How to run your LS1 on E85

[GatorSS]

Well, thats bs!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

"In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.
The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years."

"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change."

http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=56362&a=663219
Its in Swedish, but I´ll translate the interresting part.

"During a period of 420 000 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide has never been over 280ppm and the concentration of metangas has not been over 750 ppm.
Year 2004 the concentration of carbon dioxide had reached 370ppm and concentration of metangas has reached 1700ppm."

"The changes in temperature and the amount of gases in the atmosphere has a clear connection, the curves(graphs) follow each other."

If carbon dioxide has a faktor 1 on global warming, metan has about 20..

The claim that man-made global warming is a myth, Is utterly bullshit!

Etanol Isnt 100% "global warming free", but to claim that It´s as dirty as oil Is bullshit!
Etanol: produktion contributes, consuming it doesn´t.
Gasoline: Produktion and consuming it, both contributes.

Personally I think hydrogen made by molecular complexes, driven by sunlight is more of the future, but that technology is far away in the future, and we have no time to wait.

Man, you are so full of it! I wouldn't trust anything from the left-wing wacko BBC or Swedish "scientists". Who tested it 1,000 years ago or 420,000 years ago or 800,000 years ago or whatever BS those "scientists" claim? Was that tested on a global scale or just in spots? Obviously only in an isolated spot which cannot describe any global event. Those frames of reference are totally made up to fit their unproven theories in order to try and "justify" a total global socialist government takeover.

Plants give off more CO2 than anything else on the planet. Should we eliminate all plants on earth? Or should all us humans just quit breathing so we won't exhale any more CO2? I guess the sun and its fluctuating solar output has absolutely nothing to do with the temperatures on earth, eh? The increased solar flares of recent years has even caused the polar ice caps on Mars to melt in recent years. I guess all the human industry and SUVs on Mars is causing that, too?

When I was a kid in the 1970s, these same "scientists" were claiming we were on the verge of another global ice age because of CO2 output, trying to scare us kids to death. Now they've changed their theories and are trying to tell us that the very same "problem" is causing global warming, since we have a slight temperature increase, rather than the decrease we experienced then and they predicted to continue. Funny how we have been seeing an up-and-down pattern of global temperatures for numerous centuries, long before any industry came along.

These "scientists" cannot even accurately predict the weather five days from now, and you mean to tell me that they can predict it 10, 20, 30 or 100 years from now?

Take your junk theories and keep them to yourself and the rest of your nut-job leftist kook friends.

[SSTODD]

Looks like algore needs to move to sweden

[azguz]

Man, you are so full of it! I wouldn't trust anything from the left-wing wacko BBC or Swedish "scientists". Who tested it 1,000 years ago or 420,000 years ago or 800,000 years ago or whatever BS those "scientists" claim? Was that tested on a global scale or just in spots? Obviously only in an isolated spot which cannot describe any global event. Those frames of reference are totally made up to fit their unproven theories in order to try and "justify" a total global socialist government takeover.

Plants give off more CO2 than anything else on the planet. Should we eliminate all plants on earth? Or should all us humans just quit breathing so we won't exhale any more CO2? I guess the sun and its fluctuating solar output has absolutely nothing to do with the temperatures on earth, eh? The increased solar flares of recent years has even caused the polar ice caps on Mars to melt in recent years. I guess all the human industry and SUVs on Mars is causing that, too?

When I was a kid in the 1970s, these same "scientists" were claiming we were on the verge of another global ice age because of CO2 output, trying to scare us kids to death. Now they've changed their theories and are trying to tell us that the very same "problem" is causing global warming, since we have a slight temperature increase, rather than the decrease we experienced then and they predicted to continue. Funny how we have been seeing an up-and-down pattern of global temperatures for numerous centuries, long before any industry came along.

These "scientists" cannot even accurately predict the weather five days from now, and you mean to tell me that they can predict it 10, 20, 30 or 100 years from now?

Take your junk theories and keep them to yourself and the rest of your nut-job leftist kook friends.

"Plants give off more CO2 than anything else on the planet. Should we eliminate all plants on earth? "

First read up on your biology mate. This is what plants do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

CO2 + 12 H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O
They use sunlight to turn water from the ground and carbon dioxide from the air into sugar, oxygen and water..
Thats a real bullshit claim you made!

"Take your junk theories and keep them to yourself and the rest of your nut-job leftist kook friends"
Insulting people is not mature and misscredits yourself.

"I wouldn't trust anything from the left-wing wacko BBC or Swedish "scientists". "
It was an article about this:
http://www.igbp.kva.se/documents/IGBP_ExecSummary.pdf
Which is a summary of a book.
Yes its made by swedish scientist, but that doesnt make them less reliable. Everything that doesnt fit your point of view is miscredited directly. In fact you will probably read this, say "bullshit", without even have read the facts represented.

"Was that tested on a global scale or just in spots? Obviously only in an isolated spot which cannot describe any global event."
Yes it can, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere Is the same around the world.

Only make claims if you can back it upp with some facts.

[GatorSS]

"Plants give off more CO2 than anything else on the planet. Should we eliminate all plants on earth? "

First read up on your biology mate. This is what plants do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

CO2 + 12 H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O
They use sunlight to turn water from the ground and carbon dioxide from the air into sugar, oxygen and water..
Thats a real bullshit claim you made!

"Take your junk theories and keep them to yourself and the rest of your nut-job leftist kook friends"
Insulting people is not mature and misscredits yourself.

"I wouldn't trust anything from the left-wing wacko BBC or Swedish "scientists". "
It was an article about this:
http://www.igbp.kva.se/documents/IGBP_ExecSummary.pdf
Which is a summary of a book.
Yes its made by swedish scientist, but that doesnt make them less reliable. Everything that doesnt fit your point of view is miscredited directly. In fact you will probably read this, say "bullshit", without even have read the facts represented.

"Was that tested on a global scale or just in spots? Obviously only in an isolated spot which cannot describe any global event."
Yes it can, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere Is the same around the world.

Only make claims if you can back it upp with some facts.

So only you are allowed to insult people? I told you to keep your left-wing kook junk theories to yourself. I call it like it is--pure BS. Again, your "facts" are anything but.

Oh, so you're going to give me a lesson on biology. And, by the way, I ain't your mate. I know what plants do. Obviously, you do not. You are only looking at one aspect of plant life. You must look at the entire life-cycle of plants, including respiration, rather than only one little piece (the only piece that can fit your BS theory). What happens to the carbon taken in by plants? It just disappears?

Since you think facts only reside in articles or such on the internet, I'll give you only some of the hundreds I have. (For every one of the hundreds I have, I have about 30 research citations from my library that have not been put on the internet. And by the way, I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia as a reference source since it can be edited by anyone and many so-called "facts" there are not true.)

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Of...bon_Cycle.html
Just one pertinent quote: "However, researchers have estimated that plant respiration releases five to 10 times as much carbon dioxide as fossil fuel burning."

You are the one with the real BS claims, Mr. "scientist' pip squeak.

Just another little one http://www.jimloy.com/biology/trees.htm

I've previously read that IGBP book summary you posted, which spews out speculation and misleading graphs from unsupported data. Interestingly, none of the real scientists who have disproven their theories were invited to their conferences. Need I tell you why?

What is the real cause of global warming? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Your claim of "Yes it can, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere Is the same around the world." is more BS. You mean to tell me that anything in the atmosphere is in the same concentration everywhere around the globe? How the hell can clouds exist? Or rain? What about ozone? You left-wing kooks have previously spouted off about the "hole in the ozone layer" for many years. I thought the concentration of ozone had to be the same around the world? Oh, I guess you forgot that you earth-worshipping wackos have pretty much kept silent on that BS ozone theory after it was proven to close and reopen periodically, as it has for as long as we have been able to record it.

I guess that when you are surrounded by like-minded brain-washed lunatics all spewing the same drivel, the concentration of hot air BS is the same extremely high level all around you.

Here are a few more examples of the facts that you say I must give you to support my claims.

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief': http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archi...20041202a.html

'Day After Tomorrow': A lot of hot air: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...michaels_x.htm

Scientists cool outlook on global warming: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5953-7360r.htm

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

And even one from your beloved BBC.
Scientists blame sun for global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Another one from your beloved BBC.
Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

And here's one report that I don't know if it's posted on the internet. It is a journalist's report on research we did a few years ago:

Headline: New Findings Show Earth is Not Getting Warmer; Studies Also Show Climate Models Break from Reality Says NCPA Scholar
Source: National Center for Policy Analysis
Dateline: August 12, 2004
Byline: Sean Tuffnell

WASHINGTON -- Contrary to popular myth the Earth is not warming significantly, according to new research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists with the universities of Florida, Rochester and Virginia.

The reports note two important findings that run counter to the view that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

"It's been known for some time that satellites and surface thermometers give different temperature trends," said one of the reports' co-authors Prof. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). "We now have independent confirmation that the satellite results are correct and that the climate is not warming." Prof. Singer, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is also a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Proponents of global warming theory have long pointed to select, isolated thermometer measurements at the Earth's surface as proof that the Earth is warming. Other scientists have pointed to balloon and satellite readings of temperatures in the Earth's lower atmosphere that show no significant warming. The scientists from the universities of Florida, Rochester and Virginia employed a new, independent way of determining the temperature, using historic meteorological climate data to construct temperature values for each grid cell of the Earth at an equivalent height of two meters. This analysis agreed with the satellite and balloon measurements, establishing that the disparity is close to the surface and mainly in the tropics.

In another report, the Florida/Rochester/Virginia scientists found that the computer climate models used to assert that the introduction of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, and that the effect increases with altitude becoming twice as strong at about three miles up, are in stark contrast to the actual data of the past quarter-century. Comparing the results from the three commonly cited climate models with four independent observational data sets, the scientists found that the models all showed temperatures increasing with altitude, while the actual observations showed the opposite occurred.

"If the global climate is not warming, why all the fuss?" asked Singer. "The whole issue of controlling CO2 emissions is moot."


Now, can we get back to the issue of running E85 in an LS1, without all the global warming BS?

[azguz]

So only you are allowed to insult people? I told you to keep your left-wing kook junk theories to yourself. I call it like it is--pure BS. Again, your "facts" are anything but.

Oh, so you're going to give me a lesson on biology. And, by the way, I ain't your mate. I know what plants do. Obviously, you do not. You are only looking at one aspect of plant life. You must look at the entire life-cycle of plants, including respiration, rather than only one little piece (the only piece that can fit your BS theory). What happens to the carbon taken in by plants? It just disappears?

Since you think facts only reside in articles or such on the internet, I'll give you only some of the hundreds I have. (For every one of the hundreds I have, I have about 30 research citations from my library that have not been put on the internet. And by the way, I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia as a reference source since it can be edited by anyone and many so-called "facts" there are not true.)

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Of...bon_Cycle.html
Just one pertinent quote: "However, researchers have estimated that plant respiration releases five to 10 times as much carbon dioxide as fossil fuel burning."

You are the one with the real BS claims, Mr. "scientist' pip squeak.

Just another little one http://www.jimloy.com/biology/trees.htm

I've previously read that IGBP book summary you posted, which spews out speculation and misleading graphs from unsupported data. Interestingly, none of the real scientists who have disproven their theories were invited to their conferences. Need I tell you why?

What is the real cause of global warming? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Your claim of "Yes it can, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere Is the same around the world." is more BS. You mean to tell me that anything in the atmosphere is in the same concentration everywhere around the globe? How the hell can clouds exist? Or rain? What about ozone? You left-wing kooks have previously spouted off about the "hole in the ozone layer" for many years. I thought the concentration of ozone had to be the same around the world? Oh, I guess you forgot that you earth-worshipping wackos have pretty much kept silent on that BS ozone theory after it was proven to close and reopen periodically, as it has for as long as we have been able to record it.

I guess that when you are surrounded by like-minded brain-washed lunatics all spewing the same drivel, the concentration of hot air BS is the same extremely high level all around you.

Here are a few more examples of the facts that you say I must give you to support my claims.

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief': http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archi...20041202a.html

'Day After Tomorrow': A lot of hot air: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...michaels_x.htm

Scientists cool outlook on global warming: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5953-7360r.htm

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

And even one from your beloved BBC.
Scientists blame sun for global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Another one from your beloved BBC.
Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

And here's one report that I don't know if it's posted on the internet. It is a journalist's report on research we did a few years ago:

Headline: New Findings Show Earth is Not Getting Warmer; Studies Also Show Climate Models Break from Reality Says NCPA Scholar
Source: National Center for Policy Analysis
Dateline: August 12, 2004
Byline: Sean Tuffnell

WASHINGTON -- Contrary to popular myth the Earth is not warming significantly, according to new research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists with the universities of Florida, Rochester and Virginia.

The reports note two important findings that run counter to the view that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

"It's been known for some time that satellites and surface thermometers give different temperature trends," said one of the reports' co-authors Prof. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). "We now have independent confirmation that the satellite results are correct and that the climate is not warming." Prof. Singer, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is also a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Proponents of global warming theory have long pointed to select, isolated thermometer measurements at the Earth's surface as proof that the Earth is warming. Other scientists have pointed to balloon and satellite readings of temperatures in the Earth's lower atmosphere that show no significant warming. The scientists from the universities of Florida, Rochester and Virginia employed a new, independent way of determining the temperature, using historic meteorological climate data to construct temperature values for each grid cell of the Earth at an equivalent height of two meters. This analysis agreed with the satellite and balloon measurements, establishing that the disparity is close to the surface and mainly in the tropics.

In another report, the Florida/Rochester/Virginia scientists found that the computer climate models used to assert that the introduction of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, and that the effect increases with altitude becoming twice as strong at about three miles up, are in stark contrast to the actual data of the past quarter-century. Comparing the results from the three commonly cited climate models with four independent observational data sets, the scientists found that the models all showed temperatures increasing with altitude, while the actual observations showed the opposite occurred.

"If the global climate is not warming, why all the fuss?" asked Singer. "The whole issue of controlling CO2 emissions is moot."


Now, can we get back to the issue of running E85 in an LS1, without all the global warming BS?

"So only you are allowed to insult people? I told you to keep your left-wing kook junk theories to yourself. I call it like it is--pure BS. Again, your "facts" are anything but."
Kook may refer to:. A total goon. An idiot. A clueless person..
Who called who what from the beginning..
"like-minded brain-washed lunatics"
Well plz continue giving these lovely flattering comments..

Am I a "left-wing"?, well I believe in wellfair. If a single mother has 2 jobbs and still cant manage to afford food on the table, then I´ll gladly pay taxes so she can get som support from the goverment.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Of...bon_Cycle.html
"Through the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb and store more carbon dioxide than they emit through respiration."
So where does the increase in the atmosphere come from then? They may release 10 time more, but they absorbe even more.

"I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia as a reference source"
Well, I cant post books here, thus I have to search internet, and before posting it, I check it to be the same info.
And who is to say that "Richard Lindzen" isnt just a "wacko"?

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA336.html
"Many scientists believe changes in solar magnetism cause significant increases and decreases in the Earth's temperature. Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics says that increases and decreases in the Earth's temperature over the last 250 years match almost exactly the ups and downs in [solar] magnetism"
This I dont, and have not claimed to be wrong, most likely right, but
the evidences are exactly the same as for the increase of co2. If graphs compared with each others, they increase exactly the same over a timespan.

But there is a global warming by human activity, an increase in greenhouse gases. We are releasing substances in a fraction of time that they have been accumulated. I belive it to be naive to think that this wont have any affect at all.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/main/faq/planets.html#jupiter
"As mentioned Venus has a heavy atmosphere of carbon dioxide with virtually no water vapour, and clouds which are composed of sulphuric acid droplets. This high conentration of CO2 leads to extremely high temperatures (482 degrees C surface) from a very intense greenhouse effect. "
I belive 96% carbon dioxide.

"Now, can we get back to the issue of running E85 in an LS1, without all the global warming BS?"


I have never claimed that global warming will lead to armageddon. The "Day after tomorrow" is just a fiction, nothing more.
This is what I countered at the beginning, that burning etanol would contribute to it, as gasoline does. The co2 in etanol is not a faktor as co2in gasoline.
Because you can reproduce it as fast as consumed, this is not possible with oil..

Its quite obvious non of us will satisfie, so its just best both quiet down and keep our frustration to ourself. Ofcourse you can give a last response, but if you keep the insults away from the post, then I´ll leave it be.

[GatorSS]

My observation of you being a kook and brain-washed lunatic is accurate. You are an ignorant moron. You obviously cannot comprehend completely.

OK, ignoramus, my statement was that plants give off more CO2 than anything else on earth, which you claim is BS, despite the factual evidence. They give off far more than burning fossil fuel, which you also claim is BS, again, regardless of the facts. Then you pick out one little sentence of one reference I gave, as if that refutes the evidence in the rest of the same report. That quote, "Through the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb and store more carbon dioxide than they emit through respiration" only refers to ongoing photosythesis when the plant is living. Plants do not live forever. When they die and decompose, they emit carbon dioxide and are no longer absorbing it. Or are you also going to claim that to be BS, too?

As far as your welfare comment, that single mother would be far better off if you and/or others gave her money directly than the government confiscating it from you, consuming as much as 80% of it in the inefficient government bureaucracy, and then giving out the remaining piece. Also, more often then not, it only creates a perpetual dependency on welfare, rather than the better solution of enabling her to gain better skills so she will no longer be dependent on government.

Regarding your solar magnetism reference and CO2, you are confusing a symptom with a cause. Increased CO2 is not the cause of warming, but a result of it.

All of these so-called "greenhouse gases" are caused by human activity? Oh, so I guess volcanic eruptions and other natural events emit nothing, it is all done by us humans? What audacity!

None of what you have posted refutes even one the very few things I have presented. Then, you want to dance around with some other BS to cover your ignorance. Typical liberal. You have your kook agenda and to hell with the facts, just make up more BS because you think it makes you sound smart. Likewise, liberals believe they have never and can never insult anyone, but it is only them who are insulted.

My good friend, Dr. Michael Savage, is right; LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

[azguz]

My observation of you being a kook and brain-washed lunatic is accurate. You are an ignorant moron. You obviously cannot comprehend completely.

OK, ignoramus, my statement was that plants give off more CO2 than anything else on earth, which you claim is BS, despite the factual evidence. They give off far more than burning fossil fuel, which you also claim is BS, again, regardless of the facts. Then you pick out one little sentence of one reference I gave, as if that refutes the evidence in the rest of the same report. That quote, "Through the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb and store more carbon dioxide than they emit through respiration" only refers to ongoing photosythesis when the plant is living. Plants do not live forever. When they die and decompose, they emit carbon dioxide and are no longer absorbing it. Or are you also going to claim that to be BS, too?

As far as your welfare comment, that single mother would be far better off if you and/or others gave her money directly than the government confiscating it from you, consuming as much as 80% of it in the inefficient government bureaucracy, and then giving out the remaining piece. Also, more often then not, it only creates a perpetual dependency on welfare, rather than the better solution of enabling her to gain better skills so she will no longer be dependent on government.

Regarding your solar magnetism reference and CO2, you are confusing a symptom with a cause. Increased CO2 is not the cause of warming, but a result of it.

All of these so-called "greenhouse gases" are caused by human activity? Oh, so I guess volcanic eruptions and other natural events emit nothing, it is all done by us humans? What audacity!

None of what you have posted refutes even one the very few things I have presented. Then, you want to dance around with some other BS to cover your ignorance. Typical liberal. You have your kook agenda and to hell with the facts, just make up more BS because you think it makes you sound smart. Likewise, liberals believe they have never and can never insult anyone, but it is only them who are insulted.

My good friend, Dr. Michael Savage, is right; LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

"My observation of you being a kook and brain-washed lunatic is accurate. You are an ignorant moron. You obviously cannot comprehend completely."

I can make the same statement about you and it would hold the same truth as you stating it about me.

" Plants do not live forever. When they die and decompose, they emit carbon dioxide and are no longer absorbing it. Or are you also going to claim that to be BS, too?"

It is the organism that decompose the plants that emits carbon dioxide, but theres a lot of wild life that isnt decomposed or else you wouldnt have your precious oil to consume!!! That contains so much carbon dioxide.
This is an ongoing balance that doesnt increase the koncentration of carbon dioxide in the air, consuming fossile fuel faster than it´s produced does!

"Increased CO2 is not the cause of warming, but a result of it."

This you really have to explane!

"All of these so-called "greenhouse gases" are caused by human activity?"

Where the heck did I make that claim! Human activity is A cause for an increase of "greenhouse gases"
A cause.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
"Peering closer at the more accurate global temperatures measured since the late 19th century, a group of computer modelers got a decent match using only the record of volcanic eruptions plus greenhouse warming from increasing carbon dioxide, but they improved the match noticeably when they added in a record of solar variations"
"Adding these solar cycles on top of greenhouse warming and volcanic eruptions, Gilliland too found a convincing match to the temperature record of the past century"
"The import of the claim that solar variations influenced climate was now reversed. Critics had used the claim to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. But what if the planet really did react with extreme sensitivity to almost imperceptible changes in the radiation arriving from the Sun? The planet would surely also be sensitive to greenhouse gas interference with the radiation once it entered the atmosphere."
I have never dismissed that fluctuations in solar activity isnt a faktor on global varming, quite the opposite, I belive it to be most likely truth!
But I belive an human driven increase of "greenhouse gases" is a great faktor, and I belive that it also intensifies the affect the fluctuations in solar activity.
Nothing says that only one theory is the truth, in a system where everything is linked togheter. Killing one species of mosquito could mean the death of a species of bird.

[azguz]

My observation of you being a kook and brain-washed lunatic is accurate. You are an ignorant moron. You obviously cannot comprehend completely.

OK, ignoramus, my statement was that plants give off more CO2 than anything else on earth, which you claim is BS, despite the factual evidence. They give off far more than burning fossil fuel, which you also claim is BS, again, regardless of the facts. Then you pick out one little sentence of one reference I gave, as if that refutes the evidence in the rest of the same report. That quote, "Through the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb and store more carbon dioxide than they emit through respiration" only refers to ongoing photosythesis when the plant is living. Plants do not live forever. When they die and decompose, they emit carbon dioxide and are no longer absorbing it. Or are you also going to claim that to be BS, too?

As far as your welfare comment, that single mother would be far better off if you and/or others gave her money directly than the government confiscating it from you, consuming as much as 80% of it in the inefficient government bureaucracy, and then giving out the remaining piece. Also, more often then not, it only creates a perpetual dependency on welfare, rather than the better solution of enabling her to gain better skills so she will no longer be dependent on government.

Regarding your solar magnetism reference and CO2, you are confusing a symptom with a cause. Increased CO2 is not the cause of warming, but a result of it.

All of these so-called "greenhouse gases" are caused by human activity? Oh, so I guess volcanic eruptions and other natural events emit nothing, it is all done by us humans? What audacity!

None of what you have posted refutes even one the very few things I have presented. Then, you want to dance around with some other BS to cover your ignorance. Typical liberal. You have your kook agenda and to hell with the facts, just make up more BS because you think it makes you sound smart. Likewise, liberals believe they have never and can never insult anyone, but it is only them who are insulted.

My good friend, Dr. Michael Savage, is right; LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

"My observation of you being a kook and brain-washed lunatic is accurate. You are an ignorant moron. You obviously cannot comprehend completely."

The same could be said about you to and it would be as equal true.

" When they die and decompose, they emit carbon dioxide and are no longer absorbing it. Or are you also going to claim that to be BS, too?"

Organisms decomposing the plants emits carbon dioxide, but far from all wild life is decomposed, or else you would not have your precious oil to consume!! This is a natural balance, it does not contibute to an increase of greenhouse gases.

"Increased CO2 is not the cause of warming, but a result of it."

This you really have to explain!

"None of what you have posted refutes even one the very few things I have presented."

Likewise.

"All of these so-called "greenhouse gases" are caused by human activity? Oh, so I guess volcanic eruptions and other natural events emit nothing, it is all done by us humans? What audacity"

I have claimed no such thing! Human activity is A source for an increase of "greenhouse gases"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
"Yet the global temperature rise that had resumed in the 1970s was accelerating at a record-breaking pace. It seemed impossible to explain that using the Sun alone, without invoking greenhouse gases"
"Adding these solar cycles on top of greenhouse warming and volcanic eruptions, Gilliland too found a convincing match to the temperature record of the past century."

I have never claimed that these solar fluctuations is a lie, rather the opposite, very indeed the truth. BUT it is no evidence of that the increased greenhouse effect isnt real!
The variations in temperature more or less exactly match the solar activity.
If you se the temperature y as a funktion of the solar activity f(x), the you can clearly se that there is an constant C thats increasing.
Who is to say that only 1 theory is the reason..
An increase of greenhouse gases leads to an increase of the greenhouse effect.. offcourse this would intensifie the effect of solar fluctuations...

btw. I have already posted a simular answer, but I wasnt logged in and it apparenty hasent been posted. if it should become a "double post"

[GatorSS]

Organisms are part of the decomposition process, but the carbon emitted comes from the dead plants cells.

Everything I have posted refutes all your BS claims, you can refute none of mine.

Rather than being able to refute anything, you just go off on a tangent and then run in circles.

Everyone beware of this ass-monkey troll!

[Ed Blown Vert]

When did this become the political section?

[Runn_WS7]

When did this become the political section?

I agree, Drop the politics.

Pics of an vortec taken apart at 110,000 only to see what the internals looked like. This truck is a NON flex fuel that was run on E85 since day 1. http://www.rune85.com/internal%20engine.htm

[kool-aide]

Ah dude, this is 2007 and where is the rest of the story? It's like reading a book from the library. You know the one the kids ripped out the last pages and you're crap how does it end. Personally I liked the Mythbusters episode that showed an old mercedes running on filtered french fry oil and no modifications. Sure it got 30% or so less mileage but it was french fry oil. Ok my point was at the end of their testing they concluded one thing, supply and demand reigns supreme. It doesn't matter what we run in our beloved American beauties it will cost us big. If you want strawberries in FL during Christmas your gunna pay more cuz they are out of season here and you have to import them, supply and demand. I would rather see you debate economics rather than beat the E85 drum. E85 will have its day in the economic food chain and then we will be kciking ourselves with those high prices.

Every thing has a price and the supply and demand curves will tell you how much to cry at night.

Let's all run on Kool-Aide...

JJ

[kool-aide]

I'm posting again to show my way of saying damn that boy done smoked himself retarded. My last post was made after reading just the first page. I have read pages 2-4 fo far and now i need to read page five. I need Mavis Beacon speed reading course or something. I still say it is supply and demand there Swede boy. Here in the US if it is a hot product you can bet the corporate giants want to be billionairs over night and we open our wallets to do it.

Let's all run on Kool-Aide

JJ

[Krazy351w]

and then i come in and break the subject and waste you all MUAHAHAHAHA

[MavrickCJH]

When did this become the political section?

I will wait for an answer with you on that question Ed Blown Vert, meanwhile, i will raise another, what about the cows? They produce a shitload of more methane daily than a car does. I will say a shitload bc thats actually where its comin from, the cows ass. So what are to be done with cows? The first one to answer has 3 mins to reply and then will be followed by a 1.5 minute rebuttle.

[kool-aide]

Wow we have politics and the dilemma of LS1s on E85. I'm glad I joined the group cuz TV in the off season is so boring. Well I am not a scientist or smart enough to know how to find one. I saw the pictures of the Surburban that was not flex fuel and ran on the E85. We have claims that E85 will tear up your fuel system and we have claims that the engine and exhaust will be clean as an elven arse. So can you have a clean engine and a coroding fuel system? I talked to a co-worker and he is under the impression E85 will rust out your car. His ski boat manual even says never run ethanol in it. Now I can definitely see a marine engine should never burn a fuel that likes bonding to water. Seems to me the whole live green burn yellow needs to answer the question. Will E85 cost me a new fuel system on a periodic basis, which i am sure is after new car warranty. Personally I don't care what I burn in my LS1, cuz corporate America will always find away to expploit the supply and demand and I will always be an idiot and pay the asking price. I work 12 miles from home and don't ride a bike, that's American for your, no matter what the cost of fuel. As a consumer I make choices and I would like the choice of dino fuel or bio fuel. But I am not putting bio fuel in my Camaro if it is going to cost me parts that dino fuel wouln't. Personally I think the global warming is BS. I laugh at egg commercials. I can remember we they were bad for your health, then good, then bad, now they are the miracle food. I feel like global warming is like eggs, now one knows what is really happening. If global warming is true then why can I hit the beach in peak summer and swim in water temps 20 degrees below normal. Yes i am bating some one into responding to fuel the fire. Well since my state won't have E85 or anything close avaible in who knows when I guess I will have to wait to express my consumer choice until the dino fuel is all gone.

Cows nothing, my daughter and I can clear a mall with our stinky farts. My little two year old wild animal is a methane machine, lol...

Why don't we all run on Kool-Aide

JJ

[Sarge]

I will wait for an answer with you on that question Ed Blown Vert, meanwhile, i will raise another, what about the cows? They produce a shitload of more methane daily than a car does. I will say a shitload bc thats actually where its comin from, the cows ass. So what are to be done with cows? The first one to answer has 3 mins to reply and then will be followed by a 1.5 minute rebuttle.

There are some folks posting in this string that could produce enough methane to power all my cars for a year.

[chickenZ28]

Personally, I believe that man kind has about as much affect on our warming climate as a cock roach fart. We're all gonna die of some catastrophic event and chances are it isn't going to be because I'm not running catalytic converters.

[Krazy351w]

i love this shit.

[YoMommasTA]

It is a fact that the ice caps are melting fast.Of course we must have some impact on our environment,lets not be ignorant about it. EVERYTHING has some impact on everything else.I think the reason everything has gone a little crazy is too many other societies want to live like us in america and the planet just can't handle that many over weight,fat azz,boring,impatient,self centered,egotistical,uncaring lying pricks!