Redstate

I have had quite a few debates with global warming believers. I pose them these questions:

If a lot of scientists believed the Earth was heading for an ice age, what would be the solution to warming the planet? Would you support the increased burning of fossil fuels to warm the Earth? Would scientists be able to calcualte just how much we should increase CO2 without over doing it? What if 20-30 years from now, the Earth suffers a large incident that causes rapid cooling of the atmosphere (catastrophic volcanic eruption, comet or asteroid impact, for example). Wouldn't it be ironic that the very CO2 we took out of the atmosphere now would have moderated the cooling so we didn't starve due to crop failure?

I don't believe that CO2 has major effects on the Earth's temperature. I do know that this gas is critical for plant growth. If you doubt this, google 'greenhouse CO2 generator". You will find many companies that see equipment to increase the CO2 level in greenhouses to several time the concentration in the atmosphere. The plants love it. With increased CO2 plants grow bigger, stronger, faster, produce more food. Trees (for all you tree huggers out there) benifit greatly from increased CO2 in the air. These are some points I use when I defend my position on CO2 causing global warming. By the way, water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse effect on the Earth, CO2 is somehwere betwee 1%-2%. Human activities are responsible for a very small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Virtually all the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural in origin. That is why I don't buy the global warming crisis.

John Wayne

n/t

And I think you make the point quite eloquently. One of the greatest fualts of our political system is that there is a rush to do "something" regardless of the long-term implications of said action.

Global warming hysteria is just one of the many latest areas that politicians have no right to meddle in because of this perverse incentive.

Hey simpson316,
Just wanted to publicly apologize to you for earlier comments about you. I was quite distraught when I frist got on this site. I wanted to do something! Ideas hatched in anger rarely are worth a hoot, definitely the case in what I first posted! I do have a lot of passion, and anyone questioning my conservatism sets me off instantly. Not an excuse, but the truth. If you knew me well, you'd know that would be one of the easiest of my buttons to push. I have fought liberalism in private and in public. I had an ongoing battle with one of my son's teachers when we lived in Washington. The battle field was the editorial page of the Colville, WA newspaper. She was a Marxist who was rabidly anti-war. I had 2 sons at the time serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a brutal word fight, but I think I got the best of her. I am not the type to sit quietly and take the left's B.S. That is why my first posts were, looking back on it, not in any way logical or keeping with my beliefs. I think as you get to know me better it might make sense...I was a bit off the deep end. Thanks for helping to my senses. Hopefully my postings will be more in keeping with conservative values.

John Wayne

I'm pretty new to blogging. How do you master reply? I went to the help section of this site, and didn't find much of anything on blogging mechanics. Is there any where else info like that is posted?

John Wayne

Thanks, will do.

John Wayne

Not enough emphasis on that when considering alternative transportation energy. It's not just that it may be hard to find hydrogen across the country. The rotary engine burned gasolene, but failed acceptance when so few mechanics were willing to learn to "tinker" with the engine. If heavy duty diesels weren't so common, even the diesel car would not be nearly so attractive. (I might even mention the failure of air-cooled engines in spite of their weight/simplicity advantages.) Let's face it, the piston IC engine is the major transportation power source for the next few generations. (Consider, it's been a full generation since algore labeled it "the greatest threat to mankind", to no discernable effect.)

I'm somewhat of a skeptic about global warming as well, but very concerned about energy and the importance of cheap energy to maintain a modern wealthy nation. You're point about the 18 gallons of gas is a good one. There is a lot of energy in a gallon of gasoline, it provides a huge amplification of the mechanical labor that human beings can do.

Certain things cannot easily use alternative energies. You might be able to use lithium batteries to drive around town, but I imagine a coast-to-coast electric passenger plane would not be practical (note that Warren Buffet has been buying railroad stock...hmmm). Even an electric tractor might not be practical, and let's not forget how important it is to power farm machinery.

If petroleum does run out, we can liquify coal. Extract coal gas, then fire the remaining coke with steam to make town gas (carbon monoxide + hydrogen), town gas can be turned into methane + water by an industrial process, methane can be polymerized into liquid hydrocarbon. It's not cheap or simple, although processing crude petroleum is not simple either.

Practically I don't think there is one magical solution that solves the problem. There is a collection of 5% solutions, and we should do a bunch of those! Drill in Alaska, build more nuclear plants, use energy more efficiently (I think market forces are good at solving that problem). Kinda the stuff that most experts have been saying, just not the dramatic radical actions that political extremists like.

We should be building breeder reactors. U-235 is only 0.7 percent of Uranium. Breeder reactors let you burn U-238 and Thorium -- a 200 or 300 fold increase in nuclear fuel supply!

Nuclear fusion? After all these decades of pooring research into this, I just don't believe in it.

Solar power? Yeah annoying hippies go on about it, but if I was going to guess how mankind powers its society in 500 years I'd say it will be solar.

More efficient engine technology would be helpful. We know that turbines are more efficient than IC piston engines. Thus far, it's not trivial to power a care with a turbine, but it has been done. I believe burning fuel in an engine is ultimately more efficient than running a motor off stored electricity. But then again, making electricity tends to be the easiest way to use alternative fuels and energy sources, so maybe that will be the cheap resource someday.

Volunteer
This post is the best, considered, informative post I have read on this subject in weeks.
We need to read and heed this post. The stakes are getting higher and higher in the poker games of prices, costs and controls.
We stand on the edge of price controls, wage and food controls and then rationing. If anything goes wrong, your fault, my fault or the rest of the teetering Global markets goes wrong, the end result will be, as predicted many times, a set of conditions that this USA generation cannot deal with.
Combine the present Candidates for election, with a true oil crisis ALA the 70s with a debt recall ALA the 1930s and we have a true set of untenable conditions.
end