Science WILL Matter to so many DUMBASSES

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>It's a carbon based economy and you would have us tear it down.

Yes. I'd have us replace it with something better. We replaced horses with cars; do you lament the tearing down of the equine based transportation system?

Nobody had the policy of replacing horses with cars. It happened that the internal combustion engine was superior to horses in terms of cost and maintenance and reliability. The fact that they ran on refinery waste was very helpful. Market forces made the change happen. Not government policy.

Same thing as whale oil. Kerosene was cheaper than whale oil. It wasn't a save the whales issue. It was a product that the public thought was better.

What's going on now is different. It would be like the government trying to get people into steam cars instead of horses in a 1880. Picture at the time the government giving subsidies to those who manufactured and bought steam cars. Would it have delayed the intro and marketing of the internal combustion engine?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

lawrocket

***>It's a carbon based economy and you would have us tear it down.

Yes. I'd have us replace it with something better. We replaced horses with cars; do you lament the tearing down of the equine based transportation system?

Nobody had the policy of replacing horses with cars. It happened that the internal combustion engine was superior to horses in terms of cost and maintenance and reliability. The fact that they ran on refinery waste was very helpful. Market forces made the change happen. Not government policy.

Same thing as whale oil. Kerosene was cheaper than whale oil. It wasn't a save the whales issue. It was a product that the public thought was better.

What's going on now is different. It would be like the government trying to get people into steam cars instead of horses in a 1880. Picture at the time the government giving subsidies to those who manufactured and bought steam cars. Would it have delayed the intro and marketing of the internal combustion engine?

Just think how many co2 emissions there would be if there were as many cars as horses.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

******39% of your people vote for it and 72% of Americans supported sending THEIR children to war. Cry all you want, at the time it was done it was almost fucking unanimous in the United States.

There you go assuming again little fella...

There you go insulting again.

I have yet to wish him dead as he did to me.... yall have interesting values there in that part of the world little fella.

[turtlespeed 226]

Amazon

*********39% of your people vote for it and 72% of Americans supported sending THEIR children to war. Cry all you want, at the time it was done it was almost fucking unanimous in the United States.

There you go assuming again little fella...

There you go insulting again.

I have yet to wish him dead as he did to me.... yall have interesting values there in that part of the world little fella.

What part of the world am I in, little miss insulter?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

************39% of your people vote for it and 72% of Americans supported sending THEIR children to war. Cry all you want, at the time it was done it was almost fucking unanimous in the United States.

There you go assuming again little fella...

There you go insulting again.

I have yet to wish him dead as he did to me.... yall have interesting values there in that part of the world little fella.

What part of the world am I in, little miss insulter?

Hopefully far away from being anywhere near my life... Have fun with yours.

[billvon 3,111]

>Nobody had the policy of replacing horses with cars. . . .

Hell yes they did. Cities at the turn of the century were almost literally drowning in horse poop; the level of manure in cities like New York and Boston was causing disease and pestilence, and in some cases, physically blocking access to stores and homes. Some cities hired street sweepers to deal with this problem. And "street sweepers" didn't just clean up gum wrappers and soft drink cups; they moved tons of manure by hand.

Still, most cities didn't have street sweepers. Why? "One reason, perhaps, was a reluctance to spend money on such an unsatisfying, if crucial, municipal effort." (Joel Tarr, American Heritage magazine.) Many people denied that horse manure had any link to disease, despite the clouds of flies and packs of rats that they drew. They did not want the animals on which they relied subject to restrictions. (Sounding familiar yet?)

The noise was also a huge problem - iron shoes on cobbled streets led to deafening levels of noise. Cities had laws proscribing certain kinds of shoes to reduce the din. Finally, safety was a huge issue. Per capita, horses in 1916 in Chicago were seven times more likely to kill you than a car is today.

So people started to push for their removal. United States Commissioner of Labor Carroll D. Wright wrote this on the matter - “The presence of so many horses constantly moving through the streets is a very serious matter. The vitiation of the air by the presence of so many animals is alone a sufficient reason for their removal, while the clogged condition of the streets impedes business, and involves the safety of life and limb.” He was pushing hard for outlawing horses and replacing them with electric vehicles, which at the time (1892) were more viable than the gasoline variety. They were, he wrote, far more reliable, cheaper to operate, and safer for the inhabitants of the city.

These statements were met with ridicule and disdain. Robert L. Seymour asked if anyone could ever imagine "Alexander riding heroically at the head of his armies in a horseless carriage?” An article in a popular magazine said that “Americans are a horse-loving nation … the wide-spread adoption of the motor-driven vehicle in this country is open to serious doubt.”

Still, government recognized the problem. Horse bans started in New York City in 1910, keeping horses off main thoroughfares like Bleecker and in areas like Hell's Kitchen.

So yes, they did indeed know they had a problem, knew they had to change it - and passed laws to do so. Even though a great many people opposed the changes, fearful that the horses they had come to rely on would be phased out or would become more expensive/inconvenient to use.

>What's going on now is different. It would be like the government trying to
>get people into steam cars instead of horses in a 1880.

Which they tried. (Electric cars primarily; see above.) The gasoline car came into being because it could compete with steam and electric, and eventually won out.

And to extend your point, the same thing may happen today. Today's lithium-ion EV's may soon lose out to lithium-sulfur. If they do, it will not be because someone in a garage decides to build a lithium-sulfur battery to replace his Ford Expedition. It will be because a battery chemist sees an opportunity in the large number of EV's being sold, and his company spends billions to be able to capitalize on the growing market for EV batteries - a market that would not currently exist without government incentives.