Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if man-made "climate change" were true, how does raising taxes (read: more corruption, more government waste, etc) lower the temperature of the planet??
Would a liberal explain to me how giving more money to (already) billionaire men/billionaire companies will "lower the earth's temperature"?
Also, please explain to us why the so-called "green climate activists" do not practice what they preach and drive around in $50-$80k huge gas guzzling SUVs, huge gas guzzling limousines, gas guzzling private jets, have huge gas guzzling luxury boats, etc?
Please explain how less money in working folks pockets (due to more taxes/more regulations) will cause the temperature of the earth to go down?
Also please explain why "only" Western countries are required to increase taxes and regulations, while China and the third-world can pollute pollute pollute as much as they want and there's not a PEEP from you enviro-lefties/greenies
Thanks for clarifying
LOL. it really is simple. there is one word that matters.
If you read the article carefully, you'll notice it's for its upper stage which is burnt only in the upper atmosphere and in space after the kerosene fueled booster has already dumped all its CO2 into our lower atmosphere. Unfortunately for liquid fuels, the energy density of kerosene is just too good to pass up on a vehicle that is incredibly dependent on thrust to weight ratios. If you read further, you'll see that the decision to use methane in the futures not done for environmental reasons, but for logistical ones. Elon could just as easily make RP-1 from vegetable oil, but he's not because it's too expensive.
Otherwise you could power a rocket off mentos and Diet Coke if you wanted to stay green.
It doesn't really matter if rockets burn fossil fuels, the research/infrastructure benefits vastly outweigh the environmental repercussions. Same as our current transportation and energy infrastructure. Becoming more green as a species will be driven by technological advancement and we currently are simply not at a tech level where it is practical to not use fossil fuels. That will probably change at some point going forward and then you will see the equilibrium shift. Doesn't mean we should stop doing research into alternatives.
If you read the article carefully, you'll notice it's for its upper stage which is burnt only in the upper atmosphere and in space after the kerosene fueled booster has already dumped all its CO2 into our lower atmosphere. Unfortunately for liquid fuels, the energy density of kerosene is just too good to pass up on a vehicle that is incredibly dependent on thrust to weight ratios. If you read further, you'll see that the decision to use methane in the futures not done for environmental reasons, but for logistical ones. Elon could just as easily make RP-1 from vegetable oil, but he's not because it's too expensive.
Otherwise you could power a rocket off mentos and Diet Coke if you wanted to stay green.
Your initial claim was that they only use fossil fuels. That is not the case.
It was never the case actually, and they are no longer even designing rockets that require fossil fuels.
You appear to be back pedaling from your original claim which was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
What makes Elon a hypocrit is that he wants electric cars to reduce greenhouse gases, and in the same breath wants to colonize Mars using fossil fueled heavy lift rockets.
I could drive my car for over a million miles on the fuel that just one heavy lift rocket consumes in a few minutes.
Actually no, you cannot power your car on methane. Unless you are claiming you have a methane powered car?
And no, he does not want to colonize mars using fossil fueled rockets. And hasn't for nearly 5 years now.
Actually, you can publish anywhere. At this point, I think you don't even know what "peer reviewed journal" means. I think you just throw it out there, thinking it gives you authority. Unfortunately, you don't even know the basic scientific method, so it goes downhill quickly. That plus your information on hurricanes is all wrong. So, yeah.
If it makes you feel better to believe so, I support you right to believe whatever you like.
Again, you don't make policy, you are not a scientist, and really, if you aren't trolling, I think you have bigger issues to worry about than climate change. I hope you have a nice life, and thank you for participating in this thread.
So why do it for climate science? Because your belief system requires it. If you don't hold all other sciences in the same contempt you have for climate science, than you're a hypocrite, and it isn't really about flawed methodology, or bad conclusions, it is about for whatever reason you are not emotionally or intellectually capable of accepting their findings. And really, that is about you, not science.
which side of the climate science debate am I not supposed to hold contempt for?
Why doesn't anyone address all the cargo ships plying our waters keeping Wally World (and others) stocked polluting our seas and air ? Never really hear too much about it.
Seems to me globalism contributes quite a bit to pollution.....
Why doesn't anyone address all the cargo ships plying our waters keeping Wally World (and others) stocked polluting our seas and air ? Never really hear too much about it.
Seems to me globalism contributes quite a bit to pollution.....
I am not sure what you mean by "never hear too much about it". It is certainly discussed at almost any conference on carbon and the environment.
There is certainly something to be said about in many cases our corporation ships items over seas, where they are returned as finished goods.
It is an interesting problem but one more about policy than science, I would be interested to hear your take. What would you propose in terms of policy?
Oh, on a side note, in what maybe the only "up side" of the warming of the poles, some are predicting shipping maybe able to use the arctic year round as a more efficient, less fuel using path. I suppose that is a good thing. Sort of a negative feedback loop.
Why doesn't anyone address all the cargo ships plying our waters keeping Wally World (and others) stocked polluting our seas and air ? Never really hear too much about it.
Because that would be a dumb way to shoot ourselves in the foot. The pollution problem will be solved when we have the technology to solve it and maintain our current level of infrastructure utility, not by dismantling the functioning infrastructure we already have. That is why we do research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
