But where does the hydrogen come from? Right now a major source is natural gas.
1 Like
I think you made an assumption there. I was talking about those people who belong to cult religions who often go by a “modified” version of the Bible, not Christians who believe in the whole bible.
There are a lot of people who do not believe that climate change is man made who are also not religious, they discount it for political reasons. Probably a lot of Christians also discount it for political reasons and not religious reasons.
Those who do believe in climate change is at least partially caused by man also know that it isn’t just caused by cars and trucks. Natural gas is not the answer either as natural gas is a hydrocarbon and when it burns, it gives off CO2 as one of its byproducts.
Anyway, the purpose of my original post was to point out that the only real practical way to reduced climate change is to embrace the nuclear option and to make it safer and more efficient. Nuclear power plants can not only meet all our power needs for industry and home, but can also power a large fleet of electric vehicles, cutting way back on carbon emissions.
Gee, just watching and trying to get it to cars again, but you realize the people you are talking about are a very very small segment of the population. I have never even met one in 70 years. And I went to a private Christian college and there was never ever any conflict with religion and science. In fact if you study biology, the laws of physics and the universe from strings to stars, or peer through a microscope, one would have to be a fool to conclude it was all serendipity. Also only certain books are contained in the Bible and they were chosen by people for specific reasons, but you can’t discount the tons of other information out there. It’s not like they had computers and movie cameras to record everything. Some people study these matters and provide important context. Yeah I’ve been over there.
Took a little drive this morning and glad I had a ICE or I would have run out of battery power.
the problems I see with Nuclear power plants is they were built to last about 40-50 years, so they need to be updated. about 14 in the US on the west and east coasts are built on fault lines. and then there is the problem of what to do with the spent fuel rods.
US Nuclear Reactors vs Fault Line Map: This Map Shows Where Earthquakes Could Result in Nuclear Nukes in the USA - Strange Sounds
That’s why we’re angry. 
Not at you individually but at all of the people who refuse to become convinced of something that the vast majority of climatologists are telling us is happening, and something that has been predicted for decades and for which those predictions are actually coming true.
I find this statement ironic considering you’re posting it on a forum where car experts come to help people who don’t know much about cars. They are just going on what the experts here say, right? So maybe even though we have a number of ASE mechanics with over a century of repair experience among them, no one should listen to them because it’s what “someone else said,” right?
Experts speaking to the subjects they’re experts in do have higher credibility, and casting the “debate” (it’s not a debate any more than Newton’s 3rd law is a debate) as “he-said she-said” is dishonest. We have thousands of climate scientists telling us it’s happening, and we have maybe 100 right-wing talking heads telling us it’s not, and they’re being parroted by thousands of people with no background in any kind of science whatsoever. That’s not a two-sided debate. It’s experts telling us what’s happening, and ignoramuses telling us they don’t believe it because reasons.
If my lawyer tells me I have cancer, I won’t listen. If my doctor tells me I have cancer, I’m certainly going to be more likely to listen. If I get lots of second opinions and thousands of doctors tell me I have cancer… Well, then I pretty freakin’ sure have cancer, don’t I.
That’s honestly ridiculous. We have an atmosphere. A little over a century ago we started belching chemicals into that atmosphere that hadn’t been there before. We put billions of tons of pollution into the air every year. In 2019 we put 11.5 billion tons of pollution into the air. And that’s down from the 40 billion we did in 2014. Even if we take the lower number that’s over 100 billion tons of pollution every decade, and in reality it’s been a lot more than that, especially in the pre-EPA days.
How could that not have some sort of impact on the climate? Comparing that to stories about a supernatural entity causing global flooding and having a 600 year old guy who’s never been a shipwright build an ark and then telling him to stuff 2 of every single species of animal including the dinosaurs onto one boat and sail it around for over a month without the Tyrannosaurs eating the koalas, not to mention not snacking on the old man himself, and then claiming that both stories are equally absurd? That’s just, well, absurd.
Exactly. Oh, fun fact. Guess where a big source of natural gas to crack hydrogen out of is. Expired oil wells still owned by oil companies. That’s why Big Oil is all in on hydrogen. Lets 'em get extra money out of assets that should be depreciated by now. And cracking hydrogen takes quite a lot of energy itself, which isn’t an automatic deal breaker if that energy comes from “free” sources like the sun or the wind, but it does make one suspect that it would be more efficient just to charge a battery.
1 Like
Sure I believe in climate change, believed in global cooling in the 70’s due to particulate matter, believed nukes would end the world as we knew it in the 70s. Must be Saturday!
Wow, I remember Global Cooling from the Seventies! Pamphlets on green paper telling me that Global Warming was an evil lie concocted by the Evil Nuclear Industry to kill Clean Safe Coal.
As late as the Nineties I got pamphlets (also on green paper) telling me that Global Warming Is Probably A Lie but if it happens, we should be thankful because it will extend the growing season.
Good thing they were right, because electric cars produce more CO2 than gasoline cars. Where’s that electricity coming from to recharge them - at night? I’m looking forward to even longer growing seasons!
Really I was after an answer to a brake problem, and I found a political forum. Must be the Brave New World.
1 Like
Pretty much none of that is true.
Ok, a lot of what you said simply doesn’t seem to be true from what I’ve read. Or, I read it from a different perspective. If it’s already coming true, then we have proof. What has happened so far? I’m not being facetious, it’s an honest question. If you look back at the predictions, it seems it’s always about to be too late in a few years. But predictions have been made for decades, like you said. All we have to show for it is a slight temperature increase that isn’t outside the norm of natural temperature fluctuations, as far as I have read. I’m not sure we can cite a hurricane or a storm event as a warning, because we’ve had those forever.
We all go off what someone else said, to a certain degree. That was my point. But if you dive into who actually said what, and exactly what they said, it becomes a lot less of a given, to me. Mike linked an article about the possible slowing of an ocean current and its consequences. I read it. It stated that no slowing has actually been observed. It also stated that the current had slowed or stopped previously and had dire consequences. Previously as in pre fossil fuel days. Reading an article like that says to me (from my perspective):
-It’s happened before and wasn’t caused by man.
-It isn’t actually happening now, decades into the man made climate change discussion.
I wouldn’t label CO2 in the same category as “pollution” since it’s a naturally occurring thing that in and of itself isn’t harmful to living things. I understand that too much of anything can be a bad thing. I also understand the concept of CO2 as an insulator. I also understand that a certain percentage of CO2 is absorbed naturally by the environment. But we are admittedly putting out more CO2 than the environment can absorb. I forgot the percentages. So, it’s a fair assumption that we could be the cause of the modest warming that has been observed. To draw the conclusion that a warming of a few degrees over a century will cause global catastrophic events, in my opinion, takes a little faith in the theory. It takes a little faith to believe the biblical creation story also. That was my point in that. I agree, doesn’t sound plausible to my thinking mind. But the theory that everything came from a big explosion with no explanation as to what initiated the explosion, or where the gases or material came from to cause the explosion, and then gradually everything slowly evolved and adapted into men discussing this event…that certainly doesn’t sound plausible to me either.
I’m just trying to explain why I believe what I do. I’m not trying to convince anyone to agree. But, I don’t see why what I believe should make anyone angry. I mean I personally get tired of the “the science is settled”, rhetoric. The way I understand it, that’s not really how science works. It would be very difficult to disprove something that can’t be proven. And vice versa. So in my understanding, these things are still unproven theories. As is the Bible. There isn’t any proof, and you won’t get any. But that theory has been around a whole lot longer than the climate change theory and has been accepted by more people throughout time.
I’m not saying “you’re wrong” on catastrophic climate change. I’m simply saying “I don’t know that you’re right and I have my doubts.” No idea why that would be offensive. I think you’re saying “The Bible isn’t true.” I certainly believe otherwise, but it doesn’t make me angry at you. What’s the difference?
1 Like
Then you’re reading something I’m not. The trend is heavily up. Lots of facts here:
Quite a change in the recent past:
2 Likes
And you are wrong. It takes a lot of very extreme circumstances to have surviving fossils from 5 million years ago - let alone 60 million years ago. And yet scientists have found MANY mid-evolutuon species. I don’t know where you’re getting your data from (Ken Ham - The quack who calls himself a doctor because he completed a 3 week class from a papermill).
Here’s a list of transitional species.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Quote taken from this article.
Fossilisation is so unlikely that scientists estimate that less one-tenth of 1% of all the animal species that have ever lived have become fossils. Far fewer of them have been found
Believing in God or believing in Evolution or how the university formed are NOT mutually exclusive. The author of the Big-Bang-Theory (George Lemaitre) earned his PHd in Physics. Was a professor in physics and researcher. But people who knew him called him Monsignor. He was a Roman Catholic Priest of the Jesuit order.
1 Like
Glaciers are melting at a rate never seen since their formation. Permafrost is disappearing. Sea levels are rising. It’s within the realm of “natural” fluctuations only if you go far back enough to a point where the planet was not as friendly to today’s lifeforms. I mean, technically if you go far back enough the Earth was a molten ball of liquid, at which point any temperature rise can be justified as “natural.”
The problem is that the popular version of the “Big Bang” as an “explosion” is an incorrect explanation of the theory, and so everything someone concludes based on that wrong assertion is… Well, wrong.
See, that’s where the fundamental problem lies. You’re equating 2,000 year old stories with absolutely no evidence behind them to scientific inquiry that’s been testing the global warming hypothesis for decades. I’m not saying whether or not God(s) exist, not only because it’s well outside the scope of this forum and discussion, but also because it’s not something we can prove one way or the other. The beginning and end of religious “theory” is “this book says so.” That’s why it’s called faith. I don’t have faith in gravity because I don’t need faith to believe in gravity. I have actual, tangible, repeatable physical evidence that gravity exists. There is no such evidence for a deity. That doesn’t mean one isn’t out there, but it does mean that no one, on the entire spectrum from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is qualified to assert that a deity definitely exists or doesn’t.
The difference between religious “theory” and a scientific theory is that religious “theory” is a hypothesis, not a theory. There’s no testing for religious claims, and there can’t be. You can say “God exists,” but then when I say “OK, show Him to me,” you can’t do it. Religion is not verifiable
On the other hand the global warming issue has been tested over and over and over again since 1938, and if it had failed any one of those tests, scientists would no longer claim global warming exists. A scientific theory is not just someone saying “I think this is true,” it’s thousands of scientists saying “we think this is true because we have conducted an overwhelming number of experiments, and 100% of them point to its validity.”
The difference is that it doesn’t matter what I believe when it comes to religion. If I believe in God, no one gets hurt. If I don’t believe in God, no one gets hurt. On the other hand, if enough people fail to believe in the settled science that is global warming and manage to prevent necessary action to curtail it, we end up rendering the planet a much more hostile place for humans to live. Lack of belief in a god hurts no one. Lack of belief in the fact that is global warming hurts everyone.
3 Likes
+1
Additionally, the vast majority of those folks from 2,000 years ago had little or no education, in the modern sense. Science was a totally unknown concept, and superstition was very prevalent.
Science was known…just wasn’t practiced by many people. Aristotle was around over 2000 years ago.
There are way too many politicians who don’t believe in science. We’ve just proven that over the past year. Science exists weather you believe in it or not.
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science Denial, Political Biases, and Personal Beliefs (futurism.com)
Yes, but the science that some folks (such as Aristotle) were aware of was still limited in comparison to modern times.
True. And science from Glileo is limited compared to now. It’s all relative.
Clean Safe Coal ???
The environmental movement of the Seventies was funded principally by the coal industry, which originated the urban legend that nuclear waste is a problem.
Sure!
Clean Safe Coal can be found adjacent to Purple Unicorns. 
1 Like
Clean Safe Coal? Is this a joke? There’s no such thing. You must work in the coal industry.
Have you ever taken a science class (and passed in your life). You’re spouting Fox nonsense.