• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
ptif219 said:
Thats the point. They do not mention all the land lost to wind turbines and crops growing for ethanol that contribute to the food shortage
Click to expand...

You keep dredging up these two points over and over again, for what reason I do not know. I have never been a supporter of food crop based ethanol. It has been proven long ago to have been a failure. I agree with you that I would rather pay the extra dollar per gallon that gas would cost without food based ethanol. However, I am very much in favor of non-food based ethanol, such as algae:

"You might have heard about ethanol but what about Algenol? This Maryland company wants to turn algae cells into ethanol, claiming the innovative process creates more ethanol than corn per acre. But can this new biofuel idea live up to the hype?

Digital Journal — Creating ethanol from algae sounds miraculous but it’s just a way to harness molecular biology: certain algae strains are enhanced, giving them the ability to make sugar and then ferment the sugar to ethanol. As Algenol’s website explains: "The algae are metabolically enhanced to produce ethanol while being resistant to high temperature, high salinity, and high ethanol levels, which were previous barriers to ramping to commercial scale volumes."

In a bold claim, Algenol says it can produce 6,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, compared to corn’s rate of 370 gallons per acre per year. By the end of 2008, the company predicts it will exceed its target of 10,000 gallons per acre per year.
The controversy over biofuels is currently centred on how its production is driving up food prices, but Algenol has a quick reply to those critics: “[our] technology will not drive up the price of corn, sugar, and other field crops used for ethanol and other biofuels production nor will it drive up the prices of the downstream products like beef, poultry and other foods reliant on corn or sugar, or their products such as sweeteners.”

This take on biofuel is boosting Algenol’s profile. Business partner BioFields has agreed to license its technology, forking over $100 million and committing $850 million to build a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest Mexico. The site will pump carbon dioxide from a nearby power station into the algae bioreactors.
Algenol is not the first and only company to turn pond scum into car fuel. There’s Petro Sun, GreenFuel Technologies, Seambiotic and many more. Competition should spur Algeonol and BioField to fine-tune their processes in order to win market leadership, even if that pole position may take awhile to earn.

Any new industrial or agribusiness technology is studded with roadblocks and challenges. That’s a no-brainer. But if algae-based biofuels can overcome any hurdles in its way, the days of truly beneficial and cost-effective alternative fuels could be a real possibility

Read more: With An Oil Crisis Looming, Can Ethanol Made from Algae Come to the Rescue?

As far as your nonsense about wind turbines taking up farm land is just that, nonsense.

2310332590_ae91096a72_o.jpg
 
Catawba said:
You keep dredging up these two points over and over again, for what reason I do not know. I have never been a supporter of food crop based ethanol. It has been proven long ago to have been a failure. I agree with you that I would rather pay the extra dollar per gallon that gas would cost without food based ethanol. However, I am very much in favor of non-food based ethanol, such as algae:

"You might have heard about ethanol but what about Algenol? This Maryland company wants to turn algae cells into ethanol, claiming the innovative process creates more ethanol than corn per acre. But can this new biofuel idea live up to the hype?

Digital Journal — Creating ethanol from algae sounds miraculous but it’s just a way to harness molecular biology: certain algae strains are enhanced, giving them the ability to make sugar and then ferment the sugar to ethanol. As Algenol’s website explains: "The algae are metabolically enhanced to produce ethanol while being resistant to high temperature, high salinity, and high ethanol levels, which were previous barriers to ramping to commercial scale volumes."

In a bold claim, Algenol says it can produce 6,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, compared to corn’s rate of 370 gallons per acre per year. By the end of 2008, the company predicts it will exceed its target of 10,000 gallons per acre per year.
The controversy over biofuels is currently centred on how its production is driving up food prices, but Algenol has a quick reply to those critics: “[our] technology will not drive up the price of corn, sugar, and other field crops used for ethanol and other biofuels production nor will it drive up the prices of the downstream products like beef, poultry and other foods reliant on corn or sugar, or their products such as sweeteners.”

This take on biofuel is boosting Algenol’s profile. Business partner BioFields has agreed to license its technology, forking over $100 million and committing $850 million to build a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest Mexico. The site will pump carbon dioxide from a nearby power station into the algae bioreactors.
Algenol is not the first and only company to turn pond scum into car fuel. There’s Petro Sun, GreenFuel Technologies, Seambiotic and many more. Competition should spur Algeonol and BioField to fine-tune their processes in order to win market leadership, even if that pole position may take awhile to earn.

Any new industrial or agribusiness technology is studded with roadblocks and challenges. That’s a no-brainer. But if algae-based biofuels can overcome any hurdles in its way, the days of truly beneficial and cost-effective alternative fuels could be a real possibility

Read more: With An Oil Crisis Looming, Can Ethanol Made from Algae Come to the Rescue?

As far as your nonsense about wind turbines taking up farm land is just that, nonsense.

2310332590_ae91096a72_o.jpg
Click to expand...

You justification solves nothing. Why not show the real deal of turbines on farm land

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G3r4aC5VZs
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for the video of the turbines with farming being done right up to their base!
Click to expand...

And each one is taking away one quarter acre thart could be farmed. In one spot north of indianapolis there are 130 wind turbines. That means 30+ acres taken away from growin crops. There are thousand of wind turbines meaning there is much farm land lost.

As always if it shows failures in GW policy you try but fail to justify it
 
ptif219 said:
Data manipulation? The GW scientist do that better tyhan anyone else
Click to expand...

holy crap, I post an enormous amount of info debunking your entire thing and what you do is deflect. I can't even take you seriously anymore.
 
Catawba said:
We've been through this discussion before. Review the thread, or do some more research. Here is an excellent site:

Farm Income - Land for Wind Farms - Additional Income For Landowners | Wind Power
Click to expand...

You deny that they take away land when there is a world food shortage according to the UN. The money to farmers will do nothing for the food shortage. You also deny health problems even though all over the world where they use wind turbines people complain of health problems.. Your justification proves nothing other than you do not care about people
 
Catawba said:
Signatures mean nothing without credentials behind them. No scientific organization of national or international standing has held a dissenting opinion on AGW since 2007.
Click to expand...

Yes we already know that unless a scientist is a member of one of your organizations, their scientific credentials and opinions are worthless. Got it (yawn)
 
Whovian said:
Yes we already know that unless a scientist is a member of one of your organizations, their scientific credentials and opinions are worthless. Got it (yawn)
Click to expand...

The national and international science organizations are mine????
 
ptif219 said:
The facts are there you just won't admit anything that goes against your GW agenda
Click to expand...

Your continuous linking to blogs just makes your position look even sillier.
 
Catawba said:
These facts: Climate Change: Evidence

Not that you will bother to read them.
Click to expand...

More NASA from the same people that get caught in lies and make predictions that never happen

You repeat the same stuff yet have no real proof it is man. With all the lies and data manipulation there is no credibility in the GW community


NASA Scientist: Put CEOs On Trial for Global-Warming Lies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5581

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming
 
ptif219 said:
More NASA from the same people that get caught in lies and make predictions that never happen

You repeat the same stuff yet have no real proof it is man. With all the lies and data manipulation there is no credibility in the GW community


NASA Scientist: Put CEOs On Trial for Global-Warming Lies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5581

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming
Click to expand...


LOL! You are too funny Ptif! You put links up to Faux news and blogs to refute NASA and the rest of the world' scientific community????
 
Dittohead not! said:
You asked, "what melting ice", and the picture showed your answer. Now, if you can show similar pictures of growing glaciers, you could make your point.
Click to expand...


In reality, some glaciers are growing and some are shrinking. Unfortuately for alarmists, the shrinking glaciers began shrinking soon after the end of the Little Ice Age that ended in the early 1800s, well before any increase in CO2 due to man's activity.

Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking due to weather, not any change in the climate. Himalayan glaciers are shrinking due to debris fields, despite what the IPCC mistakenly put in their Climate Assessment Report. And, Kilamanjaro ice is not melting due to warmer temperatures, but drier air.

Hundreds of glaciers are shrinking and hundreds are growing. Neither prove anything.
 
The shrinking outweighs any gains, and the rate is increasing. Why would that be? What causes the weather to shrink the Greenland icecap? What caused the air to suddenly become drier at Kilimanjaro's peak?

FAQ-4.1_Fig-1.png
 
hazlnut said:
I schooled you over a year ago, now I'm just amused by the red kool-aiders regurgitating the talking points...
Click to expand...

That was probably before the leaked confessions of mis/mal-feasance...

Manc Skipper said:
The shrinking outweighs any gains, and the rate is increasing. Why would that be? What causes the weather to shrink the Greenland icecap? What caused the air to suddenly become drier at Kilimanjaro's peak?
Click to expand...

YA! CO2 killed my dog last week too... I don't care what the drunk driver did, it was the CO2 that killed my dog.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The shrinking outweighs any gains, and the rate is increasing. Why would that be? What causes the weather to shrink the Greenland icecap? What caused the air to suddenly become drier at Kilimanjaro's peak?

FAQ-4.1_Fig-1.png
Click to expand...

Does it??? I'm sure you have some type of scientific proof, right ??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom