[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Food Additives Exposed: What Lies Beneath America's Food Supply

Scott Ritter: Hezbollah OBLITERATES IDF, Netanyahu in deep legal trouble

Vivek Ramaswamy says he and Elon Musk are set up for 'mass deportations' of millions of 'unelected bureaucrats'

Evidence Points to Voter Fraud in 2024 Wisconsin Senate Race

Rickards: Your Trump Investment Guide

Pentagon 'Shocked' By Houthi Arsenal, Sophistication Is 'Getting Scary'

Cancer Starves When You Eat These Surprising Foods | Dr. William Li

Megyn Kelly Gets Fiery About Trump's Choice of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General

Over 100 leftist groups organize coalition to rebuild morale and resist MAGA after Trump win

Mainstream Media Cries Foul Over Musk Meeting With Iran Ambassador...On Peace

Vaccine Stocks Slide Further After Trump Taps RFK Jr. To Lead HHS; CNN Outraged

Do Trump’s picks Rubio, Huckabee signal his approval of West Bank annexation?

Pac-Man

Barron Trump

Big Pharma-Sponsored Vaccinologist Finally Admits mRNA Shots Are Killing Millions

US fiscal year 2025 opens with a staggering $257 billion October deficit$3 trillion annual pace.

His brain has been damaged by American processed food.

Iran willing to resolve doubts about its atomic programme with IAEA

FBI Official Who Oversaw J6 Pipe Bomb Probe Lied About Receiving 'Corrupted' Evidence “We have complete data. Not complete, because there’s some data that was corrupted by one of the providers—not purposely by them, right,” former FBI official Steven D’Antuono told the House Judiciary Committee in a

Musk’s DOGE Takes To X To Crowdsource Talent: ‘80+ Hours Per Week,’

Female Bodybuilders vs. 16 Year Old Farmers

Whoopi Goldberg announces she is joining women in their sex abstinence

Musk secretly met with Iran's UN envoy NYT

D.O.G.E. To have a leaderboard of most wasteful government spending

In Most U.S. Cities, Social Security Payments Last Married Couples Just 19 Days Or Less

Another major healthcare provider files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The Ukrainians have put Tulsi Gabbard on their Myrotvorets kill list

Sen. Johnson unveils photo of Biden-appointed crossdressers after reporters rage over Gaetz nomination

sted on: Nov 15 07:56 'WE WOULD LOSE' War with Iran: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Israeli minister says Palestinians should have no voting or land rights


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world
Source: Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html
Published: Aug 19, 2005
Author: David Adam
Post Date: 2005-08-19 14:32:39 by Mr Nuke Buzzcut
Keywords: sceptics, Climate, $10,000
Views: 790
Comments: 68

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

David Adam, science correspondent
Friday August 19, 2005
The Guardian

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.

Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.

Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.

"Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid."

Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-28) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#29. To: siagiah, All (#12)

Certainly you UNDERSTAND the concept of paid shills? Paid research that supports the ideas of those who fund it?

Paid Shills eh???, Obviously ALL global warming research oriented toward proving the existence of it, or the anthropogenic genesis thereof, is BS because 80 or 90 some odd percent of it is funded by research grants from collectivist globalist organizations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundations or government entities with an interest in regulating us, right?

I mean, you do understand the concept of PAID SHILLS right???

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   10:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: siagiah (#24)

I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person... So there it is... FUCK OFF...

What was that about rude and vulgar?

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-29   10:58:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Axenolith (#18)

Me among others.

Now name somebody who really matters....LOL

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-29   14:25:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: siagiah (#20)

he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars... ROFLMAO

Yes ,I found that humorous too...I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-29   14:47:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Axenolith (#22)

he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars...

All Siagiah was saying was that there are paid shills for the oil companies and there are paid shills for the auto manufacturers.Her point was that that they take their positions for the money they are paid.It seems the same people who are against reducing pollution are also opponents of the scientific theory which says the burning of hydrocarbons contributes to global warming .

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-29   15:53:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Steppenwolf (#33)

Stepp, don't waste your time on either of them. I won't ever again. I'm gonna bozo both of them and go on my merry way. Too bad, so sad... their loss, not mine. (-:

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-29   19:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Steppenwolf (#32)

I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.

Especially when she cogently decends into profanity when faced with evidence contrary to her line of propaganda.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-29   21:17:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Steppenwolf (#31)

Now name somebody who really matters....LOL

Hey dude, California registered Professional Geologist and 16 years in the environmental and emergency response field...

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   23:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Steppenwolf (#32)

I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.

But believes that in the year 2005 their are car manufacturers that want catalytic converters out of cars and that catalytic converters have something to do with greenhouse emissions...

LMAO

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   23:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Steppenwolf (#33)

All Siagiah was saying was that there are paid shills for the oil companies and there are paid shills for the auto manufacturers.Her point was that that they take their positions for the money they are paid.It seems the same people who are against reducing pollution are also opponents of the scientific theory which says the burning of hydrocarbons contributes to global warming .

And my response is that, regardless of who pays the guy what, hydrocarbon burning by humans is an insignificant contributor to any variation in climate within the time frame we're looking at.

Even if I take devils advocate and assume it is, the treaties and proposed solutions are totally one sided attempts to undermine the economic strength of the United States.

It is a fact that out of control subterranean coal fires in China exceed vehicular outputs in the US for CO2.

If there was any seiousness to curbing some postulated human induced warming trend, the solutions would logically allow for the United States to offset emissions via either forestation or activities like remediating large problematic sources, but they don't. That they don't says to me there is a hidden agenda in the hype...

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-30   0:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Steppenwolf (#33)

Additionally, your reply to this will allow Siagiah an opportunity to view it...

I formally apologize for inserting unseemly ad hominems in my response to Siagiah.

Please do understand though, that it is inflammatory to assert in a post to a dissenting reply that the responder is a "paid shill" for someone when there is no evidence supporting such other than, in this case, my dissenting opinion.

I will endevour to a greater degree of civility.

FTR, I have no connection whatsoever to any manufacturer of automobiles or other industries which produce equipment designed to burn carbon or hydrocarbon products. I am a long term small shareholder of one oil facility emergency response provider with whom I have no ongoing personal relationship.

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-30   0:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Axenolith (#39)

Please do understand though, that it is inflammatory to assert in a post to a dissenting reply that the responder is a "paid shill"

I have never seen a post from Siagiah where she called the POSTER a paid shill...But what she HAS said is, the fossil fuel interests have as a corporate policy "scientists" on their payroll to present their point of view which is ,SELL MORE OIL AND COAL ! But I appreciate your apology and I'm sure when I tell her,she will too. Thank you...

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-30   15:35:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Axenolith, Steppenwolf, All (#39)

Axenolith: I formally apologize for inserting unseemly ad hominems in my response to Siagiah

Apology accepted... and please accept mine for my vulgar return fire.

Now that we've cleared that hurdle, here is my explanation for mentioning catalytic converters. (I am NOT an expert on these matters, particularly on vehicle emission equipment so I used catalytic converters to describe them) THIS paragraph comes directly from the article Buzz posted as proof that my view that global warming existed was wrong based on his "presumed expert, George Taylor"...

"FROM BUZZ'S ARTICLE: In April, George Taylor sat patiently in front of the Oregon House Environment Committee, whose chairman, Grants Pass Republican Gordon Anderson, is likewise skeptical of global-warming theories. Taylor testified on a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. Taylor poohpoohed the need for the bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. "I believe the effect of greenhouse gas is a relatively minor one," Taylor told the committee. "I really believe natural variation and natural factors are a bigger cause of climate change than you and I." The bill died. If it had been approved, new emissions standards would be in place in the three Pacific states. Washington has a similar law, but it takes effect only after Oregon enacts its own. But Taylor's message gave cover to Anderson, who says, "I am not going to take the position that everything is going to hell. We're not going to wrap up our country and tie a noose around our neck." In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so- called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes."

My comment: I'm sure you can see from this exerpt that the so~called expert Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL. I did not intend for any POSTER to be referred to as a paid shill, only the apparently paid experts presented. If you peruse the entire article, you'll note that the guy is considered to be a crackpot amongst his peers and as ignorant by most scientists. I was flabbergasted that Buzz presented this piece as something that would "shake up my beliefs"... I am presuming that he DID NOT READ IT before posting it....??? Nearly every remark I made came from that position. I am not sure if Buzz INTENDED that error to see if I'd actually read it & notice or if he simply didn't care either way because he just wanted to be an itch... it's impossible to tell.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:30:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: siagiah (#12)

I can't read that font. Perhaps you'll downsize it for the stupids among us?

Another Mogambo Day

rack42  posted on  2005-08-30   22:36:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#28)

timetobuildaboat said: Does this lunatic (referring to Buzz) even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut said: Rather than cast insults, you (timetobuildaboat) might want to read siagaih's history of posts on the subject which make it quite clear where she (siagiah) stands with respect to global warming. ;-)

Actually Buzz, it is YOU who might want to read my history of posts. You are definitely NOT COMPREHENDING my words. If it wasn't just you who keeps insisting I said something I didn't, I'd say I wasn't presenting it well, but it IS just you who insists that I'm saying things I never said. That signals to me that you simply don't want to understand, you just want to dip pigtails and make noise.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:44:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: siagiah (#41)

Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL.

I'm sorry, but your assessment as to Buzz as a shill is, well, mistaken, in my opinion. You'll need to provide more evidence to support your accusations.

Another Mogambo Day

rack42  posted on  2005-08-30   22:45:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: rack42 (#42)

I can't read that font. Perhaps you'll downsize it for the stupids among us?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about???

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:45:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: rack42 (#44)

Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL. I'm sorry, but your assessment as to Buzz as a shill is, well, mistaken, in my opinion. You'll need to provide more evidence to support your accusations.

I didn't call Buzz anything. I called the scientist he introduced as proof of his point a paid shill.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:46:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: All (#46)

The article Buzz introduced IS THE PROOF. I pasted it after the giant font for anyone who wants to read it... or you can follow HIS link for a better read. My got all jumbled together in the copy/paste. If you read it, you'll see WHO I called a paid shill. (hint: NO ONE HERE...)

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:48:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Axenolith, All (#47)

Quote from article Buzz presented: " In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so- called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes."

Comment made to me by Axenolith: Hey XXXXX, catalytic converters don't have shit to do with eliminating CO2, they eliminate unburned Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide... A car with or without one isn't germane to a global warming debate...

NOW I am confused... Unless I am just misunderstanding your remark made in anger, it appears that the article states/implies that scientists include carbon dioxide in the greenhouse gases equation which is why car emissions are considered part of the problem by some.... But that is exactly the opposite to your angry remark to me... Can you explain? I honestly don't know which is correct? Are carbon dioxide emissions part of the global warming debate or not??? (I'm not asking if they do or do not contribute to global warming, only if they are on the table as a disputable PART of global warming)

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   23:12:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: siagiah (#48)

I can certainly grant your point that Taylor looks like a paid shill. The problem is that so does everybody else on every side of the issue. None of them are without sponsors and/or employers. Everybody from researchers to journalists draws sustenance from some interested party or another.

Consequently, we are back to square one of ignoring the source, disregarding their conclusions and actually evaluating the data and methods, then coming to what we consider a rational conclusion on our own. Yes, I acknowledge that in doing so, I bring my own bias to the table. That's why I'm (believe it or not) willing to adjust my position in the event that I am confronted with evidence that I'm in the wrong. At this point, I'm still firmly convinced that the climate change we are presently experiencing has extremely little to do with human induced causes. Does that mean there aren't things we should do better? Of course not. We absolutely need to make improvements in some areas. However, Kyoto is not one of the changes that we should even consider.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-30   23:31:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#49)

okay... I can accept that and I agree with you.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   23:43:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, all (#50)

Clarification: I agree with you on the statement that Kyoto is something to be considered CAREFULLY before hopping on board and that there are things humans can do better.

Personally, I'm leaning somewhat towards a significant, measurable PART of global warming being traced back to recent human activities. I don't know how big a part we play or if our actual part has been only a trigger action that has stimulated nature to react.

My biggest concern is to learn HOW they will manifest themselves (ice age, flooding, increase in insects, affecting food supplies, ocean temperatures, air quality, etc and then WHAT these changes will mean to us if they continue on the present path. IF they will mean serious threats to Earth, THEN it matters WHY.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   0:04:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: siagiah (#51)

For me, the "why" is very important, because that determines what, if anything, we need to do differently. The worst case scenario, in my book, is running around blindly passing laws (I'm not accusing you of advocating that) just because we have to do something. Politicians like to do that. They like to be seen as "owning" an issue and pointing to their "accomplishments" at election time.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-31   0:11:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: siagiah, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Axenolith (#51)

my furrowed brows are now smoothed and i'm smiling. ;)

Freedom4um: a Todd free zone!

christine  posted on  2005-08-31   0:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#52)

For the record, I am totally AGAINST passing laws for or against anything if the law is not absolutely ESSENTIAL to preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

IMHO, with global warming, the most important factor isn't "why", it's WHAT DOES IT MEAN. The reason for that is simple. What difference does it make WHY if it's not an important issue in the first place? If it doesn't matter that the average temperature has risen a degree in the last century and nothing of consequence will result because of it, then there is no NEED to pass any laws in the first place.

Global warming isn't as clear cut an issue as pollution problems directly related to human activity. Certainly, no one believes that air or water pollution is a GOOD thing? Curbing both of them can only result in a healthier environment. HOW to enforce it is the issue because laws passed hastily often create more problems than they fix. At the same time, refusing to do anything because the issue is mired in endless dispute only makes it harder to clean up the damage when we finally acknowledge it exists.

I am against hasty laws because laws that unnecessarily tie the hands of businesses can result in lost jobs. That isn't a good thing either. However, the almighty dollar ISN'T the defining issue when it comes to irreversibly destroying the environment. We cannot buy back what we sometimes destroy in our greed a/o ignorance. Tainting it is inevitable and probably quite natural, willfully causing irreversible damage entirely another. So first, we have to know WHAT we are dealing with and HOW it will harm us. Our "leaders" focus on worrying about WHY and WHOSE FAULT it is only allows us all to lose sight of the question of IF IT EVEN MATTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Obfuscation is the name of this game. Divide and conquer. Some for passing laws for material gain/political power... some muddying the water to prevent anyone from examining business practices etc etc

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   0:36:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: christine (#53)

To: siagiah, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Axenolith my furrowed brows are now smoothed and i'm smiling. ;)

me too... me too... good evening Christine~!

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   0:39:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: siagiah (#48)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is emitted by automobiles, and anything that burns. Catalytic converters initially (the "2 way" catalytic converter) worked on Hydrocarbons (unburnt gasoline components) and Carbon Monoxide (CO).

From the onset, this created an automotive industry crisis, because the destruction of the two components in the early catalytic converters running on the standard high compression internal combustion engines generated a LOT of heat and the high compression engines were already pumping out a high temperature mix into the converter. Since air is already composed of ~78% nitrogen, this caused the Nitrous Oxides (NOX, X representing variable Oxygen quantities) to form in the converter.

The initial solution was a drastic reduction in the compression ratio of automotive engines which resulted in a phenominal decline in power and economy. For example, I used to own a 1970 1/2 RS Camaro. It ran on regular leaded (which, btw, never was seriously important to engine health with the advent of stellite valve seats, I never had any problem with unleaded), had a 2 barrel carburator and generated 245 horsepower stock (with a slight cam upgrade and free flow exhaust I was at about 285-90). This vehicle would get 27.5 mpg at 75 miles per hour on the freeway.

Around 1974 the early catalytic converter was mandated. For comparison, I had a friend who owned a 1976 Camaro with the same engine and a 4 barrel carburator and the stock vehicle only put out about 165 horsepower while getting worse fuel economy.

Finally, the 3-way converter was perfected. The 3-way also eliminates the NOX emissions and that's what allows us to have all these cars today that crank out huge horsepower but easily meet emissions standards. The current converter destroys HCs, CO, and NOX only. The optimum efficiency is the production of nothing but CO2 and Water Vapor. BTW, did you know the Excursion SUV is considered an ultra low emission vehicle? It's because it approaches that optimum efficiency. Obviously, it's one expensive mother to feed right now, and it does emit some CO2 but heck, if someone feels bad about it they can plant 25 trees to cover it :-)

Now, when Oregon is talking about "cleaner cars" legislation, the ONLY type of cars they can be referring to is hybrid or electric or hydrogen (NOT produced from oil too, which is the cheapest means and is a dirty little secret you don't hear much about) with respect to CO2 emissions.

The only means of not producing, or reducing, CO2 is via increased efficiency or alternative motive power sources. Theoretically, you could also sequester it from the exhaust stream, but you'd end up utilizing an enourmous quantity of the energy being generated to power the sequestering method, and you'd need an entire new infrastructure to get rid of it.

That being said, Oregons barring of state agencies from spending money to specifically reduce greenhouse emissions makes good sense. The agencies who do so on a whim, without respect to the relative costs, are robbing the taxpayers for their own self gratification. Obviously, under the gasoline price scenario today, those agencies will probably be able to buy cars like the Prius without controversy because they'll save money, and incidentally reduce CO2 by ~50% over a standard sedan or SUV.

As to CO2 its self, anything we do will not contribute meaningfully to altering the planets climate, it's in a geologically long term warming trend that's going to happen regardless. Heck, thank god we didn't evolve up to industrialization at the peak of the most recent glaciation, because then we'd have all of our port cities about 200 feet lower in elevation than now!

The "problem" is arcane enough and involves manipulation of such huge numbers and variables that it makes the perfect "threat" to pose to the people and have have them willingly cede sovereignty and freedom over vast aspects of their daily lives. What always kills me, and red flags the issue as such to me, is that any logical solution to the generated threat is disallowed to the United States and nations like India and China are exempt from the "solutions". That's GOT to tell you something's fishy here!

BTW, anyone concerned about this who wishes to take action on the subject (or who just wants to make a few extra dollars) can offset emissions via returning metals "lost to the economic stream". I am currently up to having my Saturn VUE achieve over 40 miles to the gallon net energy equivalent because I collect all of the aluminum (and other metals) I find while sampling the freeway right of way. ~60 aluminum cans consume the net energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. If you return 60 cans (or roughly a kilogram) of aluminum that for all intents and purposes was lost to the economy you have just eliminated the equivalent of one gallon of gasolines CO2 emissions because that much would have been produced creating the aluminum from the raw ore (assuming the electricity is produced by gas or coal, which it is in most places).

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-31   1:03:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: siagiah (#41)

Note to self... Reply to posts in order... ;-)

Taylor testified on a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. Taylor poohpoohed the need for the bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes.

Ah HA!... Herin lies the confusion. What CARB has essentially done is create an end run around Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by defining the issue as one of CO2 emissions. All of the solutions they mention are efficiency solutions, i.e. all they are doing is increasing gas mileage.

This is interesting. California was BADLY slapped down in court a few years back for charging people who moved to the state a DMV fee for importing an "out of state" vehicle (even though, while the cars weren't California "compliant", per regulations, they still tested at the same levels). They had to refund an enourmous amount of illegally collected fees. The case was Commerce Clause based.

Based upon this ruling, California, by their 2009 "standard" will literally destroy their car sales because nothing exists to keep purchasers from buying vehicles from out of state and bringing them in and unless the manufacturers cede to meeting the standards for all vehicles manufactured.

Ironically, $3.00+ a gallon gasoline is going to do more to increase efficiency than the politicos will ever accomplish.

An aside, we tend to consider the CARB to be a bunch of politicized idiots. They like to pass lots of feel good legislation without much thought to what it will do to people and business (other government included). The major current fiasco they've initiated was their CARB 435 standard for testing for naturally occuring asbestos (NOA).

Serpentine is the state rock of CA and Serpentine generally has some to a crapload of asbestos in it. It's generally the green rock you'll in the foothills or bay area. Well, theres asbestos everywhere here, but the clincher is the only county it's found in the friable (easily released as fibers) form is El Dorado County. The CARB 435 method though, involves a process of sample preparation (grinding) that turns all non-friable asbestos into friable! This is currently driving Caltrans and anyone else wishing to do earthwork nuts, because you now have to sample for NOA, it alwys turns up, and you have to treat it like its friable. It is currently blowing the cost of one job I'm on out of the water, about 8 million bucks extra will probably be the tab. In a sane world, you'd hose it down with water for general dust suppression and get on with work, and the state would have 8 mil from one project alone that could be wasted on something else useless (like they'd give it back!? NOT!)

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-31   1:32:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Axenolith (#57)

Thank you for the detailed lesson. I believe that I can see where you are coming from now. Useless CA legislation is affecting you personally and you know enough to KNOW it's useless.

On the flip side, I am affected by GWB's relaxing of EPA legislation, specifically midwestern factories emission standards. He effectively negated all the GOOD legislation passed 25+ years ago that allowed factories to gradually update their equipment to meet reasonable air/water quality standards. The factories IGNORED the 25 year time frame and simply did not update themselves whatsoever. NOW they face today's requirements to meet those standards and they complained to the powers that be that they'd have to close plants, lose jobs, etc. if they complied with the long ago agreed to standards. Lo and behold, GWB & Co. find LOOPHOLES so that they don't have to comply now. Consequently, the East Coast that I call home SUFFERS. We trusted that the long range plan the EPA implemented would be enforced so that OUR air/water would no longer be subject to the midwest's air pollution coming our way on the wind. Acid rain reeks havoc on our water, air, and dirt. We are paying a high price for someone else's refusal to be responsible. OUR legislators are suing over it. N.E. does everything we can to reduce OUR pollution and we don't dump OUR pollution on the rest of the country.

Clearly there are winners and losers in this problem and it affects each of us PROFOUNDLY. My health and your business are directly affected by the unscrupulous players in this game. I also believe that we can agree that there IS something going on with the Earth's warming trend although it's not totally clear if it's entirely natural or not. Somehow we need to learn if it matters at all.

IMHO, the problem boils down to this... We need INDEPENDENT STUDY to determine the causes and potential effects before we can decide what we should or SHOULDN'T do. The collective WE must halt the politicians and businesses in their self~absorbed tracks.

How to do that? Gawd, the proverbial problem of how to make humans work together for the common good? First, we must stop politicians from passing useless, hasty laws to make themselves LOOK good. Second, we must attempt to form ONE HUGE worldwide (or at least U.S.) scientific group to study not only the global environmental issues but also the global impact on economic issues. Don't allow for outside, partisan studies to be included in any potential legislation. If they want in, they must JOIN the group to be heard. The only way to minimize partisan results is for them ALL to be paid for with a POOL of money contributed by all the present sources combined into ONE FUND so that no one interest is represented above another. Since we spend a bloody fortunes of our taxes already on this, divert them to this fund to get it going. Business would follow suit to ensure that they had some input too. (- : Eventually, every country in the world needs to contribute because the U.S. will do whatever is best for the U.S. if they don't. There is no reason why we can't accomplish something along these lines except that each "side" doesn't WANT that to happen. Then their PERSONAL issues would have to take a backseat.

Other poster suggestions on how to get some real, RELIABLE studies done?

BTW, an aside to Axenolith's first post: I recycle everything and my state, NH, provides breaks & funds for state of the art recycling programs that not only pay for themselves, decrease landfills, but show a PROFIT for the towns that implement them. How's that for doing something of value? You'd be surprised how little of our daily rubbish/garbage actually ISN'T easily recyclable. I don't know how easy it would be for cities to implement but it's not impossible if folks embrace the idea. Instead of rubbish barrels everywhere on rubbish day, trucks that pick up recyclables can make the rounds. They do that in the medium city I used to live in and it WORKS. That alone might make more difference in N.E. than all the useless legislation in CA that has been passed thus far.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   11:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: siagiah (#58)

BTW, an aside to Axenolith's first post: I recycle everything and my state, NH, provides breaks & funds for state of the art recycling programs that not only pay for themselves, decrease landfills, but show a PROFIT for the towns that implement them.

In my area we have mandatory curbside recycling. Most people diligently sort their trash and set it out pickup. A while back a study was done that claimed the increase in pollutants generated by having the extra trucks on the route exceeded the reductions in pollution due to increased recycling. Then, recently there was an article in the local paper where it was admitted that the vast majority of our sorted recycle goods gets baled and landfilled anyway because there is no market for it. What's worse is that the aluminum, which is valuable as a recycled commodity no longer gets processed at any of the many local smelters - because they were all shut down due to the cost of power at the dams thanks to environmental policy. Instead, the aluminum goes on ships for transport to China.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-31   12:36:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: rack42 (#44)

the so~called expert, Buzz introduced, IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL.

Read it again...the so~called expert is the paid shill.

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-31   16:36:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#59)

that's really sad... The folks who implemented it obviously weren't CONSULTED when the folks who legislated it designed it. Recycling does work when it's designed properly. My town shows a profit every year and it's painless. There IS a market for all the stuff, if one knows where to look. Presumably, the folks running your project don't know OR don't care?

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-09-01   0:22:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: siagiah (#61)

Do you presort your garbage and do they fine you for things like including glossy paper in with the newsprint or pizza boxes in with the cardboard, or brown glass in with the clear glass?

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-09-01   10:03:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#62)

We presort it at home and no, no fines. Glass is glass. Cardboard has its own bin as does newspaper but all other paper, including magazines, bills, glossy, etc all goes in the same bin. Some folks sort some of it when they get there.

The only time the staff gets cranky is if you put glass, cans, or plastic through the general rubbish. They can hear it clunking. The used motor oil is burned in a special furnace to heat the buildings used for sorting.

If you don't want to sort the papers and garbage, you don't have to. However, those who do sort it (and they know who you are) can have all the compost they want free, and can bring tires, appliances, or toxics like paint, etc on special 4 x a year collection days for those. They can also dispose of construction wastes. Those items cost you $$$ otherwise...

They are are reasonable and EASY TO PLEASE as they can be because they WANT US TO RECYCLE. The recycling efforts pay the salaries of 2 employees who are hired to sort the icky stuff that citizens don't want to bother with like unwashed plastics/glass, mixed paper... those two people's jobs depend on folks recycling.

If folks want recycling to work, it does. Even on a smaller scale like just plastic or glass. AND OUR TAXES ARE DOWN A BIT BECAUSE IT MAKES A PROFIT. We don't have to budget for our waste disposal anymore...

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-09-02   21:21:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: siagiah (#63)

My elderly mother enjoys spending time with recycling. She's a pro. When I visit and throw away a plastic bottle w/o thinking, she finds it, asks someone to read the # if it is not easy to see and then happily puts it into the proper colored barrel.

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." – General Smedley Butler

robin  posted on  2005-09-02   21:32:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: robin (#64)

I cringe when I see folks toss obviously recyclables into the trash. It's just wrong to add to the landfill waste problem unnecessarily.

Even when I lived where it wasn't mandatory, (MA) but where soda/beer bottles were cash deposits to encourage recycling, I still recycled as much paper,plastic,glass as I could. They had recycling trucks that surfed the neighborhoods for the "green buckets" that had all the recyclables in them. I sorted all the cash deposit bottles separately so I could leave 'em out for the wandering bums or for kids looking for candy money. They are both always willing to take it. The trucks turned 'em in for their own profit.

NH doesn't have cash deposits on bottles but all the bottles collected are sent to MA where they DO have 'em and NH takes home some of MA's money... tee hee...

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-09-02   23:54:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Robin (#65)

In case anyone's wondering why I didn't turn my bottles in myself, it was just too damned much WORK to stuff 'em one by one into the recycle machines at the grocery stores. I wouldn't have minded it so much except that my kids were with me and kids DON'T behave well in grocery stores to begin with, nevermind boring the heck outa them stuffin' bottles and cans into tiny slots. I tried making it a game for them and letting them keep the $$ on their own slips but that wore off fast. MA needed to make a FRIENDLY recycling center to encourage it more.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-09-02   23:58:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: siagiah (#63)

It sounds like the same regimen they use here for the most part, but they must be doing some darn creative book keeping to claim that it is turning a profit. It would be interesting to see an independent agency pull an audit and see what the real income and expense numbers are.

Don't get me wrong, I think recycling is important. I just don't like when it is done as a feel-good measure and the hidden truth is that it is counter- productive.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-09-03   12:53:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#67)

No fancy bookkeeping. The fact is that the books are open to any citizen who wants to see 'em. It turns a profit in my town. Surrounding towns are following suit now.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-09-05   23:54:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]