theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
Well, I just saw it. I just saw the ad for a new Honda fuel cell car (notice how the sharp Japanese can come up with new things first--they are good at dominating that way).
OK--we all probably know a fuel cell is a pretty neet thing. I would not mind having one on the side of my home, to make me independent from the electric company some day. Where to find that Hydrogen though, to run it--I don't know.
Personally, I think methane gas is the biggest factor (26 times more potent as a green house gas than CO2--and it is pouring, natually, from our ocean floors), may be by far, as far as green house emissions go in our atmosphere---but all that is rammed down our throats by the grown up hippies, is CO2 emissions. Why pick only on CO2, which is very debatable as far as a green house effect factor to global warming? (there have been times on this earth where CO2 gas was up to 9 times higher in our atmosphere than it is today)
What is the difference between us emitting CO2 out of our cars, or water out of our cars? It might not be all that much different. Is CO2 really a polutant--like the greens like to call it, or is it needed for life, in the right quanities. Will pure water, someday, be considered a polutent by the green goofs? No? Why not? Ohh0---because it is not the emmission of fossil fuels!!! That's why.
1--Both CO2 and water are essential for life on this planet.
2--Both contribute to a green house effect, and I think water vapor is actually a stronger
effect (both together--not anywhere near that of methane)
3--both may need some balance as much as the other--we have pretty much had the same
amount of water on the planet as always, and I am not so sure adding trillions of gallons of
water to the planet is a great idea (if fuel cells get really popular).
If both up the green house effect, and both are needed for life---why the switch?
BECAUSE THE GREENS HATE FOSSIL FUEL ONLY!!!!--AND JAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS!!! I smell fish.
It may be possible that if we had equal cars on the road making water, instead of CO2---we could have the same or worse green house effect. Then, if the planet melted, and we worry about the sea level rising (has not happened anywhere yet like predicted by the insane--and probably won't) 25 feet instead of 20 feet, because of the added water.
But nobody in their right mind would think water (which is very very pure), can possibly set the planet off balance---would they? Use emotion (like the left wing nuts) to make all of our decisions---that will work. Save the world fropm CO2---we will most likely screw it up some other way---as long as fossil fuel is not in the buzz of the decade--I fear that is all that matters to the green movement. I know what green they are saving--and it kills trees.
OK--we all probably know a fuel cell is a pretty neet thing. I would not mind having one on the side of my home, to make me independent from the electric company some day. Where to find that Hydrogen though, to run it--I don't know.
Personally, I think methane gas is the biggest factor (26 times more potent as a green house gas than CO2--and it is pouring, natually, from our ocean floors), may be by far, as far as green house emissions go in our atmosphere---but all that is rammed down our throats by the grown up hippies, is CO2 emissions. Why pick only on CO2, which is very debatable as far as a green house effect factor to global warming? (there have been times on this earth where CO2 gas was up to 9 times higher in our atmosphere than it is today)
What is the difference between us emitting CO2 out of our cars, or water out of our cars? It might not be all that much different. Is CO2 really a polutant--like the greens like to call it, or is it needed for life, in the right quanities. Will pure water, someday, be considered a polutent by the green goofs? No? Why not? Ohh0---because it is not the emmission of fossil fuels!!! That's why.
1--Both CO2 and water are essential for life on this planet.
2--Both contribute to a green house effect, and I think water vapor is actually a stronger
effect (both together--not anywhere near that of methane)
3--both may need some balance as much as the other--we have pretty much had the same
amount of water on the planet as always, and I am not so sure adding trillions of gallons of
water to the planet is a great idea (if fuel cells get really popular).
If both up the green house effect, and both are needed for life---why the switch?
BECAUSE THE GREENS HATE FOSSIL FUEL ONLY!!!!--AND JAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS!!! I smell fish.
It may be possible that if we had equal cars on the road making water, instead of CO2---we could have the same or worse green house effect. Then, if the planet melted, and we worry about the sea level rising (has not happened anywhere yet like predicted by the insane--and probably won't) 25 feet instead of 20 feet, because of the added water.
But nobody in their right mind would think water (which is very very pure), can possibly set the planet off balance---would they? Use emotion (like the left wing nuts) to make all of our decisions---that will work. Save the world fropm CO2---we will most likely screw it up some other way---as long as fossil fuel is not in the buzz of the decade--I fear that is all that matters to the green movement. I know what green they are saving--and it kills trees.
Last edited:
