The Great Global Warming Swindle Options

[impala454]

I tell you what, you (supposed) car geniuses lay out what you think is the "proper" way to proceed with an overheating car.

[FORSAKENR320]

it's already been explained to you, fag-ass. you're just refusing to acknowledge it.

[impala454]

the explanation was wrong. calling me names doesn't make it right.

[Dogmeat]

Click on the below link and then come back to this message wouldja?

http://www.spe.org/spe-site/spe/spe/jpt/2008/05/2Indices.pdf

Note in the lower right hand corner table where world demand is about 1
million barrels/day more than world production. Including a boat load of
federal, state and local taxes, that is where you and your fellow "liberals"
$4.00+/gal gas is coming from, not Exxon or any other entity referred to as
"Big Oil", who control less than 3% of the world's oil production.

Instead of mindlessly ranting and raving, study the production tables the
above link provides. Far too much of the oil produced in this world is owned
and produced by quite unstable governments. Contrary to popular political
rhetoric, the price of oil is controlled by DEMAND, which right now, due to
growing economies world wide, exceeds supply. Think about what the price of
gasoline would be if a bunch of filibustering, grand standing democrat
senators had not shut down the 2001 Bush/Cheney energy bill. Most likely
you'd have 2 to 4 million more barrels of domestic oil to work with, which
would have greatly reduced your _personal_ gas prices. But hey, better to
use the standing 40 year old mindlessly naive, Scoop Jackson, Jimmy Carter,
Ted Kennedy, Al Gore left wing rhetoric about "Big Oil" and "Oil Executives"
and keep re-electing the self serving moron's we have in the Senate, who,
other than to generate 15 second sound bytes, could give a rat's hind end
about this nation's economy or the price you _personally_ pay at the pump.

Note that Iraq is producing over two million barrels/day, which is about 1
million more barrels/day than it was producing when Sadam was in power. If
we are going to blame Halliburton and Brown and Root, then we also need to
give them credit where credit is due. They doubled oil production in a war
zone, having their employees (totally volunteer) shot at, with some being
wounded and killed. Can you imagine what the price of oil would be if we
weren't producing that extra 1 million barrels/day from Iraq? Better yet,
looking at all the oil that is produced in the middle east, can you imagine
what would happen to the world economy if the US pulled it's troops out?
Without some other major power coming in to stabilize the region, how long
would it be before the Israelis and the Arabs got into a war? What would
that do to your $4.00/gal gas and the world economy? What would happen if
the inevitable conflict breaks out, and the Jews use their nuclear weapons?
There is no way in the world, in spite of their rhetoric, Hillary, Obama or
any other Democrat is going to be able to pull the US out of Iraq. No matter
which political agenda is in power, Just as we have been since the 70's, we
are still going to have to maintain a presence in the middle east for quite
some time.

ANWR, some 40 miles east and on the same artic plane as Prudhoe bay, where
we've produced 20-25% of our domestic oil since 1977, has been shut off and
kept off limits to drilling by the democrats since 1980. It is estimated
that ANWR could produce between 1.5 million to 3 million barrels/day. In
2001, amongst many other things to improve our domestic oil supplies,
Bush/Cheney tried to open ANWR up to drilling just a few extended reach test
wells and the Democrats shut it down, along with the rest of his energy
policy. If you will recall, it has been in all the news papers for the last
4 decades. Democrats saving our sorry hind-ends from "Big Oil" by blocking
every attempt to drill anything substantial anywhere in the US (Alaska, east
coast, west coast, Gulf of Mexico, Rocky Mountain Overthrust, etc etc). For
the last 40 years, even though the left has made a lot of noise about it,
they have _never_ brought any kind of national energy/environmental policy
up for national debate on the Senate or House floor. They have only blocked
every thing by anyone else who tried to formulate any kind of coherent
policy.

It was an embarrassment watching the Senate interview oil company
executives. Instead of trying to communicate and formulate intelligent
energy/environmental policy, all most of our Idiot senators did was
grandstand and try to come up with 15 second sound bytes to be captured and
mindlessly re-gurgitated by the national press. We get what we vote for I
guess and to paraphrase Will Rodgers can "Only know what we read".

If you want to see the philosophy behind high energy prices, just read the
crap your fellow left wingers have been heaping on the US, as spelled out in
Al Gore's book "Earth in Balance", published in about 1988. All the Goran
did was mindlessly regurgitate the radical left wing environmentalist's
dogma. In that book, Al Gore urged that we shut oil and natural gas
exploration down every where we could, which Democrats and their minion
environmental groups have quite successfully accomplished, pushing the price
of gasoline and natural gas extremely high, forcing us to go to
"alternative" energies. For a scientific/technological/economically
illiterate divinity school dropout, it was a wonderful and quite liberally
thinking plan. But sadly, it was steeped in junk science and technological
illiteracy and was completely incognizant of the economic impact such
actions would cause. All Algernon and his minion environmentalists have
accomplished is to make us much more dependent on labor union dominated
pulverized coal fired power plants, which by the way, democrats exempted
some 559 of them from the 1970 clean air act in 1977. 460 of these exempt
plants are still in operation. No where in Al's book "earth in balance" or
anywhere else in Al's rhetoric does he pro-actively advocate making
pulverized coal fired power plants, the most green house gas, mercury,
particulate, sulfate, nitrous producing/energy unit in the world, try to
live up to the same pollution levels that natural gas and fuel oil fired
power plants (some 25-45% less green house gas producing than coal) live up
to every day and have since Nixon's clean air act of 1970, and George Bush's
clean air act of 1991.

I didn't write that, but I thought it was a nice response on another board I frequent where we argue this same stuff all the time

[impala454]

you argue this stuff on other message boards??? YOU'RE CHEATING ON US


oh and yeah, one hell of a nice post & bit of data.

[chook]

A one variable equation? Chuck... this isn't some engineering problem in class. It's common sense. If your engine starts to overheat, you shut it off. I can't believe we're even arguing this.

It was to mean that the things that affect you aren't always the obvious ones you think about, and proved in your retort.

[chook]

the explanation was wrong. calling me names doesn't make it right.

quote the specific one. There are several as there are several different situations with an overheating engine.

[impala454]

It was to mean that the things that affect you aren't always the obvious ones you think about, and proved in your retort.

Then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the situation where you wouldn't want to shut off an overheating engine?

quote the specific one. There are several as there are several different situations with an overheating engine.

cat & jessica seem to think running the heater is a temporary fix until you can get somewhere

you said: "Well if you shut it down and wait a little bit, you could sieze/crack the engine." This doesn't make much sense. I'm guessing you really just meant that you shouldn't shut it off, then start it again soon after. Is that what you meant to say?

The bottom line is, if your engine is overheating, you need to shut it off ASAP. at least, if you ever want to drive the vehicle again. you pull over, shut it off, stay away from it for a while. it's entirely possible that when you shut it off it'll boil over. if you feel brave after a few minutes you can open the hood but for the love of God don't touch anything.

[Hartmann]

So you know how Congress and the media has been talking about how we haven't built a new refinery in years and we need capacity now? Well, I was talking to someone who sits fairly high up at a certain oil company and we were discussing the changes to plants over the last few years... He was telling me how most plants have been expanded and have had new units added. He was estimating that the total capacity has gone up to the equivalent of 12 new refineries. It is much cheaper and more effective to simply add capacity rather than build a whole new plant. Most of the old, more polluting refineries have been closed and newer units have been added to existing ones.

I'm sure Dogmeat has seen this go on where he worked/works.

[Oasis]

all cars will overheat if you don't take care of them, puss-dick.

your arguements do not bring all the boys to the yard.

you are the weakest link

kill yourself

duuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

lol

[Dogmeat]

So you know how Congress and the media has been talking about how we haven't built a new refinery in years and we need capacity now? Well, I was talking to someone who sits fairly high up at a certain oil company and we were discussing the changes to plants over the last few years... He was telling me how most plants have been expanded and have had new units added. He was estimating that the total capacity has gone up to the equivalent of 12 new refineries. It is much cheaper and more effective to simply add capacity rather than build a whole new plant. Most of the old, more polluting refineries have been closed and newer units have been added to existing ones.

I'm sure Dogmeat has seen this go on where he worked/works.

I've only worked at one refinery for one summer, but yes, when I worked there they were in the process of expanding. Keep in mind however this refinery was absolutley TINY compared to what a "big" refinery is ... when I worked there they were only refining 20,000 bbl a day ... the wanted to expand to 40,000 bbl/day. I've seen some new tanks constructed in the years since I worked there, but I have no idea how far along that progression is. At the time I worked there my boss, who was the head of the "Environmental" department had stated several times he thought it would take 10 years for that all to come to pass.

[Hartmann]

I've only worked at one refinery for one summer, but yes, when I worked there they were in the process of expanding. Keep in mind however this refinery was absolutley TINY compared to what a "big" refinery is ... when I worked there they were only refining 20,000 bbl a day ... the wanted to expand to 40,000 bbl/day. I've seen some new tanks constructed in the years since I worked there, but I have no idea how far along that progression is. At the time I worked there my boss, who was the head of the "Environmental" department had stated several times he thought it would take 10 years for that all to come to pass.

If we're talking about the same place (in Denver) then they are a long way along in their expansion. Last time I was there they were getting ready to actually start building a new unit.

[chook]

Then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the situation where you wouldn't want to shut off an overheating engine?
cat & jessica seem to think running the heater is a temporary fix until you can get somewhere

If the engine is under heavy load (uphill/towing) Its better to pull over and idle.

you said: "Well if you shut it down and wait a little bit, you could sieze/crack the engine." This doesn't make much sense. I'm guessing you really just meant that you shouldn't shut it off, then start it again soon after. Is that what you meant to say?

The bottom line is, if your engine is overheating, you need to shut it off ASAP. at least, if you ever want to drive the vehicle again. you pull over, shut it off, stay away from it for a while. it's entirely possible that when you shut it off it'll boil over. if you feel brave after a few minutes you can open the hood but for the love of God don't touch anything.

You are right I explained it poorly. I meant to say its bad to turn it back on if you wait long enough for the radiator to drop in temp, but not the engine yet. The heater trick does work and should bring the temp gage down, if it doesn't then you pull over and turn off/idle depending on situation.

[impala454]

If the engine is under heavy load (uphill/towing) Its better to pull over and idle.

why?

The heater trick does work and should bring the temp gage down, if it doesn't then you pull over and turn off/idle depending on situation.

I suppose it could add a tiny bit of cooling, but the heater core isn't out in front of the car like the radiator. It'd actually end up trapping more heat in the engine compartment in the long run. Either way it's not fixing whatever the problem is. You're still creating more heat by simply running the engine.

[chook]

why?

Under a heavy load, more gas (in turn more heat) required for dispacement of vehicle. When idling, the fan can move heat under a very light load at idle. Another reason is that it maintails the engine compartment with a more gradual overall temp change.

An off engine will cool some spots quicker than others, potential for metal warp. An on engine will distribute the heat more evenly, less potential for warping.

I suppose it could add a tiny bit of cooling, but the heater core isn't out in front of the car like the radiator. It'd actually end up trapping more heat in the engine compartment in the long run. Either way it's not fixing whatever the problem is. You're still creating more heat by simply running the engine

The cores are usually seperated by a firebreak and you induce a fan to cool it. Its like adding 10-15% more coefficient of heat transfer to the whole system.

Go ask a mechanic or someone else if this doesn't convice you that it is ok. I'm done with this aruement on this thread.