Kiluea year for year...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
take a look at germany..the want a law that big emmision cars are paying moore tax....nice! but the germans will sell that cars wich will be driving than in romania ect ect.....instead of schrapping them....the problem stays! ..but in other country's.......nice deals for the car manufactures...and labor.....but defenatly ot solving the problems!....thats the hoax!...and we pay for it!


We already have a tax, and have had a tax, for cars that conusme too much gas, which is also an emissions tax of sorts. It on almost every sports car and SUV sold here. US that is.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 20-2-2007 by sp00ner]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
oil companie Shell holds the patent of the stirling motor since 1950.....then ask youreself ..wo rules and make the law's...we can live without oil! and natural gas....the technics are availyble...but money wins afterall...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00ner

Originally posted by zerotime
I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the "science" of global warming. We have less than 100 years of good recorded weather data from a rock that is 6 billion years old. We know that the weather has changed in the past and that humans had nothing to do with those changes. According to the current data the Earth "may" have warmed up to 1 degree total in a system that is plus or minus one degree of error. Go back 30 years and you will see that these same scientists were warning the world of an oncoming ice age - well that didn't happen so they changed gears. Scientific data also suggests that the sun and other planets in our solar system are slightly warmer - like Mars for example. I'm sorry but I believe most scientists involved in this study (on both sides) are using it for political purposes and it is not only smart to question these studies and the motives of these scientists but it is a responsibility.


I think it's reasonable to question as well. I did, and I made my decision. I find it odd to think that you distrust global observations that have been made with 1000 times the accuracy as a study of extraterrestial planets, but cite temps on other planets as a key fact. So... we can't possibly have accurate data for this planet, but we can for others? This is part of your arguement? I dunno about that... that seems real odd.


Not at all, but that is kind of my point. When looking at the big picture every single variable must be accounted for and in all global warming studies that say "We are doing it" they leave out the data that does not agree with their finding like past temperature changes and solar flare increase and possible temperature rises on other planets. That's my problem. You can make studies look anyway you want when you pick and choose what data you will use and then only use data that supports your theory. When you read the global warming studies they can sound very convincing but they do not address anything that I just talked about so then you have to ask why do they not address these issues?




[edit on 20-2-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Global warming doesn't exist. The the greenhouse gasses are not getting trapped. The Earth has a system to clean itself.


The only thing changing is our sun. Climate changes are happening on all the planets in the solar system.

www.space.com...


Also these type of weather changes have happened many times in the past..

So, stop worrying. There are 100's of volcano's that emit more gasses than humans... Earth replenishes itself, it always has.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
This may seem like a stupid question but can anyone explain exactly why Global Warming is bad for the planet and humanity?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I would agree completely if china and India don’t tow the line from the start then there really is no point. It gives people the opt out clause from having to be more energy efficient. As with the Christian Aid report exposing UK company’s that do not have to declare over seas co2 emissions. Do the scientists know about this? Which figures have they been doing their math with? No wonder they can’t seem to agree.

Why should any of us be bothered, people will be more likely to just submit, pay the coming green taxes and carry on polluting the same way they have been.

Here’s another angle on the car side of things to think about.

G-Wiz you want no? Makes sense, easy to charge gets to the shops and back, no congestion charge to pay, but hold on, oh I see, doesn’t exactly do much for the CREDIBILITY does it, not exactly your 4x4 BMW. That’s the problem and the only problem. Who ever designed that model, not the engine or the way it runs, just the way it looks, should be put behind bars. People just will not buy something like that. Now this is more like it, electric Lexus, but where is the advertising? Oh, read the article it might have something to do with....


www.evuk.co.uk

C) And try, if you will, typing the keywords:
"electric Lexus" + "Minority Report"
...in the world's No. 1 Search Engine ie.Google and - surprise surprise - ZERO results are returned. The silence speaks volumes...

Yes indeed - it's yet again all-too apparent, folks, that the world's media still can't bring itself to use that most hated and heretical of words: "electric"....

- nor can our automotive powers-that-be yet stomach the idea of the public at large getting too turned on by the sight of sexy supercars powered by effete and effeminate (..right?) electric motors instead of thrusting, throbbing pistons, cranks and gaskets....


Sickening, is it not.

Now imagine this: its 18hrs, most people are starting to get in from work, put the news on, kids are running around screaming, the smell of dinner in the air, and suddenly the best commercial in the world comes on. You know the kind of commercial im on about its cool, intelligent, it has smart beautiful people in it doing a smart and clever thing. Their driving a new electric/hydrogen state of the art car, small and compact and aimed at those smart, intelligent, need something to go A to B kind of sheeple people.

Next day EVERYONES talking about that great commercial and those great new styles and how good it is to be green.

Instead as mentioned earlier we are bombarded with over priced chunks of oil guzzling metal alloys. That even if they run more efficiently then before they still don’t come close to the kind of non-polluting transport we need. On top of that even though these new cars do run more efficiently its only if you keep them regularly maintained, at cost, otherwise the efficiency goes out the window. Plus they go at speeds we just do not need or use. Cars should all be governed imo to about 70 mph. there’s just no need for speed for the average Joe in his car. Less speed also means less pollution and more importantly more lives saved.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
oil companie Shell holds the patent of the stirling motor since 1950.....then ask youreself ..wo rules and make the law's...we can live without oil! and natural gas....the technics are availyble...but money wins afterall...


Umm... wow.. the amount of opinion vs. research on this thread is amazing...

You are aware that there are SERIOUS issues with a stirling engine for a car, right? You still need to provide a heat souce from combustion, solar, or nuclear power...

Also, as far as I can tell Phillips holds the patents and is actively developing the concept in the Netherlands.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join