Gasohol

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:38:41 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Anything that uses a hydrocarbon fuel releases CO2. In the case of the
fuel cell, or any other engine or power generation that uses a
hydrocarbon fuel for that matter, CO2 is released. If that CO2 is
coming from a renewable source then it is only putting back what had
been removed in producing the fuel. Fossil fuels OTOH strictly add CO2
to the atmosphere.

Great strides have been made in engine design allowing much smaller
engines to develop the HP that took much larger displacement in the
past and we've ended up with much more reliable and longer lived
engines. It still takes almost the same fuel to develop the same HP
now as it did then, BUT the smaller engines, like most car engines,
spend most of their lives developing on the order of 20 to 50 HP and
there the smaller engines take far less fuel. Also today's engines
produce far less nitrides than older, high compression, large
displacement engines. HOWEVER, in the long run our consumption of
fuel has gone up roughly on the order of 3.5% every year over the past
3 or 4 decades and it has not slackened with today's high prices.
Fleet economy, or MPG reached a peak of about 21.5 MPG some time in
the 1980's, but the loophole that lets SUVS and light trucks adhere to
a lesser standard has basically driven it down to just over 20 MPG.
Had we stuck to the fuel economy standards law passed in the 70's we'd
now be driving a fleet that would be getting roughly 37 MPG and saving
more than one million barrels of oil a day.


Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Maybe, maybe not. Generally hystericals cause more resistance, and/or
create a lack of credibility. OTOH it sometimes takes a radical to
create public attention.


Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade

Most scientists agree that is has. There are only a few vocal holdouts
and fringe groups still denying it exists. Inhofe still calls it a
hoax.

Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated
or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a
couple of years old.

global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.
I seriously doubt that. The upward trend of oil prices doesn't need
any help.

Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the
rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that
increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal
amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net
gain.

The US government was slow (downright reluctant) to admit the problem
even exists let alone being due to man, but they and even many staunch
deniers are swinging around. They are still playing down the results
of research and demanding government review of papers on the subject.
Even Bjorn Lomborg, a past Danish Greenpeace leader and author of the
book "Skeptical Environmentalist" is changing his stance. The
conclusions of the "G-8 summit" (June 7) are pretty forceful.
http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel...cationFile.pdf
(Watch out for line wrap in some readers) It's interesting if you can
stay awake long enough to read through 38 pages of that kind of
report.

As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us"
within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make
about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try
to set a good example.

On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

Jose wrote:
I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven

Basic physics, molecular spectroscopy and the conservation
of energy prove the greenhouse effect. Do you consider
either of those to be unproven? If so, which.

It follows therefor that ncreasing the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. What
proof do you consider to be missing?

-- nor has the case for manmade
global warming.

The case for anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for the
observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is well established
both by closure and by the Suess effect. What is it that
you doubt about either or both of those?


The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Hystericals are fond of raising this issue in newsgroups where
it is off-topic. I have crossposted to sci.environment, where it is
on-topic, set follow-ups accordingly, and will be happy to answer
any reasonable questions you would like to pose there.

Hystericals are also fond of making all sorts of irrational
excuses for not discussing such issues in newsgroups
frequented by people familiar with the subject matter. I
trust you will not.

--

FF

On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
...
The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.
...

Now, if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to support that
assertion, please let me know.

Note followups.

--

FF

On Jun 24, 12:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article ,

Jose wrote:
I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade
global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

I can GUARANTEE that the world will continue to heat up, or else it
will not. If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals
were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will
prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good. There
is no point in fighting it.

John Halpenny