These "alien lizard overlords" are not the only civilisation, there must be others who can help us?
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
-
- Tags
- doom goblin
These "alien lizard overlords" are not the only civilisation, there must be others who can help us?
does appear she is being ineffective in that role; if indeed, she was present until the end of COP, and attended the meetings,
I saw no press conference for her to summarise what happened, the major tv channels haven't shown any COP representatives either.
She doesn't have the experience, education, knowledge and relations with enough number of influential people.
Trump himself is joking with her, instead to negotiate with her.
I think the best person would be someone 70-80-year-old man with strong scientific backgrounds, works, relations, etc..
They're usually skeptics having seen it all before with the imminent ice age scaremongering of the 70's and 80's.
sorry but I can never forget this sketch
Ming The Merciless...doing the hooveringhttps://youtu.be/g5xqukXdkmY?t=201
You are perhaps very right but the current process in this shape and form is nothing more than driven purely by the emotions of the crowd, from the kindergartens like screaming we want this toy, not the other toy.
And I would prefer mini ice age than a runaway global warming...
Last edited:
Man of Honour
But she's all over social media. The "major tv channels" are old==bad.
Oil fields do not quite work that way. An oil well is not like a fuel tank that can be drained freely at will
Obviously, as smaller fields become depleted, more pressure will be put on the remining ones.
But there are technical limits on how much and how quickly oil can be extracted.
Historically, most oil fields were considered commercially exhausted at a point where around 2/3 of the oil in the ground was still there (This figure has improved in recent years, with developments in drilling etc but not by a huge amount) More can be extracted but it rapidly becomes very expensive. Not only in cash terms, but also in terms of EROI (Energy return on investment)
There may well come a time, and possibly fairly soon (Relatively speaking) when oil is no longer used primarily as an energy source, but there will still be both demand and production as a feedstock for making the other things that we make from oil. And there is sufficient oil in the ground to meet that demand for centuries if not millennia to come.
Yes, I agree. The point is to not use the oil reserves as the primary energy source for our transport systems. Let's exploit it slowly for the other uses.
This. There have been lots of cases of technology which would save the environment but cost big business especially oil money and they buy them up and shelve them for ever or for a long time before releasing the technology in order to finally cash in on the idea.
WHen I was young a friend of my fathers had spent his life savings and mortgaged his house and had come up with an idea for steering on artic trucks which saved 19% tyre wear so would vastly reduce the number of tyres used each year. He had working prototypes and proof and just needed to put it into production but was skint. It was either Dunlop or Michelin who came and made him and multi million offer to buy up the rights which he took. They never did release the technology until many decades later once other manufacturers had started designing their trailers with similar systems.
It was said back in the 80s it was possible to make a combustion engine which only needed an oil change and service every 100,000 miles yet back then a lot of cars were only 6,000 miles or even 3,000 miles. Of course selling a car which only needed servicing a couple of times in its lifetime is not good economic sense for the franchised garages.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,907
That conspiracy theory is pretty old:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression_conspiracy_theory
Interestingly, The Shah of Iran in pre-revolutionary days was also of this opinion.
He really didn't like the idea of simply using oil as a fuel. This was one of the reasons why, despite being oil rich, he wanted to pursue a nuclear program for meeting Iran's energy needs
From a conceptual POV,
I have always been tempted by the idea of a supercharged, air cooled 2 stroke diesel engine that used the fuel oil as a lubricant. (Round the sump, through a filter and then burned as fuel, effectively an oil change every 30 miles or so)
IE an engine where all you ever had to do was put fuel in it and change the fuel/oil filter at an appropriate interval.
Of course the engine would have to be designed to be able to be lubricated using diesel fuel, but I do not see why this should be an insurmountable technical issue.
don't know where you looked then ? reasonably credible summary of cop
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop25-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-madrid
cannot see any outcomer comments from her in reaction
moreover what is this
seems to be a predicate of some divergence between male/female policy needs too ????
2 stroke engines won't be good for eco stats
Two stroke petrol perhaps not. supercharged 2 stroke diesel is a very different thing altogether.
Some of the most efficient engines in existence are two stroke diesel (Marine engines)
Yeah the silly things like infinite momentum engines or engines which have been around to run on water since 1898 are the silly conspiracy theories but you would have to be silly to not think big business buy up and shelve things purely cause they would hurt your current product sales and its cheaper to buy up the money saving tech and then release it decades later.
A design which saved 20% tyre wear would badly hurt the tyre industry and they would lose a significant proportion of their annual tyre sales. That is much more believable.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
/me prefers 3 strokes (better than 2 but take less time than 4).
Soldato
This.