Gasohol

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

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Is it even something that NEEDS TO BE CURED?

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?


What has panic and mindless blather ever solved?

Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured?

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.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

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

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

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, 10:47 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

...

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.

Oh no!

That is a very common misconception. The most important
observations date to the 1970s. It was ignored by the popular
Press which found a new ice age to be a more interesting story.
But if you look at the proceedings of the climate conferences
of that time you will find a different story.

The essential Physics was established well before that. The
effects of aerosols also have been understood since then.

Quantifying the combined effects on global temperatures
is the more recent work, and there remains a lot of uncertainty
there. But the uncertainty is about how much of a rise and
how fast, not the direction of future trends.

...
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.

Unfortunately the oceans are rapidly approaching saturation. Should
the
oceans stop absorbing CO2, the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 will
jump to about 15 times the current rate.

....

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.

And they are going to take over in a very big way.

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

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?
What has panic and mindless blather ever solved?
Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured?

I was not referring to hysterics, but rather, to "hysterics", and should
have quoted the word originally. People opposed to environmental
safeguards call them hysterics in the same way that people opposed to
airport closures refer to "noise nazis".

In that sense, "hysterics" (legitimage drawing of attention to the
damage we are causing to our and our neighbor's environment) have cured
many things. I am most grateful to the "hysterics" of the 1960s for the
relatively clean air we breathe today. One only has to go to parts of
Europe to breathe the difference (at least when I was last there).

As for whether CO2 needed to be "cured", that's not my point. The
statement was made that it =was= cured (along with other things
including doubling the gas milage), proving that the "hysterics" were
unnecessary. I do not see any such proof demonstrated by the facts
presented (which I will stipulate), especially as the "cure" was likely
to be costly, and business doesn't like costly things.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.