Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by WAYNE3298

If a fuel contains 1000 BTUH per hour per pound you can't get 1100 or 1050 or even 1020 BTUH per pound out of it. That proves my point. Efficiency is a different story. At one time the efficiency of the internal combustion engine was about 30%. Better fuel mileage came from increasing efficiency not increasing the BTUH content or as a result of mixing a fuel with a lower BTUH content. What I'm saying is backed up with mathematics and if you are schooled in math you should know that.

Each and every time you changed the subject I asked you about. I asked you to back up your post saying that I didn't clearly show the points I made. I have no problemaddressing anything you have to say but moving the goal posts and changing the subject has to be pointed out.

If a fuel contains 1000 BTUH per hour per pound you can't get 1100 or 1050 or even 1020 BTUH per pound out of it. That proves my point. Efficiency is a different story. At one time the efficiency of the internal combustion engine was about 30%. Better fuel mileage came from increasing efficiency not increasing the BTUH content or as a result of mixing a fuel with a lower BTUH content. What I'm saying is backed up with mathematics and if you are schooled in math you should know that.

Originally Posted by WAYNE3298

We know the heat content of all the fuels. From that we know the limits and that point is not arguable so I'm not going to get into that. Adding renewable non "fossil" fuel isn't what the green new deal is about. The green new deal is to illuminate "fossil" fuels and that is nuts.
Since the world is going to end according to the brilliant author of the green new deal in 12 years what sense does it make to implement it?

So in other words you can't back up and explain your previous statement. No problem

Originally Posted by WAYNE3298

We know the heat content of all the fuels. From that we know the limits and that point is not arguable so I'm not going to get into that. Adding renewable non "fossil" fuel isn't what the green new deal is about. The green new deal is to illuminate "fossil" fuels and that is nuts.
Since the world is going to end according to the brilliant author of the green new deal in 12 years what sense does it make to implement it?

LOL

We know the heat content of all the fuels. From that we know the limits and that point is not arguable so I'm not going to get into that. Adding renewable non "fossil" fuel isn't what the green new deal is about. The green new deal is to illuminate "fossil" fuels and that is nuts.
Since the world is going to end according to the brilliant author of the green new deal in 12 years what sense does it make to implement it?

Originally Posted by WAYNE3298

Page you have shown and pointed out things to your satisfaction. Your satisfaction doesn't count when you are trying to convince others. There is a lot to this subject you or nobody else knows for sure and that makes most of your points a theory and theories are simply not facts.

Wayne I showed beyond a shadow of a doubt what I said in the previous post that you seem to be referring to. If you want to dispute them I would love to see you back up your statement.

Also I am glad to see that you did not put the spurious Jefferson statement in quotes because he did not say that. Also it is actually a bit ironic that you would make it given what he was actually referring to.

Just to put things into perspective and to make it easier for you here is the post of mine just prior to your post quoted above,

"I have pointed out how automakers want to increase the percentage of ethanol in gas to increase mileage.

I have pointed out where in some cases that it is cheaper per mile using E85.

I showed how E85 can be used for better performance. Usually people who want better performance have an engine with a higher compression ratio.

Again you neglect the 22 million+ flex fuel autos on the road.

You keep repeating the same tired points that do not reflect the true nature of the fuel. I am happy to respond to your repetitive replies. It just shows that it is willing ignorance.


Did I mention that you can drink it in its pure form? Maybe it is better than french toast."

Originally Posted by BNME8EZ

So in your mind the deniers came up with the idea of the "Carbon TAX". The deniers came up with the Paris accord. Gee, those sound a lot like government issues and political agendas.

Listening to science and acting on it is not politicizing science.

Taking down scientific websites like the Trump Administration did is politicizing science.

Being angry that climate reports are being released by your own govt is politicizing science.

Setting up a group of scientists handpicked to counter several govt panels and saying their findings may not be released is politicizing science.

Appointing people like Scott Pruitt is politicizing science.

Originally Posted by Mike19

You should just fix your leaks rather than add gas every month. That would certainly help with climate change.

Good point! Those examples were just being used as an analogy. The examples I gave would not be mandated by the EPA to be repaired if they were residential systems. Do you think it would be a good idea for the EPA to tighten regulations in residential situations?

Originally Posted by BNME8EZ

I posted this on the other Green New Deal thread so just as well post it here. While the article is telling the comments after are even better. This is from 2010 and so are most of the comments but the last few are from 17 and 18 so not new but not 9 years old either. I didn't read all of the comments but quite a few. The back and forth reminded me of some that happens on this site.

www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

Here is another example from this article you seem to think so highly of.

"The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”."

My first thoughts were this is technically correct but this is a website meant for lay people and scientists many times use different language in these cases but it is much funnier than that when you read this comment by the author of the article below.

The following is from an official position document on climate change. Which makes it even funnier.

"Although I am not a climatologist, as a scientist I know how to do thorough and objective research. (BTW, skepticism is a key ingredient of true scientists.) In my capacity as a scientist, I have read literally hundreds of reports and studies on this climate issue, from numerous experts. After digesting these studies and reports, it is very clear to me that AGW is still a scientifically unresolved matter. This is what is called a hypothesis.”"

You can't make this stuff up.

Originally Posted by pageyjim

Let's talk about what you think about the water shortage in South Africa then.

Are you saying that California is well managed? Are you saying that all droughts are equal?

Why do some people with ref leaks only need to be charged every 2-3 years and why do some not last a month? That would be a good question given your stated logic.

You should just fix your leaks rather than add gas every month. That would certainly help with climate change.

Originally Posted by GorillaTight

Man, was my initial post regarding you accurate or what?

Dude.. the ignore feature works well. If you will not engage him, he will go away. They always do.
Well, I guess if you're enjoying handing him his a**. By all means, please, continue. I've personally had enough of his long winded non sense.


Sent from my LG-K540 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey

Wow; I bet he wasn't expecting That!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4

PHM
----------------

I think it had to do with using the name of an old Greek philosopher and the translation of his name could be used as calling the Pope a simpleton more or less.

Wow; I bet he wasn't expecting That!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4

PHM
----------------

Originally Posted by pageyjim

. . . . . The Pope at the time took some wording that Galileo used as a personal affront and had Galileo tried by the Inquisition . . . .

Poodle the left isn't interested in alternatives. If you read the green new deal you will see that the main purpose is to blame the US as the main source of pollution worldwide. This indictment is coming from people that hate this country and don't know their own butt from a hole in the ground.

I have an alternate New Green Deal plan.

On the 1000 miles / first-step concept - let's first greatly subsidize solar reflective white metal roofs. And to a slightly lesser extend - white solar reflective roofs of all kinds. And to a slightly lesser extent - solar reflective roofs of all colors.

This would greatly reduce the use of fossil-fuel feedstocks for making asphalt based roofing products. Those feedstocks not used for roofing products can be catalyzed into fuels and lubricants.

And it would reduce cooling costs nationwide. Let's project that the reduction in cooling costs would be 25% although in my experience it is higher.

Assuming the substantial use of attrition - let's call that The First 25 Year Step.

Then we can assess actual results data and finalize our Second 25 Year Step plans.

How about that? You did ask for an alternative Ms. Cortez.

Originally Posted by BNME8EZ

I posted this on the other Green New Deal thread so just as well post it here. While the article is telling the comments after are even better. This is from 2010 and so are most of the comments but the last few are from 17 and 18 so not new but not 9 years old either. I didn't read all of the comments but quite a few. The back and forth reminded me of some that happens on this site.

www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

Another lie or very misleading aspect of this article.

"What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time?"

The issue with Galileo's stance was heliocentrism. Copernicus came out with his heliocentric model about 100 years prior. Kepler published his heliocentric model app 40 years before Galileo. Modern science was in its early growing stages at that time and the Church along with Martin Luther was very against heliocentric models and the Church still wielded much political power back then. Some scientists were burned at the stake. The issue with Galileo was that the Church had a preferred model from another astronomer at the time and Galileo was able to publish about both models but not to show a preference. The Pope at the time took some wording that Galileo used as a personal affront and had Galileo tried by the Inquisition. There was an order of priests that were very powerful and against modern teachings.

In the end this shows the author you quote as being either uninformed himself or he wants to mislead his uninformed readers by feeding them what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by BNME8EZ

I posted this on the other Green New Deal thread so just as well post it here. While the article is telling the comments after are even better. This is from 2010 and so are most of the comments but the last few are from 17 and 18 so not new but not 9 years old either. I didn't read all of the comments but quite a few. The back and forth reminded me of some that happens on this site.

www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

Another lie or very misleading point on this article.

"I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these."


The article it is talking about gives a short answer for the listed concerns but each short answer is a link to a choice of two further explanations. One being basic and the other intermediate. Hardly a cursory answer to the listed concerns.

Originally Posted by GorillaTight

Man, was my initial post regarding you accurate or what?

Just pointing out the irony and hypocrisy that needed to be said.

Originally Posted by pageyjim

You are trying to make an argument against consensus and in doing so just now you said That I am the only one that doesn't get your posts.

This thread would essentially be a bubble if not for me.

Man, was my initial post regarding you accurate or what?

Originally Posted by BBeerme

"As a resolution" must be your qualifier (?). Like I said, the dems have been scrambling to do damage control to the whacked out AOC.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...w-deal-details

"On Feb. 5, the congressional office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a new blog entry under “energy issues” detailing her "Green New Deal" proposal and answering “frequently asked questions.”

The page, announcing an 8:30 a.m. launch on Feb. 7, is now gone, and a top adviser suggested Friday it was actually authored and distributed by the GOP.

By the afternoon of Feb. 7, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., removed the document from her website without explanation but following backlash and even ridicule over the radical plans outlined within it, including a call to "eliminate emissions from cows or air travel" — which would functionally ban the latter — and to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.” "

There has been one final document that has been put up for a vote. YOU pretending you don't know which one is just another silly response from you.