The so called "Science" Channel

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

So the other day, after my dose of FutureWeapons on the Military Channel, I flip to the Science channel, and they had a special on "Eco Fuels".

Now the show itself was interesting, however it was laced with "global warming" (or global whoring as I like to call it) "facts".

They talked about a company who makes jet fuel from trap grease. They went on and on about how much CO2 petroleum jet fuel produces, yada yada. Then the scientist interviewed described how the synthesized molecule was identical to the jet fuel molecule. Here, those of us who actually paid attention in chemistry are wondering HOW PRAY TELL does that reduce CO2?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti alternative fuels, they have potential, non-global warming benefits. However, I wish people would stop this hysteria and use some real science for a change. Its like the Salem witch trials. I can just see the day they kick down my door for not being 'carbon neutral'.

No Al, I'm not giving you money so you can 'save the planet'. If I cared that much I'd just plant a tree. The seeds are free.

/rant

[Marswolf]

Back some time ago, I read an article that basically said that planting trees in temperate areas doesn't help - it hurts. You gotta plant a tree in the tropics.

Maybe I should go cut down some trees in city parks?

[Guest flyfishtn]

Maybe it is really global cooling.

http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

[saintsfanbrian]

Didn't Penn and Teller do a BS on alternative fuels/Eco Wacko's? I seem to recall that one where they were getting people to separate their trash into 7 different bins for recycling.

Oh well, I guess a nobel prize for global warming counts for something.

[Guest bkelm18]

Didn't Penn and Teller do a BS on alternative fuels/Eco Wacko's? I seem to recall that one where they were getting people to separate their trash into 7 different bins for recycling.

Oh well, I guess a nobel prize for global warming counts for something.

I kinda lost a lot of faith in the Nobel Prize after that nutjob was awarded one.

[Marswolf]

I kinda lost a lot of faith in the Nobel Prize after that nutjob was awarded one.

Which nutjob? Several nutjobs have been awarded the Peace Prize.

[Guest bkelm18]

Which nutjob? Several nutjobs have been awarded the Peace Prize.

The same one who invented the internet.

[The Rabbi]

Didn't Penn and Teller do a BS on alternative fuels/Eco Wacko's? I seem to recall that one where they were getting people to separate their trash into 7 different bins for recycling.

Oh well, I guess a nobel prize for global warming counts for something.

The one I remember was their campaign against "di-hydrogen oxide", how it was in everything, it was in all the rivers and lakes. Boy, some people felt real stupid when it was pointed out they had signed a petition to ban water.

[Im Neero]

Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that there is di-hydrogen oxide in my water?!?! Everyone that comes in contact with that stuff dies!!

[The Rabbi]

Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that there is di-hydrogen oxide in my water?!?! Everyone that comes in contact with that stuff dies!!

Not only that, it constitutes the largest "greenhouse gas" known! Ban it now. For the children!

[Guest flyfishtn]

Here is the Penn and Teller video.

[ame]

[/ame]

[Guest db99wj]

Amazing, they just follow along.

[Guest dotsun]

Which nutjob? Several nutjobs have been awarded the Peace Prize.

+1. That prize has lost any sense of credibility with me. It's basically a leftist love fest.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

http://www.dhmo.org

[strickj]

if a honey in a bikini ask my to sign anything,and i mean ANYTHING i would :P

[Guest C4Dave]

They talked about a company who makes jet fuel from trap grease. They went on and on about how much CO2 petroleum jet fuel produces, yada yada. Then the scientist interviewed described how the synthesized molecule was identical to the jet fuel molecule. Here, those of us who actually paid attention in chemistry are wondering HOW PRAY TELL does that reduce CO2?

You are right that the same amount of CO2 is released, but the grease fuel is "carbon neutral". The grease came from soybeans, cotton seeds, or canola. These plants were grown in the last year, and used CO2 from the air to grow. So the CO2 burned this year from the grease was removed from the air last year to form the oil/grease. Therefore it is carbon neutral. No new CO2 was added to the atmosphere.

When fossil fuel is burned, it is releasing CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. That is why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have doubled in the last hundred years or so.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

You are right that the same amount of CO2 is released, but the grease fuel is "carbon neutral". The grease came from soybeans, cotton seeds, or canola. These plants were grown in the last year, and used CO2 from the air to grow. So the CO2 burned this year from the grease was removed from the air last year to form the oil/grease. Therefore it is carbon neutral. No new CO2 was added to the atmosphere.

When fossil fuel is burned, it is releasing CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. That is why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have doubled in the last hundred years or so.

Actually, the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the oceans. Its like a giant can of coke, as it gets warmer, the oceans release CO2 and as the earth cools, they absorb it. Human contribution is some around 35ppm of the 385 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. And we're on a general upward trend coming out of an ice-age, typical for our time period.

However, apples to apples. based on the amount of foliage, there is no guarantee that if we start burning all 'carbon neutral' fuels it will all be absorbed. Based on natural weather patterns, crop rotations, disease etc, can affect that, as well, plants can pull carbon from the ground, that may have been there millions of years. What if all the CO2 from our 'carbon neutral' fuels accumulates at the poles, where there are no plants and melts them? Doesn't make sense? Well its just as possible as every other global warming theory. Is it possible? Sure. It's not conclusive though. There's much science that suggests otherwise. People thought the Sun revolved around earth at one time because 'important' people said so, and it made sense, but the science wasn't there.

Global Warming science assumes A+B=C Therefore A=B, which is a faulty conclusion.