new exhaust regulations?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Yes, Eric...I do think it's silly and frankly, I don't relly care how many countries feel otherwise - a lot of those "other" counturies are very "concerned" and happy to encourage restrictions and regulations on the US so long as those restrictions and regulations don't cost them anything and/or they get an exemption from them. It's easy for them to be "concerned" about such things as CO2 levels if doing something about it doesn't cost them anything. 
I also think it's silly (and dangerous) to dump billions of dollars of mandates and regulations on our intudtry and our public in the name of controlling a "green house" gas to stop what is, at its very best, an unproven and questionable theory of "global warming" especially when that "green house gas" is naturlaly occuring and very needed by the environment for life to exist.
There are echo-freaks out there who would "regulate" us back to the middle-ages if they could simply becaue they "feel" that's a a better way of life - I expect any day now that some group of scientists will be asking the EPA to regulate the release of oxygen.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
RussStang,
I’m glad you’ve got it figured and can educate me on green house gases.
I suspect that behind your efforts to educate me is some recent experience in high school or college with some liberal, hate American first teacher who did his/her best to convince you of how unfair it is that American consumes so much and how we have an obligation to save the rest of the world; even if what it needs saving from is based on theories about what might be happening.
Whether any of the above is on the money or not, if you feel that global warming is such a credible theory to the extent that you decide to change your lifestyle you won’t get any argument from me…knock yourself out.
If you want to contribute money you’ve earned to echo/global warming related causes; again, I’ve no problem with it.
However, when people decide for me that I have to change my lifestyle and that I have to pay more for my vehicles and more in taxes and what little industry we have left in our country is burdened with new regulations while other countries continue to be given a pass I very much have a problem with that; even were those demands for change based on a proven fact
When the changes/regulations/restrictions are based on an unproven, vague theory then it becomes even more onerous…and more ridiculous.
I’m glad you’ve got it figured and can educate me on green house gases.
I suspect that behind your efforts to educate me is some recent experience in high school or college with some liberal, hate American first teacher who did his/her best to convince you of how unfair it is that American consumes so much and how we have an obligation to save the rest of the world; even if what it needs saving from is based on theories about what might be happening.
Whether any of the above is on the money or not, if you feel that global warming is such a credible theory to the extent that you decide to change your lifestyle you won’t get any argument from me…knock yourself out.
If you want to contribute money you’ve earned to echo/global warming related causes; again, I’ve no problem with it.
However, when people decide for me that I have to change my lifestyle and that I have to pay more for my vehicles and more in taxes and what little industry we have left in our country is burdened with new regulations while other countries continue to be given a pass I very much have a problem with that; even were those demands for change based on a proven fact
When the changes/regulations/restrictions are based on an unproven, vague theory then it becomes even more onerous…and more ridiculous.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Dec 2, 2006 at 07:00 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
I suspect that behind your efforts to educate me is some recent experience in high school or college with some liberal, hate American first teacher who did his/her best to convince you of how unfair it is that American consumes so much and how we have an obligation to save the rest of the world; even if what it needs saving from is based on theories about what might be happening..
My opinions have not come from any teacher; teachers are full of biases, and for the information they have to give, everything they say should be taken with at least some degree of skepticism, for they are in fact human, just like you and I. My opinions have come from much reading, and an interest to understand. I don't spend my time reading select articles, with perhaps the intent to validate that my beliefs and style of living aren't actually hurting anything. I am not even a liberal, although I am sure that is what you have figured me out as being. I don't spend time trash talking America 24/7, and I haven't seen the Al Gore movie. However, when people decide for me that I have to change my lifestyle and that I have to pay more for my vehicles and more in taxes and what little industry we have left in our country is burdened with new regulations while other countries continue to be given a pass I very much have a problem with that; even were those demands for change based on a proven fact
Yeah, that doesn't seem very fair, does it? Like I stated in my last post, nature really does care what is fair or not, so if the theory is credible, it makes little difference how fair it is.
When the changes/regulations/restrictions are based on an unproven, vague theory then it becomes even more onerous…and more ridiculous.
Unproven, sure, I will give you that. It is, afterall, still only a theory. Vague, gonna have to disagree with you on that one. There is really nothing vague about the science behind the theory. Billions of tons of C02 are being released into the atmosphere every year due strictly to mankind's behavior. Nature has no influence on that. That is a lot of C02 that otherwise wouldn't be there. It has to be doing something that otherwise wouldn't be happening. It is not part of a natural process. The question how much of something is it doing, and is it enough to interfere with nature?
Last edited by RussStang; Dec 2, 2006 at 07:07 PM.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
I suspect if you look into it you'll find that when Mount St. Hellens erupted it emptied more CO2 into the atmosphere in less than a day than anything man has done in many, many, years.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Yearly man-made C02 emissions: 24 billion metric tons; about 26 billion short tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions)
Take this as you will. I'm not looking to convert anyone or preach to the masses, but dismissing things with a flip of the wrist instead of digging for data ain't exactly the right way to address potential problems.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Would that “science behind the theory” be coming form the same idiots who this spring, claimed that last year’s hurricane season was especially violent because of global warming and predicted and even more violent season this year (the season that just ended this week)?
Do you recall how many major hurricanes we had this season? Try this number on for size…NONE.
So last week, after there was no “even more violent hurricane season”, the same scientists who were 100% wrong said “Oh wait, global warming is actually decreasing the strength and number of hurricanes”.
Those scientists have a good thing going for them…much better than my job for sure.
When I make a mistake bad things happen – my company can made bad decisions based on the information I give them and can loose money because of those bad decisions and I’m in danger of being fired for being incompetent.
But these scientists…wow…no matter what dribble they peddle onto the gullible public (and even more gullible press), they are always, 100% right! When the facts come out and prove them wrong they just change positions and proclaim how brilliant they are!
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
That said here are a what I consider to be much more reliable sources:
From the EPA on the amount of CO2 emissions: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...ads06/06ES.pdf
And from the USGS:
Carbon dioxide (CO2)Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
One last throught: Most of what I've read about green-house gases/climate change, etc. usually starts with a comparrison of levels of various gases today vs what they were at the start of the industrial era (mid to late 1700's). I think it's reasonable to ask then, just how far "back" are we willing to ratchet our lives, how much are we willing to spend to do it and who is going to pay for it...especially when it's all based on theory about what might be hapening and what's causing it to happen?
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Dec 3, 2006 at 04:37 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Humm…
It’s been a long time since high school biology but if I recall correctly, carbon dioxide is emitted naturally by man, in fact, I think by just about every breathing organism takes in oxygen (and nitrogen and a few other needed compunds) and emits Carbon Dioxide. Plants, of course, need carbon dioxide to live. That said, I suspect the population of the states bringing suite emit far more carbon dioxide than their vehicles do!
Maybe what we need is for the EPA to regulate what people exhale? Or, maybe we need to move all the people from those states to other states or countries?
Unfortunately, we’ll just probably be stuck with a few tens of (or a lot more than a few tens of) billion of dollar$ more of regulations saddled onto our cars and our industry…regulations that our competitors don’t have to worry about. I guess it doesn’t really matter much…in another decade or two or three there won’t be any industry left in the US that has to worry about it as all the industry will have all moved to Mexico, China and India.
It’s been a long time since high school biology but if I recall correctly, carbon dioxide is emitted naturally by man, in fact, I think by just about every breathing organism takes in oxygen (and nitrogen and a few other needed compunds) and emits Carbon Dioxide. Plants, of course, need carbon dioxide to live. That said, I suspect the population of the states bringing suite emit far more carbon dioxide than their vehicles do!
Maybe what we need is for the EPA to regulate what people exhale? Or, maybe we need to move all the people from those states to other states or countries?
Unfortunately, we’ll just probably be stuck with a few tens of (or a lot more than a few tens of) billion of dollar$ more of regulations saddled onto our cars and our industry…regulations that our competitors don’t have to worry about. I guess it doesn’t really matter much…in another decade or two or three there won’t be any industry left in the US that has to worry about it as all the industry will have all moved to Mexico, China and India.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Laws in other countries are just as strict. USA is at the bottom of the list when it comes to regulating fuel economy of cars. Mexico, China and India still need to meet US emission regulations just like US companies. Every one has to play by the same rules so it doesn't really give Mexico, China and India plants an advantage over US/Canada
Ever look over the Kyoto protocol? Guess which countries will be exempt? China, India and all most all of the underdevelope countries. We are one of the cleanest contries on this planet, but according to socialist in the enviromental brigade we are the evil ones.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
You think it's silly; 166 countries feel otherwise.
There's a big honkin' difference between worrying about cow farts and having an honest concern over the effects of releasing several million years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere in the span of about 150 years.
There's a big honkin' difference between worrying about cow farts and having an honest concern over the effects of releasing several million years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere in the span of about 150 years.
Several miilions yeas worth of carbon over 150 years? Where did oyu get this fact from? Go see wht Pinatubo did to the enviroment. More in one erruption that we released in the last 150 years.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Yes, but unfortunately nature is not concerned with how fair it is for some countries to want to conform to this.
Good thing you are not in a position to be making any of these important decisions then. I am not an "eco freak", but I am not ready to dismiss a credible idea so readily simply because it is not convenient for American industry. You try to make it sound like this is a crackpot theory in every post you make regarding this, and even had the audacity to asert in a previous thread that the "overwhelming majority of climatologists" believe it is not a viable threat, with very little evidence to show this is how the majority of the scientific field thinks. It ain't. I am not going to try to argue with the validity of this theory with you, as I am sure it wouldn't make a difference anyway, and I have no intention of being the torch bearer for this, but to dismiss it as garbage as you do so frequently is not the path to walk for humans to right some of what we have wronged.
Do you have any idea what a greenhouse gas is, or what it does? Venus is a good example of the effects of greenhouse gases, even if it is an extreme example. That planet boasts the highest surface temperatures of any planet in our solar system, despite being farther from the sun than Mercury. Yes, it is natural for various systems on Earth to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere regularly. What is unnaturally is to pull liquid carbon bearing compounds out of the ground, burn it, and release tens of billions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the amtosphere every year. If memory serves me, there have been 7 great extinctions on this planet since life firts began, and there has been recent evidence to show the extinctions coinciding with the oceans suddenly releasing large stores of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere suddenly, suffocating most oxygen breathing life. How much more CO2 are our oceans currently going to store? Should we worry? I certainly don't, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and it doesn't mean we aren't as a whole accelerating some unnatural process.
Good thing you are not in a position to be making any of these important decisions then. I am not an "eco freak", but I am not ready to dismiss a credible idea so readily simply because it is not convenient for American industry. You try to make it sound like this is a crackpot theory in every post you make regarding this, and even had the audacity to asert in a previous thread that the "overwhelming majority of climatologists" believe it is not a viable threat, with very little evidence to show this is how the majority of the scientific field thinks. It ain't. I am not going to try to argue with the validity of this theory with you, as I am sure it wouldn't make a difference anyway, and I have no intention of being the torch bearer for this, but to dismiss it as garbage as you do so frequently is not the path to walk for humans to right some of what we have wronged.
Do you have any idea what a greenhouse gas is, or what it does? Venus is a good example of the effects of greenhouse gases, even if it is an extreme example. That planet boasts the highest surface temperatures of any planet in our solar system, despite being farther from the sun than Mercury. Yes, it is natural for various systems on Earth to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere regularly. What is unnaturally is to pull liquid carbon bearing compounds out of the ground, burn it, and release tens of billions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the amtosphere every year. If memory serves me, there have been 7 great extinctions on this planet since life firts began, and there has been recent evidence to show the extinctions coinciding with the oceans suddenly releasing large stores of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere suddenly, suffocating most oxygen breathing life. How much more CO2 are our oceans currently going to store? Should we worry? I certainly don't, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and it doesn't mean we aren't as a whole accelerating some unnatural process.
Glad you are not making decision becasue you don't have alll the facts.
Ever heard of Richard Lindzen at MIT? He is considered by his peers the most renowned climatologist in the wortld.
First off the warming of the planet started thousands of years ago before evil man stared indusrty. The atmosphere is about 78% Nitrogen,21% oxygen and .004% CO2. Gases are rated by the Kyoto treaty by their warming effect. CO2 has a low warming effect, Methane is 21 times more potent than Co2 and N20 is 300 times more potent than CO2.
Nature produces 30 times as much as MAN with man made C02 about 3.2 %. All these gases together produce less than .01 of the greenhouse effect as water vapor. water vapor is natural and nothing can be done about it.
The evrio nuts say that C)2 from man and cars is not the same it is different, of course it is not. That is how they justify trying to regulate CO2 from Man made sources.
Global warming is a THEORY and if you look at the data, my data is a few years old but 86% or Metorologists, Climatologits and scien**** say that Global warming can't be proved.
Nothing like a knee jerk reaction to somehting that may not be true. But just lets continue to punish the USA.
Last edited by Suaveat69; Dec 3, 2006 at 05:21 PM. Reason: Typed in can instead of Can't
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
One last throught: Most of what I've read about green-house gases/climate change, etc. usually starts with a comparrison of levels of various gases today vs what they were at the start of the industrial era (mid to late 1700's). I think it's reasonable to ask then, just how far "back" are we willing to ratchet our lives, how much are we willing to spend to do it and who is going to pay for it...especially when it's all based on theory about what might be hapening and what's causing it to happen?
What's really annoying to me about this potential problem is that there's no room for rational thought. The doomsayers are convinced that the end of the planet is near and it's all the fault of humans, and so naturally a contrary viewpoint has developed around the idea that either global warming doesn't exist or that it can't possibly be the effect of human activities.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 143
RussStang,
However, when people decide for me that I have to change my lifestyle and that I have to pay more for my vehicles and more in taxes and what little industry we have left in our country is burdened with new regulations while other countries continue to be given a pass I very much have a problem with that; even were those demands for change based on a proven fact
However, when people decide for me that I have to change my lifestyle and that I have to pay more for my vehicles and more in taxes and what little industry we have left in our country is burdened with new regulations while other countries continue to be given a pass I very much have a problem with that; even were those demands for change based on a proven fact
