Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,098 - 4,110 of 6,170
So producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss
Only if they make it out of corn - that is a con, I agree. But you can make it out of any biomass - even wood. There's a good page athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol describing the process.
A major advantage is that "it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 85% over reformulated gasoline. By contrast, starch ethanol (e.g., from corn), which most frequently uses natural gas to provide energy for the process, reduces GHG emissions by 18% to 29% over gasoline."
I agree, corn should be for eating. But cobs, husks, sawdust and all other "scrap" biomass can be usefully employed.
Oh yes, and I believe it's all very different in the US, but I don't really know how. Verbal contracts are unenforceable there?
As a general rule, verbal contracts may be enforceable in the US, if you can prove up the elements of a contract in court. However, most US states have some sort of Statute of Frauds law so that certain contracts must be in writing (e.g. if the subject is worth more than $500, involves land, wills...etc). This requirement is also echoed in the Uniform Commercial Code which has been adopted in some form by most states.
US law is not the same as UK law. In fact, contract law varies from state to state in the US too. It's also kind of boring, but someone has to pay attention to it.
Irina, not getting bored are you? Perhaps trying to set up a little game of "Let's you and him fight" down the way? Just curious. 
Posts 4,098 - 4,110 of 6,170
If they can't get next weeks weather right how should I believe that global warming is really happening?
Also here is the truth about ethanol. There's not nearly as much energy in ethanol as there is in gasoline. producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs. So producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss. And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then transport that ethanol to collection points (ethanol can't run in underground pipelines because it picks up damaging impurities), the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce ethanol, and that ethanol contains far less energy than the gasoline they consumed to produce it.
To make significant amounts of energy from food crops would deplete the amount of land available for growing actual food for people to eat.
Isn't it better to help out a good cause like saving starving children than something we aren't really sure is happening.
-http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ethanol-facts.htm
To make significant amounts of energy from food crops would deplete the amount of land available for growing actual food for people to eat.
Isn't it better to help out a good cause like saving starving children than something we aren't really sure is happening.
-http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ethanol-facts.htm
I would only believe this theory if someone told me some science behind it rather than just numbers and data.
Only if they make it out of corn - that is a con, I agree. But you can make it out of any biomass - even wood. There's a good page at
A major advantage is that "it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 85% over reformulated gasoline. By contrast, starch ethanol (e.g., from corn), which most frequently uses natural gas to provide energy for the process, reduces GHG emissions by 18% to 29% over gasoline."
I agree, corn should be for eating. But cobs, husks, sawdust and all other "scrap" biomass can be usefully employed.
I would only believe this theory if someone told me some science behind it rather than just numbers and data.
*scratches head* Science IS numbers and data. Without them, there is no science.
If they can't get next weeks weather right how should I believe that global warming is really happening?
I don't remember the exact figure, but something like 8 of the past ten years have made it into the hottest ten years on record. Globally. Oh, and that's based on all those pesky numbers and data that you don't want to deal with.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to argue either that (a) greenhouse gases are helpful somehow (a la an odd book I ran across claiming that we needed them to stave off the next ice age); or (b) removing greenhouse gases is harmful.
As is, most scientists agree that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming. And, as I said, even if that is incorrect, reducing pollution is a worthy goal.
*scratches head* Science IS numbers and data. Without them, there is no science.
If they can't get next weeks weather right how should I believe that global warming is really happening?
I don't remember the exact figure, but something like 8 of the past ten years have made it into the hottest ten years on record. Globally. Oh, and that's based on all those pesky numbers and data that you don't want to deal with.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to argue either that (a) greenhouse gases are helpful somehow (a la an odd book I ran across claiming that we needed them to stave off the next ice age); or (b) removing greenhouse gases is harmful.
As is, most scientists agree that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming. And, as I said, even if that is incorrect, reducing pollution is a worthy goal.
Coolchimpk, I believe global warming is true, here and happening fast. Areas of Canada that have had ice pack are gone! Polar Bears and seals are under stress. The Inuit People will tell you that they can no longer tell the signs buy the snow, because it is different then anyone has ever seen and it is effecting their lifes. In southern Canada bears are not hibernating or come out of hibernation early. Pines and firs are beeing attacked by assorted bugs that should have been killed off by a freexe..acre after acre of forest are turning orange and dying.
As a general rule, verbal contracts may be enforceable in the US, if you can prove up the elements of a contract in court. However, most US states have some sort of Statute of Frauds law so that certain contracts must be in writing (e.g. if the subject is worth more than $500, involves land, wills...etc). This requirement is also echoed in the Uniform Commercial Code which has been adopted in some form by most states.
US law is not the same as UK law. In fact, contract law varies from state to state in the US too. It's also kind of boring, but someone has to pay attention to it.
CoolchimpK I would only believe this theory if someone told me some science behind it rather than just numbers and data.
Let me back you up a bit and test your ideas about science in general. What do you consider a scientific theory? I don't mean the way people throw the word theory around in every day use, as if it were a synonym for "guess" or "opinion"; I mean how do you define a scientific theory such as gravity or quantum mechanics?
Once I understand how you see "theory", I would like to know what relationship you think theory has to evidence and how you think hypothesis derived from theory should be tested. What sorts of methods and evidence do you think should be used? That sorts or standards and peer review mechanisms should be in place?
Once you explain that to me, I may find some common ground to discuss this. Right now, the global warming "theory" has the "facts and data" you disdain, loads of anecdotal evidence for those who prefer it (though you are right, the sort of "gut feeling" anecdotes you seem to think happens when the weather is bad is not, on it's own, very solid as evidence). It also has the acceptance of the scientific community, who has been, by and large, trained to examine things critically and scientifically.
To make significant amounts of energy from food crops would deplete the amount of land available for growing actual food for people to eat.
Then you are a fan of the electric car? Isn't it a travesty what happened to the EV is California? Can you imagine lines of people begging GM to please sell them the working cars they had been leasing, standing vigil for months with checks in their hands, while GM is so petty as to crush the cars that already existed and worked fine just because GM resented being told they had to have built them by CA law, and then lobbied to change the law because they made a decision to market minivans instead? You can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
You can also watch a video about it here (I think) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao
Also, do you really imagine that surplus US corn is sent to starving people? We have enough food on the planet to feed everyone right now, and then some. We just don't distribute it. The US corn market (like most of it's farming markets) have had some level of protection since the great depression. We would rather pay farmers not to grow corn then flood the market with free corn.
Let me back you up a bit and test your ideas about science in general. What do you consider a scientific theory? I don't mean the way people throw the word theory around in every day use, as if it were a synonym for "guess" or "opinion"; I mean how do you define a scientific theory such as gravity or quantum mechanics?
Once I understand how you see "theory", I would like to know what relationship you think theory has to evidence and how you think hypothesis derived from theory should be tested. What sorts of methods and evidence do you think should be used? That sorts or standards and peer review mechanisms should be in place?
Once you explain that to me, I may find some common ground to discuss this. Right now, the global warming "theory" has the "facts and data" you disdain, loads of anecdotal evidence for those who prefer it (though you are right, the sort of "gut feeling" anecdotes you seem to think happens when the weather is bad is not, on it's own, very solid as evidence). It also has the acceptance of the scientific community, who has been, by and large, trained to examine things critically and scientifically.
Then you are a fan of the electric car? Isn't it a travesty what happened to the EV is California? Can you imagine lines of people begging GM to please sell them the working cars they had been leasing, standing vigil for months with checks in their hands, while GM is so petty as to crush the cars that already existed and worked fine just because GM resented being told they had to have built them by CA law, and then lobbied to change the law because they made a decision to market minivans instead? You can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
You can also watch a video about it here (I think) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao
Also, do you really imagine that surplus US corn is sent to starving people? We have enough food on the planet to feed everyone right now, and then some. We just don't distribute it. The US corn market (like most of it's farming markets) have had some level of protection since the great depression. We would rather pay farmers not to grow corn then flood the market with free corn.
Psimagus,
Oh and just to make Irina happy, we should both be saying "oral contract" not "verbal contract" (written contracts involve words too, though I know what you meant and used the same term the same way); and I have no doubt you are involved in contracts all the time without legal representation you just don't think about it
Oh and just to make Irina happy, we should both be saying "oral contract" not "verbal contract" (written contracts involve words too, though I know what you meant and used the same term the same way); and I have no doubt you are involved in contracts all the time without legal representation you just don't think about it
We would rather pay farmers not to grow corn then flood the market with free corn.
It's more complicated than that. Small farms do not make very much money at all. Part of the reason for government subsidies is so that farms can survive without charging an arm and a leg for their products. Since everyone depends on farms, it is vital to keep them running and keep the prices to the consumer down.
Also, the land needs to be recharged periodically; left fallow. So "being paid not to farm" is more often "being paid to let the land recharge itself." There are exceptions, and people who take advantage, yes. But don't knock farm subsidies. Without them, there would ONLY be huge corporate farms.
[My grandparents were all farmers, so this is a bit of a sore point for me.]
Oh, my grandma once leased out some of her farmland to a univeristy research program. They were looking for ways to control cheat grass. Grandma drove by every so often, and noted that they'd gotten very good at growing cheat grass.
It's more complicated than that. Small farms do not make very much money at all. Part of the reason for government subsidies is so that farms can survive without charging an arm and a leg for their products. Since everyone depends on farms, it is vital to keep them running and keep the prices to the consumer down.
Also, the land needs to be recharged periodically; left fallow. So "being paid not to farm" is more often "being paid to let the land recharge itself." There are exceptions, and people who take advantage, yes. But don't knock farm subsidies. Without them, there would ONLY be huge corporate farms.
[My grandparents were all farmers, so this is a bit of a sore point for me.]
Oh, my grandma once leased out some of her farmland to a univeristy research program. They were looking for ways to control cheat grass. Grandma drove by every so often, and noted that they'd gotten very good at growing cheat grass.
Ulrike, Point taken. I am not actually against farm subsides. I just think that making ethanol from corn won't really be taking food out of anyone's mouth.
My Uncle had a dairy farm up in northern Wisconsin we used to visit every summer. His children didn't want to keep up the farm after he got older, so now most of that land belongs to a large corporation. I know exactly what you mean.
My Uncle had a dairy farm up in northern Wisconsin we used to visit every summer. His children didn't want to keep up the farm after he got older, so now most of that land belongs to a large corporation. I know exactly what you mean.
coolchimpk, Look at the two picts at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6908719/site/newsweek/ That should say a lot with out facts and figures. Also look at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/ and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15003895/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/ and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15003895/
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar