Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Data are Clear - - We MUST act NOW

0 helpful
390 replies

by maxwell edison

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Over the past ~140 years (the same period of time the global warming zealots, I mean activists, have mentioned), over which fossil fuels have been burned, thereby causing the proven 1 degree rise in the earth's temperature (not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course), resulting in the planet destroying phenomenon we know as global warming, cities have sprung up, not only in the United States, but all over the globe, that have used almost exclusively concrete and steel, two materials that absorb heat at very impressive rates. A new scientific and engineering study will debunk that myth, and suggest instead that global warming is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but rather the overuse of common construction materials, particularly concrete. And "big concrete", one of the biggest industries in the United States, has actually taken steps to keep this astonishing study from being made public. In fact, I am being silenced as we speak!

This scientific and engineering study, undertaken by scientists and engineers working under a 4 billion dollar grant from the federal government (but needing more, much more), has provided conclusive and commonly accepted data that has clearly shown the thermal conductive properties of concrete generate 12 BTUs of heat, per hour, per square foot/inch thick slab of concrete; the thermal conductive properties of steel are 325 BTUs per hour; and the thermal conductive properties of aluminum are an astounding 1500 BTUs per hour. When used in construction, these materials act as global heat-sinks, dispersing an unprecedented amount of heat energy into the atmosphere. And its impact on the fragile atmosphere, which was designed (by nothing or nobody, by the way) to absorb ONLY the heat entering the atmosphere as generated by the sun, not the reverse flow caused by these man made heat-sinks, and generated by greedy, selfish, and disgusting human beings.

During the daylight hours, WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING, these materials, world wide, absorb hundreds of trillions of BTUs of heat, which is energy that would have otherwise gone unused and unradiated. At night, when the temperature of the earth drops significantly, the properties of those materials start releasing all that absorbed heat. Engineering studies that used infrared sensors have actually documented this heat release, and have proven conclusively that heat from these materials radiates upwards into the atmosphere, thereby causing an increase in the overall atmospheric temperature. Culminated over decades upon decades of abuse and overuse, the damage is obvious. In fact, in 10 more years, the heat generated will have caused irreversible damage. We must act now. The future of the planet is at stake!

Consider this. In the United States alone, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, otherwise known as the Interstate Highway System, has over 46,000 miles of paved surface; and considering the construction dimensions of the average slab of Interstate Highway, one can estimate that over 685 BILLION square feet/inch thick of concrete is absorbing heat every day. (And that doesn't even consider the millions of tons of STEEL wire mesh embedded into the concrete.) At 12 BTUs per hour, per square foot/inch thick slab of concrete, one can conservatively document that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, otherwise known as the Interstate Highway System, alone releases 8.2 TRILLION BTUs (685 billion Sq. Ft. times 12 BTU) of heat each and every night, after the sun goes down. This is heat energy that, before the construction of the Interstate Highway System, would never have been captured, and would never have subsequently been released into our fragile atmosphere.

And that's just the Interstate Highway system in the United States. Let's calculate all the other highways in the world, AND all that steel and aluminum used in those massive buildings in hundreds of cities all over the world, but particularly the United States, of course. (Oh no, let's not; my scientific calculator is misplaced at the moment.) Suffice it to say, however, that hundreds, if not thousands of trillions of BTUs of heat, released by concrete and steel every day, are clearly the cause for the 1 degree rise in average global temperature over the past 140 years (not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course). This is heat energy that was not absorbed and subsequently released ~140 years ago, but it is today. The data is clear. Please try to prove these data calculations -- BASED ON FACTS -- wrong, or admit to the obvious conclusion.

I propose the following: I, Maxwell Edison, call to order a meeting of government and heating engineers around the world, to meet in Desoto, Kansas to discuss what the world must to do prevent this heat-loss from our highways and cities from heating the atmosphere, thereby causing global warming. The temperature has, after all, increased 1 degree (not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course), and this heat-loss from the construction materials is the cause, as commonly agreed upon by reputable scientists and engineers. I suggest that we write a treaty that all industrialized nations of the world will sign, to not only stop, but to reverse this heating trend. We will call it the Desoto Treaty, or perhaps even the Toto Treaty in case people don't understand that Desoto really is a town in Kansas.

The treaty will outline the obvious solution. We must implement an immediate moratorium on all new construction, whether that be roads or buildings, which uses concrete, steel, or aluminum. Moreover, we must force all these industrialized nations of the world to replace all those building materials currently in use with more environmentally friendly materials. We should further call upon the leaders of these nations, especially the President of the United States, to provide funding for research and development of new technology for these environmentally friendly building materials, and phase out the use of ALL current materials. The United States is, after all, the biggest abuser -- all those highways and skyscrapers; it's consumption, construction, and overbuilding run amok, if you ask me. Of course, to avoid becoming a burden on less affluent nations, we can devise a scheme, I mean a plan, to trade construction material credits. But those details, of course, can be worked out by our good-intentioned friends at the United Nations.

Okay, why am I posting this message? Well, I have one question. What sounds better, the Desoto Treaty or the Toto Treaty?

------------ Edited as follows ------------

This message was edited ONLY to make Neil happy. Neil, you're welcome.

390 replies

by dr dij

In the future, all civilization will be reduced to 'virtual people', and we'll all be uploaded to stasis pods, while our minds are free to roam the virtual universe. We can choose one of our own to be the 'keeper' aka Stargate episode, or choose the insect-like AI's of the Matrix.

Advantages: Max can have his virtual-reality filter out the actual reality of rampaging heat stimulated weather, and instead have a peaceful tranquil place where there are beautiful flowers and only a few gentle rains to keep them healthy.

Industrial pollutants will be filtered out, and the bodies in pods won't be fed pollution tainted fish (if there are any left in the real world after carbonic acid melts the diatoms and coral reefs).

And of course the 'real world' and 'liberal media', which is anything Max doesn't agree with, will also happily disappear in this virtual world!

Our only other alternative would be to go back to the stone ages, (or perhaps "the good 'ole days"). Everyone will be much happier walking to work 9 miles every day (uphill both ways). Hey, steak dinners were only 10cents! Never mind that the gov't has inflated the money supply something like 40 times over since then..

by deadly ernest

road surface that is mostly made up of tar.

Two points re global warming that the people blaming humans always gloss over.

1. One major volcanic eruption like Mt St Helens puts more carbon and green house gasses into the atmosphere than humand have in over two hundred years.

2. About 230 years ago a major volcanic eruption in Indonesia created a huge cloud of ash etc that circled the globe for over a year. The long term result of this cloud was that the average global temperature dropped by about 2.5 degrees. We have not yet returned to the average global temperature that existed prior to that eruption.

by maxwell edison

Perhaps you can write that section of the Desoto Treaty (or Toto Treaty, whichever one we decide to use) that covers the use of new asphalt -- AND the destruction of all existing asphalt, of course. I'll have to do the calculations, but my guess is that the BTUs per hour radiated by asphalt is even more than concrete. I'll get back to you on that. You'll need the data for that particular section of the treaty.

by sleepin'dawg

When Mt St.Helens blew, I was away from home but returned two days later to find a layer of volcanic ash approximately 1/4" thick deposited all over my cars. After hosing them down new deposits were made continuously every day for well over a week after the event. Oh and my house and cars were over 3000 miles east of the event.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by Member 25348569

Over the last century of measuremets, worldwide volcanic activity has released between about 130 to 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

Human activity releases are about 100 time this.

by x-marcap

Europe didn't have much of a summer that year. Most of the Earth got record lows...

Tim

by tonythetiger

Humans provide a little over 7 gigatons of CO2 per year, volcanoes about 150 megatons. That's about 50 times as much. Or, taken another way, humans account for approximately 20% of the carbon in the atmosphere; Volcanoes, less than half a percent.

by deadly ernest

about 80 years before for that - damned if I can remember its name. Went off as bad as Krakatoa but was the year before the big famine in Europe and is now believed to be the cause of it.

by maxwell edison

You wanted data, I gave you data. Go ahead; have at it.

Although I agree with Earnest's claims, as I've read about those things myself, he said it, so I'll assume you were asking him to cite the source. And when he does, perhaps you'll concede the point.

by absolutely

Thanks for the data.

If I took you seriously, my method would be to compare the thermal properties of the most-used alloys in construction to their common geological sources: aluminum alloy and bauxite, iron ore and steel, you get the picture. What I would find is that materials with low specific heat have only been moved to a few locations, called "cities". Combustion releases bound carbon and oxygen as carbon dioxide and is a fundamentally different phenomenon. I know you don't take this asphalt/cement/metal in cities thread seriously, and I'm beginning to wonder if you even take your "self" seriously.

by maxwell edison

Go ahead. "Compare", as you said, "the thermal properties of the most-used alloys in construction to their common geological sources."

Go ahead, Mr. Know-It-All. Go ahead. Prove my data wrong.

The "data" in my post is 100 percent accurate. Just like the "data" in the stupid CO2 claims might be accurate. The conclusion, however, is open for interpretation.

Go ahead, smart-ass. Challenge my DATA and PROVE IT WRONG!

OR STFU.

By the way, have you noticed how many people are laughing their ass off at you?

Another "by the way". My message was brilliant satire, especially considering ALL THE DATA is 100 percent accurate. Not only was it brilliant, but it was excellently written. But an ignorant know-it-all like you couldn't possibly admit as much. (Especially considering the fact that you don't know for sure; but I do.)

Now go away from my discussion. You are not welcome.

by maxwell edison

Neil, I issue the same challenge to you that I issued to Mr. friggin' know-it-all, Absolutely the dum-sht. However, the difference is ...... well, the difference is painfully obvious.

by mjwx

I think that the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor. More significant than concrete, which has been in use since the roman days. Large structures exist in nature too, take Ayres rock in Australia for example. Its one giant rock (One single object embedded in the ground rather than part of it, firmly embedded). Besides this WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL (see below).

The Oil companies must be made to pay for research into alternate energy sources and for their implementation. Two reasons 1. They have the money (gained from raping our natural resources) 2. I like the idea of these kind of people (truly soul-less and I think even max could agree with this point) digging their own grave.

If you aren?t scared enough you should look at look at Life After The Oil Crash. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

Spreading mass fear and looking for suitable post-apocalyptic leader?s world wide.
Mike

by deadly ernest

still be a concern. With the advances in engine design and performance over the last 100 years or so we should really be looking at using vegetable based diesel fuels as they are more easily renewable. If we did that and stopped buying oil for vehicles and heating some countries, like Iran, would have some very big economic problems maintaining their current regimes.

by mjwx

and sooner than expected. Research into alternative sources of energy is just the beginning. Oil is used in just about everything, Plastics, Lubricants, Synthetic Fibres just to name a few.

My second point is that the big oil corporations should be made to foot the bill (if they were smart they woulnt need to be forced to do so and in so doing have a stake in new tech/products) as converting to a renewable energy in vehicles alone is going to cost a fortune.

by Member 25348569

even megablasts like Krakatoa - or even Santorini - are history.

Edited just to let you know that I stuck this in the wrong place and, overcome with remorse, I'm going to leave it where it is and you can work out for youself who I was answering.

:D

by deadly ernest

Re the amount of gases and crap from a volcanic eruption you need only read any current text book that mentions the amounts involved. Recent TV documentaries on the Discovery Channel on volcanoes actual mention the amount of gases etc. Remember those things are release sulphur and carbon dioxide into the air in huge streams for months and years and THEN the blow sending mega tonnes of such crap.

Regarding the temperature being high 250 years ago you should see the TV documentary 'The year without summer' of the book and research it was based on. The average global temperatures before the volcanic explosion, and in the year that followed, were taken from hundreds of ships logs.

by absolutely

And asserted that volcanic eruptions emit negligible quantities of greenhouse gases compared to volcanoes. Being on the west coast of the United States, while neilb is in the UK, I'll have to find reputable sources that I can verify myself, but I'll tell you, I'm inclined to go with the guy who didn't list the TV as his source.

by deadly ernest

something in a book it is more believable than when that same scientist stands before a camera and says the same thing as part of a documentary by reputable documentary makers. At the time I noted the scientists names and other source material mentioned in the Discovery Channel documentaries, since then I have moved house and lost just about everything smaller than a computer and TV - should finish unpacking and find everything again in about 10 years - based on past average time frames.

by Member 25348569

Radiation of infra-red - any energy - from the surface upwards into the atmosphere and thence back into space cools down the planet. It's when the sodding carbon dixide refelects the infra-red straight back down again that we have the warming problem.

Why [b]are[/b] you posting this message?

by tony hopkinson

you missed out the effects due convection and conduction.

LOL

It's an interesting premise though. I think we should execute everyone who goes to the meeting on the basis that they exhale too often and exacerbate the problem.

I must admit I'm becoming a tad suspicious of our new found ally in the global warming debate.

ROTFLMAO

by maxwell edison

The [i]atmosphere[/i] is divided into many layers, and is used to describe the entire area between the earth and what we know as space, the final frontier. (From the ground, all the way up to approximately 560 kilometers, or 348 miles for all of us ignorant Americans who just won't get with the program, is all the atmosphere.) But I should have been more specific.

All of the heat radiated from these man made heat-sinks doesn't escape into space, but rather heats the area around it, in the troposphere layer of the atmosphere, thereby causing the average temperature of the earth to rise; and it's risen an average of 1 degree over the past century. (Not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course.) And it's more than just concrete, you know. It's all the steel and aluminum used in the building industry. (WOW, crunch those numbers!) And it's even people. People radiate heat as well, about 600 BTU per person, per hour, and they affect the heat load of any defined area. Multiply that by the explosion in the population, which now stands at about 6 billion, I believe, and we can clearly see that the data is irrefutable, and that people alone, generate 3.6 trillion BTUs of heat each and every hour, or 86 trillion BTUs of heat each and every day. That's astonishing! (We don't even want to consider all the computers in use, and the heat load generated by those things -- especially all the out-dated CRT monitors.)

It's all in the data, Neil. It's all in the data. And the data is irrefutable.

Why am I posting this message?

So I can increase awareness, man. Can't you see? People must be aware of the severity of this problem before we destroy the planet. We need to get some activists on board to influence the politicians. And we need to get the news media to start spreading the word. Then we will be able to scare everybody, I mean convince everybody that we must act now, and support the ratification of the Desoto Treaty. (Or should it be the Toto Treaty?)

by tonythetiger

Won't the politicians blowing all that hot air raise the temperature even more and faster, and won't printing all those flyers (not to mention the copies of the 'treaty') result in the deaths of even more trees? Yeah, we could go digital, but then people reading it would have to burn more electricity.

I think it's hopeless. Getting the message out will kill us all! And eventually, we'll turn into oil that some new species will discover and use, and the cycle will start all over again. And it's [b]ALL[/b] George Bush's fauilt!

by deepsand

In the absence of said construction materials the Earth is still irradiated with the same amount of energy.

by absolutely

"By the way, have you noticed how many people are laughing their ass off at you?"

No, the sort of person who is more interested in skillful but meaningless juxtaposition of words than in their exact meanings and relationship to reality have never been any concern of mine and never will.

by absolutely

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=192789&messageID=1989404

Many solids absorb visible and ultraviolet frequencies and convert them into kinetic energy of lattice vibrations, called "heat". The release of heat is defined by the emission of a lower wavelength photon in the "infrared" range. So even if we imported metals from other planets, to absorb more of the sun's rays and convert those to thermal energy, we could only retain that thermal energy with a gas that could prevent those infrared rays from escaping the atmosphere. If only I could find the absorption spectrum of CO2...

by Member 25348569

The thermal properties of most rocks are roughly the same as concrete - certainly in the same order - so if we dig up rock and turn it into concrete, the effect would be relatively small.

The interesting issue comes when we examine the thermal properties of those bits of the Earth's surface that are [b]not[/b] rocks. We'll leave the oceans out of the equation because - even in Florida - there aren't that many boats.

The volume heat capacity of dry sand is a mere 0.15 to 0.25 megajoules/cubic metre/Degree Kelvin whereas that of wet sand, clay soil, soil rich in organics - in fact [b]any[/b] soil - is between 1 and 2 mJ/m3/K. Granite - like most other rocks - is between 2 and 4 and concrete is around 2.

So, paving over farmland has very little effect. Paving over deserts would absorb more heat but we don't do that.

Isn't it a bugger when you ask a question, sure that the answer is in your favour, and it comes right back up your nostril at 50mph?

Neil :p

p.s. I'm not posting any sources. Find your own and prove me wrong.

by tonythetiger

are the result of the abundance of life. This was true even before humans roamed the planet. I think carbon follows the heat, rather than the other way around. The warmer it is, the more life there is, and the more carbon ends up in the atmosphere, and the colder it is, the less life there is and the level of carbon in the atmosphere drops (it's pretty hard to emit carbon through mile-thick sheets of ice).

Humans may be contributing more of it than other species in the past, but that is a far cry from proving that humans are causing global warming.

by tonythetiger

between previous peaks in CO2 and this one (what is it, a 20% difference? and since Carbon is responsible for 20% of green house gases (water vapor being the other 80), it's 20% of 20% or 4%). It [b]doesn't[/b] mean that we're [b]causing[/b] global warming.

[edit: change the title to 'and that's [b]part[/b] of the difference', because digging up and burning fossil fuels is not the only way to put carbon into the atmosphere. There was more uncontrolled burning of plant material 'back in the day' as well as more animals eating both plants and each other.

by dr dij

that humans emit vastly more CO2 than natural sources, that this rate is increasing.

So THAT CO2 mysti-magically disappears and is replaced by super-bugs that fart the stuff?

Actually the humongous rate of emissions is pretty irrefutable evidence we are affecting the climate.

The latest: it appears that global warming at current rates will cause 7-10o global temp rise by the year 2100. This will also cause approx 30' increase (10m for you aussies and euros) rise in sea levels.

All that lovely melting arctic ice and greenland icecap will dilute the gulf stream, plunging Europe (and New York) into mini ice ages in the winter. THey predict the Hudson could freeze solid regularly as it used to.

So, Max, the sky is not falling, but rhode-island sized chunks of it are flaking off. Glacier National Park will have to be renamed as there won't be any glaciers left soon.

by x-marcap

The glacier is looming farther over the mountain all the time. Someday, it will roll down hill. I just don't want to be there...

by jdclyde

than to use them all up?

What are you saving them for? An exibit somewhere?

Just think how happy that would make all the exo-nuts if there wasn't any more coal or oil to burn?

by Member 25348569

Do your own research. Then, if you wish, feel free to come back and tell me how wrong I am.

But, seriously, I really don't care whether you do or don't.

by jdclyde

my plastic bag might be as important to me because it doesn't kill trees!

or the people like Tammy Fae Baker that NEED their makeup, and both purchase and wear it in bulk!

lub a chain is good because using oil saves gas!

This is like the FAKE vegetarians that eat fish or eggs, or the "love animals, don't eat them" people that wear a leather belt or shoe.

by maxwell edison

Oh my gosh. Fossil fuels are running out. We're all doomed!

Oil forecasts made in 1970 suggested that global oil would run out (i.e., reach exhaustion) in 30 years or so, based on the then-proved oil reserves of about 30 years? worth of current production.

Let's see, 1970 plus 30 years equals 2000, plus even more production, puts us out of oil 6 years ago. Okay.

If they (whoever they are), in 1970, [i]expected [/i]the world to run out of oil in 30 years, but it obviously hasn't; and they (whoever they are), in 2006, suggest that the world is running out of oil sooner than [i]expected[/i], just what exactly does that mean, and how should we take it?

But gee, isn't that great news for those people who worship at the alter of extreme environmentalism? That's just want they want.

by maxwell edison

There's enormous support behind the notion of developing alternative energy sources, and eliminating the oil-based industry. If SOooooo many people support it, and if it's SOooooo important to do, why don't all THOSE people do it? All of you people MUST have the intelligence, the wherewithal, and the financing to do it. SO JUST DO IT, and STFU.

by mjwx

that the average person cant afford to fill their car.

For the oil crash (that?s when we are reduced to Iron Age level of technology for those of you who didn?t read the article i posted) to happen we don?t need to run out of oil. Oil just needs to become so expensive (about US$400 a barrel) that it becomes useless as a mainstream fuel.

Don?t just think about your car but think about the whole transportation system. How does food get from crops to the store, how much oil does it take to drive a V16 super freighter engine (you are able to stand up inside one of those cylinders). The world uses an incredible amount of fuel.

by mjwx

On the 10th of September 2001 who believed New York would be attacked? These things tend to sneak up on us.

People a comfortable and this creates malaise. Who will act when they don?t have to?

Footing the bill will have to be done with force. Oil companies don?t work out of the middle of Africa, they are based in the centres of the western world. Seizing assets and imprisoning exec's wont be difficult at all (the US is already a Nazi state I'm just trying to make the best of it). Something tells me they wont co-operate out of the kindness of their hearts.

by x-marcap

Reason obviously won't work. Liberals use the force majure of government, when they realize laws won't work, they go to the liberal courts...

Libs use the force of government, laws and regulations dictated by the courts to achieve their ends. The funny thing is the court isn't really legally allowed to make laws...

Why does force need to be used? Can't we let the markets decide?

Well, since the liberals want to take away more freedoms, I gotta go buy more ammo for when it gets a bit too oppressive, and hunting season is coming...

by dr dij

(I don't know how he could possibly have spent as much as he did on that movie)

people will be able to move inland
but the cost will be staggering as 70% of the world's people live close to the ocean.

and rampaging weather means there'll be alot more cyclones / hurricanes that affect people close to the ocean.

So it will only be a death threat to those majority of people who have no money to buy other land and become refugees, increasing disease and ethnic strife, and those who get washed away in places like Bangladesh where most of the country is within a few feet of sea level currently.

we won't all die here in US tho likely food prices will go up a bit due to local and global weather pattern changes. Plus in a few more years there'll be 3 billion more people. 8 to 9 billion total.

Or their could be a (bright?) side: increased temperature of the crust puts increasing pressure on tectonic plates / faults. This might lead to increase volcanism. The emissions are known to cause global cooling for a few years afterwards. This happened with Krakatoa in 1800's and Mt St Helens to a lesser degree.

Long as you don't mind some people killed and some crop failures from this.

by maxwell edison

My previous message illustrated why the whole anti-oil, global warming movement is political in nature, with no basis in principle. Oh sure, you have the rank-and-file, blind followers of the movement, the ones we see around here, for example; but they could certainly be led in another direction.

If these people really want to put automobiles on the streets that did not use oil, then they could do it themselves, if they really wanted to, that is.

The political savvy is there. Al Gore (and others), for example, instead of wasting his efforts making lame speeches and trying to get some television station started to spread his message of extreme environmentalism, why not call to action all those people to really do something? There are millions of people in "the movement", who could do the research, find the answers, develop the product, and even buy the stupid car that they, themselves, create.

The business savvy and the money is there. George Soros and all those mega-millionaire Democrats and Greens. All the Hollywood types. They all spend their money opening night clubs and restaurants, and buying mansions all over the world. Why don't they invest in green technology instead? Why don't they make and drive the non-oil burning vehicle their company creates? They could make a bundle as well, selling tens of millions of cars

I might assume the knowledge is there. They always spout off about how it "could be done".

And we know (or so they want us to believe) that the desire is there.

THEN WHY DON'T THEY JUST DO IT?

The worst case scenario is that half the people would still be driving the oil burning cars, but that's 50 percent better than what we have now. And then, they would really have something to shout about. They would be saying, look at what I do. As it is not, all we have is what they say.

There is absolutely no principle behind the movement - NONE. It's all politics, no more, no less.

Look at what they do, not at what they say. And their inaction speaks volumes.

by jellimonsta

Max, come on now. You know the Republicans are stopping any of these people from advancing the technology, or starting businesses (it's not REALLY free enterprise) ;)
If we can silence scientists from spreading the word on Global Warming, and (not?) talking about it on TV, we can easily stop individuals from advancing the technology to make more 'environmentally sound' vehicles. Besides, there is no profit for the oil industry there, or the politicians with their hands in the oil business pockets.
And, you should know, the current government just sends the men in black to wipe the memory of anyone who has advanced the technology enough to pose a real threat to their money-hungry, oil-spouting escapades! :p

by tonythetiger

what's being done. I read in a number of forums dedicated to alternative energy vehicles and people are doing it. The technologies are advancing. The bad ideas are being discarded and new ones tried, mostly by amatuers. I admire those people who put their money where their mouth is, instead of telling other people what to do.

by mjwx

(I feel sick :) ) The problem is political but from both sides of the political spectrum. You have left wing environmentalist nuts as you have described above and you have the oil driven right wing extremists.

Current governments don?t have the minimals to stand up to oil corps (mainly because that is where their kickbacks *cough* I mean campaign funding comes from).

I have said before, entire governments (people not entire governmental systems) need to be replaced.

by absolutely

I have to agree. With some financial assistance, or just some free publicity from famous personalities who call themselves greens when it's convenient, my dream car [http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm] would certainly be less expensive than it is.

["Pricing for the tzero will be set once production begins. We expect a price somewhere between a Porsche and a Ferrari. Our choice of pricing benchmarks is deliberate. It reflects 1) a reality, that the tzero matches the acceleration yet greatly exceeds the efficiency of those fantastic machines, and 2) an ambition that AC Propulsion can aspire in the 21st century to influence automotive engineering over the next 50 years the way those two great marques have set standards for engineering over the past 50 years."

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs/FAQ_cars.htm

["AC Propulsion is perhaps best known for building the tzero, the electric sports car that out-accelerates Ferraris and Vipers but is more efficient than the best hybrid. Here are some frequently asked questions about the tzero, and some other questions that should be frequently asked."]

Given the muscle car culture in this nation, it is a disgrace to all self-described "environmentalists" that the promise of purely electric motors is not well-known.

Nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than all others. Environmentalists who doubt this should compare the damage done by nuclear energy over its history to the damage done by other types of power plants, to human life and to wild ecosystems. There are two well-know nuclear power "events": Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and the latter was only a close call. Per kilowatt-hour, nuclear is better than the alternatives, and batteries don't burn anything.

by jellimonsta

[q]Per kilowatt-hour, nuclear is better than the alternatives, and batteries don't burn anything.[/q]

Batteries don't burn anything?
Tell that to the thousands (maybe more) of people who have suffered battery acid burns. Heck, I thought they were trying to find alternatives to lead acid batteries for automotive, and this 'new environmentally friendly' vehicle is using it to run?

Back to the drawing board...

by dr dij

Of course since the yellowstone supervolcano may go off, (it's thousands of years overdue) ash could be a couple feet thick there.

But think of how well it would fertilize the farms after new people move in when it's over! And of what fascinating discoveries their archeologists would make of people 'frozen in place' by the hot ash!

(I'm just a wonder of optimism today? :)

I just remembered something else about West Virginia: the 'capped' or 'topped' mountains.

That is the solution! we move all the coastal people to WV and build big arcologies (a building that is a miniature city) on the top of these strip mined mountains! (and I AM half serious, I think they ought to find a use for these if they are going to allow topping of the mountains)

by tonythetiger

I had an idea of digging a channel from the Pacific to Death Valley. It would kill off a few dozen species though.

by Member 25348569

A seriously good use for some of the many spare nukes you guys have got. Nice, low radiation 20KT weapons would gouge a pretty good inlet from the Pacific and - hey - it's only across California.

by deepsand

In the absence of the materials that you address, where does all of the Sun's radiant energy go?

I'll give you a hint. It does [b]not[/b] simply reverse course and travel back into space.

Nice try, but it won't serve to obviate the effects of combustion that produces atmospheric particulates and gases.

by jellimonsta

Long time no see (on here). I almost thought you had found better things to do with your time. :)

Oh, don't tell me, you heard that EL had reared its ugly head again? It's Neils fault!! :D

by tonythetiger

Humans got along for the most part just fine before, and they can, for the most part, do so again. I speak only for myself, of course, but I am perfectly capable of meeting all of my family's ordinary needs without need of an extensive transportation system.

Having said that, I realize that other people cannot always do the same, or have extraordinary needs, and that the transportation system will always be a large part of our lives. I am confident that humans will successfully make the required adjustments, whether that be through lifestyle changes or technological ones. They have done so many, many times in the past.

Like my coach told me when I accidentally swallowed a tooth during a game. "This too, son, shall pass". :)

by mjwx

placeing a garden on top of large buildings will deacrease the temperature inside by 2 Degrees C. I assume that this will aslo equate to less heat being adsorbed and radiated byt the structure itself.

by rob mekel

the studies Maxwell refers to even exist/is, on some basis or whatever, true. :D

Proven is that concrete can absorbe heat, as can many other materials. Also proven is that CO2 can reflect heat radiation. But I wouldn't state that there is any causal relation between these two.

Rob

by mjwx

My study was based on the college I talked to at lunch :) but he is a smart and well travelled bloke. I'm more worried about oil (see above).

by Member 25348569

Didn't we go to school together?

I remember, now. We used to be members of the Anti-Ippirate Club way back last year!

Nice to see you again. :D

by maxwell edison

In just seven months in 1980, Mt. St. Helens released 910,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and 220,000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide.

by Member 25348569

to check if that is even slightly relevant?

1) Mount St. Helens [b]stopped[/b] producing that much. It was a one off. (For now)

2) The USA alone, in a random seven months in 1980, produced around 3,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. You haven't stopped and won't stop. In fact, you're producing about 30% more, now.

If we liken St. Helens' CO2 output to a suitable American city, I think JD's hometown fits the bill.

Lies, danm lies and statistics.

And [b]my[/b] statistics. Read 'em and weep... :p

by maxwell edison

As it relates to your conclusion. It's the CONCLUSION, dip-stick, that is questionable. If you were to write out the entire thing, the whole cause and effect, and proposed solution, just like I did with the building materials scenario in the beginning of this discussion, both could be viewed the same way - SATIRE. The difference is, I'm pulling legs. But you actually take yourself seriously.

by absolutely

Deadly Ernest: "Interesting that when a scientist writes something in a book it is more believable than when that same scientist stands before a camera and says the same thing as part of a documentary by reputable documentary makers."

What is interesting about that? Every assertion made on television is made to a more credulous audience than the readers of scientific journals. Every documentary I've every watched on television or film has been summary in nature, with few statistics cited, and those only the totals, not the data collected. I suppose those wouldn't be very "entertaining".

Interesting that when Ernest cites a source, it disappears for "about 10 years - based on past average time frames."

by absolutely

Burn is a misnomer. Electric cars don't require combustion and the damage done to skin by acid may look similar to the damage done by combustion, but the chemical processes are distinct. I was talking about chemical processes, not skin damage. Also, opening the battery is not part of normal, recommended use and people who ignore the warning labels and aren't trained experts don't count. This "'new environmentally friendly' vehicle" uses Lithium Ion batteries.

by deadly ernest

My previous statement of "At the time I noted the scientists names and other source material mentioned in the Discovery Channel documentaries, since then I have moved house and lost just about everything smaller than a computer and TV - should finish unpacking and find everything again in about 10 years - based on past average time frames."

Makes it quite clear that the sources have not been lost, but my notes have not yet been unpacked and that, like many people, it will take me some time before I finish unpacking everything and know exactly where everything is. The notes may turn up tomorrow or next week - finding them right now is NOT critical to my life.

by jellimonsta

Is the Li-Ion an upgrade then, as when I looked at the spec sheet, it listed the battery type as an Optima recombinant lead acid?

by Member 25348569

Well, I take the issue seriously, yes. That's the problem where there are some subjects that most seem to take seriously and some - like this - where this would seem not to be the case. I guess we have to live with it. Sorry to spoil your joke...

Interesting definition of "satire", though. I always take it to mean the use of irony to attack one of humanity's many vices. (Irony is a bit of a hobby of mine.) So, you are going to have to explain to this dumb Brit how posting the CO2 emissions of Mt St. Helens is satire - or even slightly ironic. I didn't really miss it in the opening piece - it would have been difficult to ignore - but there wasn't an easy way to respond without trivialising something that I don't reckon warrants trivialising.

by Member 25348569

OK. If, say, the Yellowstone Caldera cuts loose we won't have to worry about global warming for quite a while but of volcanic eruptions in recorded history, Santorini was far and away the largest and - except for the Minoans who were wiped out - the effects were short-term spectacular and not log lasting.

by jellimonsta

I am intersted in seeing what can be done for air and ocean travel. A 757 uses around 2 gallons for every mile. How about ships/ ferries? That is a lot of oil consumption.

by maxwell edison

If anybody thought I was serious with my discussion message, it's no wonder so many people have bought into the other global warming argument. IT WAS SATIRE. It was all made up. But it was made-up with real and accurate statistics, of course, which made it analogous to the other global warming argument.

The ONLY difference between my [i]added heat-load[/i] cause for global warming and the other [i]added greenhouse gasses[/i] cause for global warming is one little letter. My basis was the BTU (British Thermal Unit), while the [i]added greenhouse gasses[/i] basis is the BSU. (Figure it out.) Plug the added greenhouse gasses data into my message, and it sounds just as unreal. BECAUSE IT IS UNREAL!

Some of you people really do have a religious approach to global warming.

Your God is [i]the environment[/i].

Your devil is oil.

The devil's vehicle is the SUV.

You demonize nonbelievers.

Nonbelievers speak blasphemy.

You have prophets in the likes of Al Gore.

Your faith is in scientists who spew [i]data and statistics[/i] that most of you know nothing about, yet you choose to believe their [i]conclusion[/i] anyway.

Your high-priests are those scientists.

You place faith in that which cannot be proven.

You have blind-followers in yourselves and the extreme environmentalists.

You have sinners and those who have repented.

Your methods are to convert as many as possible, and by force if necessary.

You are on your own crusade.

You argue your case as vehemently as the best evangelical preacher.

Your Bible is the Kyoto Treaty.

And you worship on the alter of extreme environmentalism.

I wonder, by the way, what the percentage of atheist [i]radical global warming activists[/i] is compared to their percentage of the population as a whole. I'd bet it's more. This is Neil's religion. There's no doubt about it. Since he's an atheist, I guess he needed to find a substitute. And Absolutely, another atheist, who was also emotionally scarred with religion as a child, is also singing in the global warming choir.

Now let's all bow our heads and kneel at the alter of extreme environmentalism, and ask our God, our Mother Earth, to forgive us for our sins. And we pray that we may accept the penance with faith, and with grace, and without question, so that we may resist the temptation of the devil, big-oil, and praise all that is good. We pray for guidance so that we may remain righteous and convert the nonbelievers so that they all, we all, may be saved. We humbly ask for your forgiveness in the name of our Lord, Mother Earth. Amen.

Alleluia, Brother! (And you too, Bishop Neil.)

by Member 25348569

As a "Fundamentalist Econut", I own a car. I own a motorbike. I own a boat. I own a house. I have central heating, a fridge, a freezer, a washing machine, a large LCD TV and, all in all, have quite a comfortable existence.

But.

It's a small car (although it can outdrag any SUV crap that I've ever revved against) and I use the bike unless I really need the car, use the train or local tram if I can or, even better, walk. (I hate buses so I won't use them). When I'm in the car - which has aircon - I open the window and turn off the aircom below 40mph, close the window and turn the aircon on if I need to. I "religiously" check the type air pressure weekly and keep it at 1psi above recommended. This last tip, by the way, would have saved the US more juice than that stupid 55mph speed limit during the last gasoline fiasco.

My apartment is insulated as well as I can do it - well above the recommended thickness.

My central heating is a degree or so (Celsius) than it used to be and I don't really notice and turns on and off a little later and earlier respectively. We only need house aircon 10 days per century in the UK at the moment so that's no loss not having any.

My fridge, freezer and washing machine were chosen on the basis of economy and suitability for purpose.

My boat is only a little boat.

You know what? To be that little bit greener costs me nothing. In fact, it saves me money. I just had to make a little bit of effort to find out what I could do to save a little energy.

Haven't you stupid Americans sussed out that if a few of you adopted even partway the idea that you ought to be saving energy - regardless of whatever justification you used for it - then you could stick two fingers up to the Middle East? The fact that you [b]might[/b] be contributing to environmental causes then becomes an irrelevant but welcome by-product.

No?

No.

If you consider this as my religion - and it isn't - then what's your excuse for your blinkered attitude? I, at least, have [b]some[/b] logic on my side!

by jdclyde

just like on "Yoggie and friends", actually turns out to be the "land of waste". (anyone else remember that one?)

Just because not everyone believes in Global Warming to mean the same thing does not mean that they don't do what they can to conserver if for no other reason than to save themselves money.

My car gets about 32 mpg, and the type of driving I do (highway) means that a hybrid car would be of absolutly no benifit to anyone but the person that is charging more to sell that car.

I don't throw trash on the streets, and even pick it up if I am walking along.

Econuts seem to think that just because someone isn't up in arms about global warming and the scare of the day, that they feel we should polute as much as possible at any chance we get.

Not the case.

by dr dij

Get off your paranoid high horse!

sure there are eco-fanatics
just as there are religious fanatics
and biz fanatics (biz can do no wrong, pollute all you want)
we like to use energy, not necessarily oil, but currently is only choice for many uses

we like society
we like companies (but want as a society to determine limits on their effluent)
we want society to continue and not have cities wiped out by vast weather patterns spawned by global warming

we don't like problems caused by envt'l destruction:
having 70% of global population in danger from rising and violent oceans
having to move inland by 2100
having to shift crop production as global weather patterns change, most likely leading to mass starvation
having biz dump effluent into rivers, oceans (reasonably controlled in US, and horrible in many developing countries)
i.e. toxic dumping by maquiladora plants in Mexico

we like the idea of personal responsibility. society determines limits in gray areas, and extend that to corporations.
there ARE real effects of pollution and society.
some ARE reasonably harmless, some ARE very bad. some are local, some are global.
the best thing to do is analyze each issue individually with its effect on the world, and individual parts of the world. some will be 'nothing can be done', some we'll be better off fixing. some are minor. some are long term but urgent, such that if we ignore them humankind will be in deep doo-doo a few years down the road.
some are short term bad without major long term problems.

If you ignore these issues, you are part of the problem - contributing to pollution and doing nothing about it.

I'd suggest change your outlook to view the problems thru your pro-biz attitude, but realize that we as a species have grown so much that we're over-running this world.

certain specific biz needs to be controlled and no one is doing this, such as depletion of the oceans. also certain types of biz need to have spot pollution reduced (e.g. certain incinerators and paper production can easily reduct pollution with quick major benefits)

then society as a whole needs to move to more renewable energy sources. it may not need to be done by govt decree. still it needs doing.

And as a slightly satirical suggestion to your original problem with reflecting roofs, instead of banning roofs and asphalt, have them plant their roofs. Many industrial building and homes are now doing this (not a vast#). This reduces reflection but also water runoff and reduces cooling needs.

by jdclyde

there is a big difference between the radical views of the extremists and a logical compromise for development.

I am not going to go to living in a cave just because some nut thinks we need to stop building new development.

Max NEVER said he supported dumping of toxins that I have EVER seen. He has just stated that the ever changing scare of Global Warming is just a political tool used to scare people in excange for power and money.

We should and DO always look for better ways to live. We DID when nuke plants were developed, but the econuts in the US stood in the way of that, didn't they? Hydroelectric is another example, that is fought at every turn. Windmill farms are also opposed because of the sight and potential damage to birds. Solar is fine and dandy, until you have to dispose of the pannels. Battery power is fine and dandy until you have to dispose of the batteries.

Paper vs plastic? Kill a tree or use oil?

The econuts that expect people to just STOP doing any and everything are the problem that much of this is not recognised by rational people. We fine a solution, you find a problem with that solution and kill it without offering an alternative.

What is your solution? To compain?

by Member 25348569

I'm only an "econut" viewed from where he's standing. Viewed from the perspective of a real ecological convert, I'm a complete waster.

I just like arguing.

I have a 1.8 fuel injected small car and, as a 1.8 shoebox, it goes like sh:t off a shovel! When I replace it, I will probably get the same make and I'll have to choose between a 1.4, 1.6 - without DI - or a 2l injection as they're not making a 1.8. What should I get? As an econut, any car is a gross waste of the world's resources and, if I must get a car, then it should be a Smart 600.

I will surely get the 2litre and I've even chosen the colour. ]:)

My bike should really be a 50cc runabout. It is a 750cc Kawasaki.

I like - and buy - imported and out-of-season fruits and veggies if they taste good.

Me, an econut? I think not. I'm just making a small effort not to waste as much as I could...

by deadly ernest

was the one I was trying to think of, not Krakatoa.

BTW http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html talks about volcanic gas emissions thus ".. The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3). As the aerosols grow and coagulate, they settle down into the upper troposphere where they serve as nuclei for cirrus clouds and further modify the Earth's radiation balance. .."

Another important apsect of global warming is to note that the ice cores have shown the earth has gone through many stages of warming and cooling, thus showing that it naturally has temperature variations. Man does have an effect, as do all animals - just think about all that methane from farts - but it is wrong to attribute all the faults on man's activities as some do.

by tonythetiger

I am in the process of building a three-wheeled, two seated (side-by-side) electrically assisted bicycle. A lot of trial and error, thus expense, but when I get it done, I will be able to move two people and 50 lbs of groceries 30 miles in two hours for about 20 cents worth of electricity. If it helps the environment, fine, but that's not why I'm doing it.

by dr dij

appears to be to deny there IS a problem!

It would be better if Max ADMITTED THERE IS A PROBLEM.
This is the first stage in the CURE :)

He just seems overboard, since you, me, max are all still driving our cars and polluting. (tho thanks to some rules the per-car, per person pollution is reduced). No one is going to take that away from him for pollution reasons only. Instead, economics and shortages will reduce our oil consumption.

but the overall problems are undeniable. Max seems to want to deny the problem because he doesn't like someone else's proposed solutions. Well, there IS no one proposed solution. Instead I'd suggest he figure out which problems are serious enuf to affect him / and his children, if he cares what will happen to them, and figure out what a minimal intervention / free market solution would be.

It can't all be totally free market as pollution is in essence, the use of force on others. If I spread toxic cr*p on my lawn at the edge of your property and the fumes waft over and kill your dog, how is that different than a plant spewing pollution into the air 1 mile away, 10 miles away, etc.

Society has set limits to pollution and needs to revise these from time to time as new facts become evident. When they first started spewing, they thought the (sky / rivers / oceans / landfills) were infinite. Now we know more.

Now we know that toxics seep thru ground, that rivers carry pollution to the ocean, that some compounds don't degrade and some degrade to toxics, others change such as CO2 to carbonic acid in the oceans, melting down life that sustains us.

Now we know that fish are not infinite past a certain catch amount, which we then kill the whole species. Now we know that greenhouse gasses are melting the ice caps and poles.

by maxwell edison

You said, "Now we know that greenhouse gasses are melting the ice caps and poles."

No we don't. We don't know any such thing. Perhaps IT'S THE SUN!

You said, "Max seems to want to deny the problem because he doesn't like someone else's proposed solutions."

What kind of pompous and presumptuous comment is that? I deny the problem because the claimed problem is unproven. And I don't like to provide solutions to solve unproven problems.

As to the rest of your message, just like the man-caused global warming claims, it's all crap. Why not try something new and different, and write something that makes sense.

by maxwell edison

I love the environment, probably more than you do. I'm an avid outdoorsman who hikes in the mountains and always carries out my own trash, as well as the trash that others might leave behind. I teach a class to various groups called [i]Leave No Trace[/i], which includes more than just lecturing against littering, but also how to play, live, and survive in the wilderness without leaving any kind of negative impact on the environment. I cancelled my membership to the Sierra Club, however, quite a few years ago, about the time when it became obvious that they went from being an environmental organization to a political one.

I absolutely abhor pollution in any form; but until the economics of a viable solution is presented, I'm a realist enough to know that a workable balance must be struck between protecting the environment at all costs versus providing goods and services to people, and maintaining an economically healthy society. For example, I cringe when I see the pollution bellowing out of the smoke stacks at any local power plant. But I realize that it keeps the lights on in the homes and the equipment running in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit). And I always wonder why the eco-left in America is always sabotaging the efforts to replace those polluting plants with the cleaner and very safe nuclear technology. That's one thing the French seem to be doing right.

I don't hunt, never have, never will. I don't fish for sport; but I have fished to catch dinner. And contrary to what many ignorant people have charged, I don't own an SUV. And I don't own one of those monster trucks either. I rarely drive my old pickup; and my 13 year old car gets almost 30 mpg. My house is not even equipped with air conditioning, I opt to use the [i]open the windows[/i] method of cooling instead. And my thermostat is set in the low 60s (F) for heating. A sweater or a sweat shirt works just fine.

I support most proposals for public transportation, but I wonder about the principle of allowing the transit workers to walk off the job and strike. Not only are they public employees providing a public service paid for by the public, but their actions cause more congestion and more pollution. They should be prohibited from shutting down the system, and be fired if they do. And here I thought the unions and the environmentalists were on the same side -- the left. Silly me. I guess not when money is concerned. (Isn't that the slam people make at me?) I even walk to my office a couple of times a week. And I made sure that my place of employment and my home are close enough (3 miles) to avoid a long commute every day.

I'll confront neighbors who dump anti-freeze or paint or gasoline down the sewers, and I'll report them if they don't listen to me. I don't want that crap to get into the water systems. I quit changing my own oil, and I pay others to do it, even though it costs me more, so the old oil can be properly disposed of. And I'm against providing wavers to mining companies whose byproducts pollute the rivers and streams. I'm not crazy about strip mining either, but I guess that's one of those balance things again. I am opposed to those silly city-sponsored recycling programs, however. Not only are they a HUGE waste of money, but I hate seeing those diesel burning trucks that pick up the stuff spewing their pollution into the air. Let's just grow more trees and pollute a little less, if you ask me.

So Neil, I am exactly what I would call, and what even used to be called, an avid environmentalist. But today's environmentalist movement has become so extreme, that they simply cannot be taken seriously. Name one extreme group that is, and should be, taken seriously. Even the ones in my own political ideology, the libertarians, for example, are too extreme to function with a realistic view of the world. And the global warming scare was born from the most extreme of environmental extremists. They simply cannot be taken seriously. And in this case, they MUST NOT be taken seriously. Not only are their claims unproven, but their motives are highly suspect. And then there are those people only an ugly mother could love (huh?), the ones who say that even though it might not be true, we should still act "just in case". What kind of crap is that? By making such a statement, not only do they admit that doubt should be cast on those dubious claims, but they show that it's a political motive on their part (since it's always the leftist types who say such a thing), not an environmental one.

I'm not an idiot, Neil. In fact, I think I'm pretty smart and very informed. I'm not against the Kyoto treaty because I'm against the environment. It's just a bad deal -- all around. It's crap. Just like the man-caused global warming scare -- it's crap. It's a bunch of nonsense. You throw out all those facts and figures and data, and them draw a conclusion that's nowhere near proven. In fact, there are just as many -- or more -- reputable people in-the-know who disagree with the conclusion as those who do. And whenever any doom-and-gloom scenario is presented, the red flags of skepticism should pop up all over the place. And my red flags are waving hard in all the hot-air you guys are blowing.

by Member 25348569

I'll have to answer you tomorrow.

I might call you an idiot but I don't really think you are one...

I have been arguing the Global Warming position against you from a fairly extreme point of view simply because the implacable stance you have taken - that there is NO truth in any of it - makes it difficult to take any other tack than completely antagonistic. It's more fun that way, anyway.

Let's find some common ground...

by maxwell edison

....another person, party, or country tries to exert political power over me (domestically) or my country (globally). If you take all politics out of the global warming debate, I probably wouldn't even be a part of it. But then again, as I said, the global warming scare isn't about protecting the environment, it's about gaining political power. No more, no less.

Without the political aspect of it, you might was well be debating the existence of a God -- another argument you'll rarely see me enter.

by maxwell edison

I don't think you're an idiot either, even though I think your an idiot for believing the man-caused global warming myth. (And I'm pretty sure you will take that as intended.)

I also must say that nobody has put up a better argument or debate with me on this issue. All the other people who challenged me, or otherwise attempted to discredit what I said, all put forth no more than lame attempts. They all sound silly. At least you present somewhat of a challenge.

Now be sure to say your prayers before the alter of extreme environmentalism before you go to bed.

by mjwx

Your republican opressors as well? Sorry TJ, but I had to say it just take it in the (dry) humor it was intended.

Force must be used (in the case of the oil corp's) because they will not co-operate of their own free will.

Markets work for themselves not for the people in or around them. they will support oil corporations until their downfall and then claim no responsability.

Just to clear up where is stand in the political spectrum. I am a centrist. Right on some issues and left on others. For example you are well within your rights to make a fortune but I believe that when you make over a certain amount (1 Mill?) you should start paying a flat tax and be denied any loopholes and enough of these tax evaders who only pay themseves 1$ a year and get millions in kickbacks their not taxed for.

by absolutely

That is an accurate, direct quote of your words. If I didn't read that "properly", you will explain how.