What do you consider to be the best "con" of recent years?

Mike375 said:
Of course from a practical point of view we might get "some free" energy to do the extracting. Maybe solar panels heatinh water to drive steam engines to produce electricity to split the water.
Click to expand...

You see you offer a possibility.

I have no idea of Hydrogen fuel is a real possibility. but I am not convinced at this time that is is not a possibilitry.

CH4 contains hydrogen. Water is not the only possibility.

Maybe nuclear to produce a continous electricity stream to produce Hydrogen that can be stored and used as required.

No CO2.

I do not know potential or failings. It needs somebidy smarted than me but I say lets look at it seriously

L
 
Just to add another con to the list:

Creationism.

There are many, many religious people who innocently and earnestly believe in creationism, but the folks leading them (at the top of the tree, at least) are con artists - they're not just wrong, they're dishonest - knowingly and deliberately authoring arguments that will appear to refute certain pieces of mainstream science.

-You can accept or believe a fraudulent argument without yourself being a fraudster. But dishonesty is required to create one afresh.

Not really sure if this qualifies for the 'recent years' part of the question, although some of the more public (and dishonest) facets of creationism have grown significantly in recent years.
 
Last edited:
Mike375 said:
To be able to extract Hydrogen from water and use less energy than was developed by the combinig of the Hydrogen and Oxygen would amout to going down the road of perpetual motion.

Conside the following extreme example:

Lets say when the appropriate mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen (from memory about 6 parts oxygen by weight to one part hydrogen by weight) we X amount of energy and of course the by product is water.

If we can now extract the Hydrogen and Oxygen for no energy cost we can then reburn them. Perpetural motion.

Of course from a practical point of view we might get "some free" energy to do the extracting. Maybe solar panels heatinh water to drive steam engines to produce electricity to split the water.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as perpetual motion, it doesn't exist
 
Mike Gurman said:
Just to add another con to the list:

Creationism.

There are many, many religious people who innocently and earnestly believe in creationism, but the folks leading them (at the top of the tree, at least) are con artists - they're not just wrong, they're dishonest - knowingly and deliberately authoring arguments that will appear to refute certain pieces of mainstream science.

-You can accept or believe a fraudulent argument without yourself being a fraudster. But dishonesty is required to create one afresh.

Not really sure if this qualifies for the 'recent years' part of the question, although some of the more public (and dishonest) facets of creationism have grown significantly in recent years.
Click to expand...

Go here

http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=147789

an add your two bob's worth:D
 
Thanks - that looks like an interesting read, although I'm not sure if I want to leap into a thread that's already grown so large (and I don't really know which of the poll options I'd choose, either - there seems to be a significant gap between various flavours of atheism/agnosticism at one end and raving fundie at the other)
 
Now that is one thing that would upset a significant chunk of science. 'Energy cannot be created (or destroyed)' is the first law of thermodynamics. There's an awful lot that's been built on that foundation.

It simply isn't useful to keep on saying "aha, but we don't really know", when really, we do. Keeping an open mind about perpetual motion has created a niche for a whole bunch of scammers and nutcases to peddle their schemes. (fairly recent example: Steorn, who claimed they had made a motor that runs forever using a clever arrangement of permanent magnets)
 
I am inclined to think if Hydrogen is used it won't be for cars but for power stations.

In my opinion the current (and recent) social engineering will among other things change the way people buy cars. The car will become more like a stove, fridge, washing machine etc. It will have no status and will be purely to do a job.

Once that is achieved that greatly simplifies the energy situation for private transport. Once the car is recduced to washing machine status that also opens the doors for public transport as the preferred means of transport.
 
Mike375 said:
I am inclined to think if Hydrogen is used it won't be for cars but for power stations.
Click to expand...
Using what process to obtain the hydrogen?

If you use solar to split water, then burn it to fuel your power station, you'd be much better off just using the solar power directly.

Same for pretty much everything. Making fuel costs more energy than you can get from burning it.
 
Mike Gurman said:
Using what process to obtain the hydrogen?

If you use solar to split water, then burn it to fuel your power station, you'd be much better off just using the solar power directly.

Same for pretty much everything. Making fuel costs more energy than you can get from burning it.
Click to expand...

Note that I said "I am inclined to think if Hydrogen is used it won't be for cars but for power stations."

I don't know what the alternative energy source will be but I think it will be centralised at power stations and the individual will be all electric.

As to Hydrogen being the source, I can't see that and for couple of basic reasons, neither of which technology is likely to change. Firstly, there are all the obvious problems of strorage and transportation and that problem is greatky escalated by the fact the the energy available from Hydroged (including liquid) is extremely poor on a per volume basis.

Secondly, what energy is going to be used to get the Hydrogen.:) The energy used to get the hydrogen will be the alternative energy source. Once the social engineering is compete (and is well along the way) the alternative energy source will not need to satisfy any requirments for distribution on every street corner, fit in the back of the car etc. The alternative energy source will be distributed as electricity.
 
I understood you were speculating, but the point is that whatever process you use to produce hydrogen in bulk requires an energy input. It's pretty likely that skipping the hydrogen altogether and just using that energy input to run your power station, will be far more efficient.
 
Mike375 said:
It seems to me there are two parts to global warming:

1) Is it happening

2) If it is happening is due to man's activities
Click to expand...

I think there are three parts to Global warming.

the third part being.

3) If either answer returns a NO, lets keep it quiet, and see how much we can charge the Tax Payer by saying Yes instead. :rolleyes:
 
I know that we didn't want to mention religion as a con, but I simply can't resist!!

The biggest con has to be that Jesus Christ was the son of a fictional God, and that Christianity and pretty much all religion is based on a lie.

And what is sad is that over the centuries, billions of people have died because of this moumental con !!!
 
Mike375 said:
It seems to me there are two parts to global warming:

1) Is it happening

2) If it is happening is due to man's activities
Click to expand...
1) There seems indisputable evidence that Global warming is occurring. many parts of the globe have reported increased average annual temperatures as borne out by increased melting of both Artic and Antartic Ice.
2) I suspect that human activities are contributing to global warming. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased over the last 250 years due to a lot of burning of fossil fuels. However this does not mean that there are not other factors at work as well. We know historically the sun's output varies
 
One anti-global warming argument I keep seeing is that the Earth has been like this in the past...

Even if that's true, it doesn't necessarily mean:
-We're not the cause this time
-We can survive it in comfort (or would have done, when it happened in prehistory)
 
I am trying to figure out why Al Gore and everyone else say that it is caused by humans - except to profit on it. They say "it is because ... " or "it seems to be from ... " or " it is due to ... " with some human action link.

The papers that came out is based on was written by non-scientific minds, but representatives appointed by countries. The real scientists that were originally listed on the paper had resigned prior to its publishing and tried to sue to get their names off the paper (it took two years - but the damage had been done - and the groups used the scientists names to validate the papers and the claims made in them). These scientists have since then been campaigning against the papers - but the wild media press will not give them the platform.

Anyhow, 'they' - the fear mongers - have now switched from 'global warming' (because they don't know what is going on) to 'climate change' as their key phrase. The bit about it is - the Earth is too big for us to affect it - we can't set it back.

These groups only focus on the negatives and incite fear with speculation. They never mention any possibility of good benefits and with their 'learned and great minds' positioning humanity to take advantage of it in a beneficial fashion instead of fear mongering for profit.

What they have missed is if it weren't for global climate change - we wouldn't be here or enjoy the benefits this particular change has created for us.

Just my .02,
-dK
 
even if all of that is true-

certain thing are a problem -- dependancy upon fosil fuel which is running out
dependancy upon the Middle East for oil
Russia for Gas (doesn't apply to the UK )

and an ecmny based on oil means that the Arabs control more than they should...

cleaner fuel means cleaner air (which has got to be a good thing)
 
I can already see it now.

There will the Department of Carbon Compliance.

Small business will have a phase in period. Then it will get too hard for small business so they will need to outsource or come under the umbrella of a very big business.

If there is a power failure you will need to use Carbon Compliance candles, although there will be a phase in period.

All this bullshit is about big money being made by big business and the control of Very big business and gov't increasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom