http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-08-emissions_N.htm
Just one of many articles on the net, DOT regulates mileage, EPA has to enforce carbon dioxide emissions, that tosses another compound into the mixture. Reducing HC's and NOx's also decreases fuel economy, but also increases CO2 emissions. Wonder how the EPA is going to deal with this one?
Nick:
With the tree-hugging nutjobs that have overrun the EPA, it is anyone's guess, but I have a few choices for you - pick 7 from the list below:
1) Unfairly
2) At great expense to the taxpayer, and the nation as a whole
3) Ineffectively
4) Without any actual scientific input
5) With great bias toward the automobile, while ignoring the aviation industry entirely
6) With the malice, greed, graft & corruption present in every other facet of government today
7 With complete tyranny, offering those affected no appeal or recourse
The broad mandate handed down by the effing supreme court will have the EPA digging into every little corner of our daily lives. Don't think for a minute they intend to leave your fireplace alone...
-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.
all I can say, TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!!!! what are they (govt) going to see if Im using a flouresent bulb Its a friggin joke, the supreme court is suppose to interpret the law, not make it!!!! all this talk about global warming, carbon footprint, and govt monitoring CO2 makes me just want to release R12 into the sky, Just kidding to expensive, but you get the drift.
Here we go again with absolute power, as most of us are aware, the selection of the supreme court judges is a highly political process. When our founding fathers introduced this third form of check and balances, a judge at that time was not handing down decisions, that was done by a jury, the judge was simply a monitor of the court room procedures making sure each side had there fair share and turn. That has changed over the years, just like the power of the president.
Why nine guys? In theory, if all procedures are followed, only one judge is needed to interpret the law, and why does the law have to be interpreted? Shouldn't it be written so all can understand it? And what about qualifications, shouldn't we have judges that know their way under the hood of a car, or in the vast circuitry in a microprocessor, plus the sciences, medicine, and even be able to forecast the weather accurately over the next 30 days? Just a bunch of stupid attorneys that know how to play with words and not much good for anything useful.
If a dozen people were lost in the middle of the Burma jungle and one was a supreme court judge, shouldn't that judge be able to guide them out? Ha, most of these people have been chauffeur driven all their lives and can't even find their way around town, they are not gods, they are just people and highly specialized at that in one narrow field, word games.
But putting all that aside, who what the idiot that said the majority of the vote of these nine people should decide an important decision that affects millions of people? It is very possible that only one judge could be over time proven to be right, and the other eight are wrong, the supreme court over history does not have a perfect record and any decision less than batting a 1000 proves that the system does not work. In designing a complex system, you either bat a 1000 or the results are zero, imperfection is not acceptable. You screwed up.
So here we have another Roe versus Wade case, nine judges are given the same set of facts, four vote for it, and four vote against it. Now logic dictates that each judge should be subjected to scrutiny why they voted for or against a case, their interest, what they can gain or lose from their decision, but this is never done. Even in a court of law with a dozen jurors, idiots if you may are taken off the street and the vote has to be unanimous, why a simple majority in even a more important supreme court? It's a stupid way to run a government.
So four voted against this decision and another four voted for it canceling out each others vote, the key decision that affects millions of people was made by one guy, that is incredibly stupid just like giving one guy the power to go to war or not.
In a world where we have vast communications, no need or a group of nine men or one to make important decisions, we should all have a say. What's worse yet, is that key power is given to agencies to make decisions that affect all of us, and again, these decisions are made by one politically appointed guy. Again absolute power, we are not a democracy but a dictatorship run country, I don't like it.
Like that low budget movie, 12 Angry Men, watched it several times, unlike other movies, if you watch them a second or third time, start picking up on credibility gaps, our current political parties are loaded with credibility gaps. If we have to have a supreme court where nine guys or gals are given a the same set of facts, a decision should only be passed if the vote is unanimous, five out of nine is totally unacceptable.
And whoever decides that important issues should be decided by nine guys? Why can't all Americans vote on it? It's crazy.
Ha, according to this top scientists that Ira Plato had on yesterday, all we have to do is to reduce our CO2 levels down to where they were in 1990. Don't ask me neither to pronounce his name or type it, would either tango my tongue or fingers beyond repair, but his voice sounded exactly like the one I heard the last time I called MS for help and was told to rebooty my machine.
Ira asked him about planting trees, planting trees is good but very important where you plant them, planting them in the tropical forest is good as they eat up CO2, but don't plant them on top of ice cap mountains. Won't the trees on top of ice cap mountains eat up CO2? Yes they do, but they also shade the snow so it can't reflect sunlight back into space.
Do you think this guy was talking about planting palms tree on top of snow capped mountains? He never stated what kind of tree. And has anyone seen trees on top of snow capped mountains? For one thing, it's too damned cold and the air is too thin for trees to grow up there. But anyway, don't plant trees on top of snow capped mountains, I can go along with that.
The other key target is the automobile, buy a hybrid, ha, wait a minute, they didn't have hybrids in 1990! And looking at the charts for CO2 growth, it was lower in 1980, and even lower in 1970, so let's go back to 1970! First thing would be to eliminate the EPA, we didn't have an EPA in 1970 and let's get rid of all the emission crap that costs a small fortune in today's cars plus all this crap they are putting in gas today that really lowers mileage. Can't argue with history, all this stuff they added are increasing CO2 levels, I didn't say this, the scientists are, and they are saying let's go back. I have no objection to going back.
Let's get rid of all these ships that are hauling our natural resources to Asia and returning with manufactured goods and make our goods here. Again, we can't argue with history, CO2 levels were much lower then. Let's also go back to CFC's with no restrictions, HFC's have drastically increased our rate of global warming. And we should pull our troops out of Iraq, Dessert Storm really shot up global warming, that's when CO2 levels really started increasing, much better to fight in the jungles of Viet Nam, doesn't cause global warming.
Gee, and to think I was against the junk science of today, now I am all for it, will be delighted to have thousands of engineering jobs available to me, to drive my 65 Buick again, but this time with a neoprene rear seal in place of that rope, not have to put up with the EPA, and would much prefer to have Johnson/Nixon over Clinton/Bush, and CO2 levels were very low back then.
Let's all join this fight to stop global warming, no new science is needed, just have to return the way we were back in the 60's, I am all for that.
This why elections matter, and the next election is absolutely CRITICAL with respect to judges. Not that I'm all that thrilled with Republicans, but it's the only chance we have for originalist judges. If the Democrats win the White House and retain control of the Senate, the fate of this once great nation will be sealed.
I love Bohica's list... of course it just doesn't have to be one of the seven - pick all that apply!
Well, at least we know where Russell is coming from:
Joe, is Russell and graeme the same person? You are using the Russell name but referring to graeme's post. I was under the impression that Russell is from Texas and graeme is from Australia.
After hearing many of the experts on this subject and the trend for the last 35 years or so, can only conclude that the laws and the EPA are creating more problems then what they are solving and can only conclude whatever new laws are made will not solve the current problem but create new unforeseen problems. Solution is very simple, just bring manufacturing back to the USA with the smokestacks and return our automobiles back to 70's technology, after all, they are saying things were good back then. No need for more new laws and technology, just clean up one mess and make another mess twice as great. That has been the recorded record.
JJM: I gather its rather convenient for you to lump people into groups that you despise based on that you dont like their ideas on a few issues.......surely there is another "forum" where personal attacks on people are welcome.........supposedly not here?
Nick D: I think the idea was to return to 60's and 70's levels of CO2 concentrations, supposedly the planet is not going to implode with those levels Unfortunately even in those decades the levels were increasing....perhaps if the rate of increase seen in the 60's was maintained then we wouldnt be at the stage we are at now. So no, a vastly increased world population returning to the inefficient practices of the 60's technology would be ridiculous, perhaps thats what you were really saying.......unless of course we are talking about areas like China returning to the technologies that they had in the 60's. ie most never having seen an electric light globe etc.........that would make a difference.
Nobody can accuse the USA of excessive population growth, in the last 40 years with Roe versus Wade, we are killing babies faster than we can make them. The greatest increase in our population growth has been in immigration, both legal and illegal, but mostly illegal.
But what we are really guilty on, is excessive CO2 production, while we represent less than 5% of the worlds population, we are responsible for a third of the CO2 production! So what does this have to do with China?
So we are not talking about the population growth of the rest of the world, everybody is doing their part to protect the environment, that is everybody, except the USA.
I can recall in the 60's that Gary, IN was so bad, was constantly IFR, but didn't want to fly through that black, purple, yellow green smoke anyway, that smoke cloud was blinding, go clear up to 45,000 feet, but yet our CO2 emissions were reported as being low back then. Today, that entire area is a clear as can be, and flying over it, nothing but a huge empty field, all those steel mills are gone. Even in my stinky little town, we had six huge smoke stacks, today we only have one that is loaded with all kinds of scrubber equipment. We were driving filthy cars back then, but out CO2 emissions were low, today we are paying ten times as much for clean cars, but still not enough, we should all be driving hybrids.
Can you or anybody make any sense out of this? I can't. Only relief we had this last week, is this Imus guy, don't even know who in the hell he is, never heard about him, don't care about him, something about he called some African American (use to be colored, can't keep up with that either), womens basketball team a bunch of hos. But that dropped the CO2 discussions for a bit that leads me to the conclusion, if one off colored remark by some idiot takes over the entire news networks, CO2 really can't be that much of a problem.
Edited: Tue April 17, 2007 at 7:25 AM by NickD
Just a bunch of bullies, now that is funny.
Here is the thread with the fireball HC test.
http://www.autoacforum.com/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=17027
-----------------------------------
Cyber Bully:
Cyberbullying is sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices.
Cyberbullying is emerging as one of the more challenging issues facing educators and parents as young people embrace the Internet and other mobile communication technologies.
Cyberthreats are a related concern. A cyberthreat is online material that threatens or raises concerns about violence against others, suicide, or other self-harm. There are two kinds: Direct threats are actual threats to hurt someone or commit suicide. Distressing material provides clues that the person is emotionally upset and may be considering hurting someone, hurting him or herself or committing suicide.
-----------------------------------
Don't think anyone here fits into that mold. But you have the right to your opinion.
-------------------------
Where was I making personal attacks? I guess if your definition of personal attacks is disagreement, then I suppose I'm guilty. But other than that, your claim is without foundation.
If you view my characterization of your response as totalitarian, how else could it be more "tactfully" described? From the American Heritage Dictionary:
"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed"
Your comments I previously outlined clearly fall into the above category.
In any event, this is all soap opera stuff anyway. The real issue is the regulation of CO2 with respect to "global warming", which is patently absurd. Anybody with even the slightest education knows that CO2 is an insignificant component in our atmosphere relative to other gases, so with CO2 being so insignificant in our atmosphere, how could it possibly have any significant effect on climate? But perhaps the most absurd part of the who global warming CO2 debate is that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, but rather an effect of global warming, so any attempts to "regulate" it is akin to a cat chasing its tail.
Funny you should talk about the CO2 levels in the 1960s and 1970s. Wasn't "global cooling" and the coming of a new ice age the fear back then? But how could that be, if "unfortunately even in those decades the levels were increasing." If CO2 levels were increasing during that time, then were the "global cooling" alarmists wrong then, or are the "global warming" alarmists wrong now? How could rising CO2 levels lead to both global cooling and global warming?
Is is positively indisputable the biggest source of heat comes from the sun. There is no question about this, and if the sun dies, no amount of SUV's or incandescent lights will keep us warm. So why is the sun never, ever considered in the global warming debate? I personally wouldn't have any problem with anyone trying to regulate the sun; frankly I'd enjoy seeing it.
The bottom line is you want to truly do something about global warming, it would be wise to look at what creates all the warmth this planet has.
Joe
P.S. I erred in mentioning Russell... not that there is very much difference in their ideology.
Where did I directly call you a greenie?
How did you like the firebomb?
-------------------------
Firebomb? did a search, perhaps provide a link, couldnt find anything on the search function
found the link ^.
I cant view the video? blocked by my employer......is there an account in words?
Found a way to open it.......most stupid thing ive ever seen!
ie lets drop a lighted match in a pool of gasoline under the car to simulate a petrol tank punctured in an accident.........I wonder what will happen!
Because we are in a warming cycle now, earth is booming with life with a fantastic population growth, then the earth will go into a cooling cycle and billions will die along with plant and animal life. This cycle has been shown to exist for at least the last million years with core samples and repeats every 80,000 or so years. Some say the warming cycle stopped in 1999, I don't find this hard to believe with near zero degree F temperatures in the first week and a half in April.
You don't hear any arguments from me that water vapor, methane, and HFC's are contributing to global warming. On the other hand a group of scientists are more concerned about global cooling, and really global cooling. In the really mean ice age days, and in core samples, always a layer of volcanic ash with those super cold eras, and with mile high glaciers coming down. In the middle east, many ancient cities have been found 80-100 feet below the water surface that are dated to be about 8,000-10,000 years ago. Adds up to the coming out of the ice age 20,000 years ago. Did passing laws way back then where everyone had to drive a hybrid ox cart save them? Some scientist feel that the huge Yellowstone volcano is about ready to pop it's lid, if that happens, expect billions of people to die.
Sounds like you buy the 17 year history that Gore and others are pushing, I prefer to go back a few more years than that for historical data.
Cut and paste.
Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling in 6-9 Years
Created: 25.08.2006 17:47 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 22:33 MSK
MosNews
Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciencesâ astronomical observatoryâÂÂs report says, the RIA Novosti news agency reported Friday.
Environmentalists and scientists warn not about the dangers of global warming provoked by manâÂÂs detrimental effect on the planetâÂÂs climate, but global cooling. Though never widely supported, it is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.
âÂÂOn the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the EarthâÂÂs climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climateâÂÂs global warming at the start of the 22nd century,â said the head of the space research sector.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century â when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland â could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.
He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because âÂÂclimate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries.âÂÂ
âÂÂThe Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,â he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.
âÂÂThe global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and EarthâÂÂs global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol,â Abdusamatov said.
-------------------------
The Mocha's solution to global warming in around 500 AD with floods was to torture young men by butchering them alive, didn't work for them, their gods weren't pleased and the entire civilization was wiped out. If global cooling or warming occurs, the preachers will bring back the angry God of the Old Testament which actually boiled down to climatic changes experienced back then. Instead of driving hybrid cars, maybe we all better repent.
Can these plus the terrible plagues in around the 15-17th centuries be blamed on industrialization? Wouldn't it be great if some archeologists digs up a transistor or a V-8 engine? Even going back 14,000 years, nothing like that was found, just a bunch of rocks and some pottery.
We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum
Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.