GTAVercetti 0 #76 March 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteOh, let me clarify. I was refering to the average person (ie some posters here, the guy on the street, etc). There are people who have no stake in industries that do the polluting (of course, I do not know if some posters here are in thse industries or not) who ADMANTLY oppose cleaning the enviroment or slowing air pollution. CARB (California Air Resource Board) has been one of the most active forces in the country in forcing change. Not always good change. Sometimes it appears to be change for the sake of change. BBQs and wood burning fireplaces are under review or control. Off road vehicles have been severely affected. These are the kind of nuisances that can piss people off. Meanwhile millions of cars continue to pollute along. Well, that is exactly what I oppose. Seriously, wood burning fireplaces and bbq's? In California? That is the wrong idea.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #77 March 16, 2005 >Meanwhile millions of cars continue to pollute along. Automobile pollution, on a per-car basis, has been reduced by between 75 and 99.9% (depending on pollutant) compared to 30 years ago. Overall, the air is several times cleaner than it was in the 70's. Hardly 'change for the sake of change.' People are living longer because of the changes the CARB forced through, often against immense industry opposition. My wife was born in LA in the 70's. Their family doctor advised her family to move due to health reasons. CARB changed all that. They took a state full of polluting cars and turned it into a state with far more cars but far less pollution. Everybody wins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #78 March 16, 2005 Quote>Meanwhile millions of cars continue to pollute along. Automobile pollution, on a per-car basis, has been reduced by between 75 and 99.9% (depending on pollutant) compared to 30 years ago. Overall, the air is several times cleaner than it was in the 70's. Hardly 'change for the sake of change.' People are living longer because of the changes the CARB forced through, often against immense industry opposition. My wife was born in LA in the 70's. Their family doctor advised her family to move due to health reasons. CARB changed all that. They took a state full of polluting cars and turned it into a state with far more cars but far less pollution. Everybody wins. Some of us are old enough to remember just how stinky city streets were before the introduction of serious anti-pollution regulations for autos. Not that stink is, per se, unhealthy, but it sure is an indicator.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 March 16, 2005 yet, for all that, California is still borderline on compliance with the Clean Air Act. We have Spare the Air days where BART can be free, and other such programs because we need to keep within the limits. Given a choice of obliterating all the niche use sources of pollution, or continuing to work on the big one, I know which I'd prefer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #80 March 16, 2005 >Given a choice of obliterating all the niche use sources of pollution, >or continuing to work on the big one, I know which I'd prefer. Fortunately, we don't have to make that choice. We can work both. Since a small two-stroke engine pollutes as much as about a thousand SULEV vehicles, it makes sense to go after them as well as the cars. On cars, most of the "low-hanging fruit" has already been harvested. We've made a lot of improvements over the years. Further improvements will come at significant expense, like hybrid drives, urea injection, exhaust storage systems etc. On the other hand, improvements on two-stroke engines will cost little since they're so dirty to begin with, and every two-cycle sold with the improvements will be like getting 1000 new cars off the highways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 March 17, 2005 low CAFE standards still seems like low hanging fruit to me, Bill, esp with the light trucks. From a greenhouse gas perspective, fuel consumption is a much bigger deal than pollution levels, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #82 March 17, 2005 Quote.... I guess I have a hard time with the "cause vs. effect" arguments I have seen so far that "definitively" prove that global warming is both real AND (most importantly) somehow under our control... I agree with this point 100%. To think this is all "mankinds" doing is the height of conceit.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #83 March 17, 2005 QuoteOh, let me clarify. I was refering to the average person (ie some posters here, the guy on the street, etc). There are people who have no stake in industries that do the polluting (of course, I do not know if some posters here are in thse industries or not) who ADMANTLY oppose cleaning the enviroment or slowing air pollution. If they are not monetarily involved with destroying the air, why the opposition to cleaning it? Of course, we could argue about taxes, job loss and an economic ripple effect that would eventually lead back to someone indirectly, but I have a feeling most people do not think in such large terms. I think you don't give your fellow skydivers enough credit. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #84 March 17, 2005 Simply put if we stop pumping crap into the air it isn't going to hurt anyone and might help the planet. The problem with global warming is that by the time we can prove it is happening AND that we are responsible it will be to late to do anyting about it. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #85 March 17, 2005 >To think this is all "mankinds" doing is the height of conceit. Right. To think that mankind could drain the mighty Colorado River, cause entire species to go extinct, actually change what the planet looks like from space - such ideas are absurd, eh? The truth is that we already have changed the composition of the atmosphere. That point really isn't disputable. Anyone with even half a brain can replicate the experiments to prove this is the case. To think that that cannot possibly have any effect on the climate is the height of wishful thinking. Might as well smoke three packs a day and imagine it will never affect your health; after all, there's no way to PROVE you will get cancer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #86 March 17, 2005 "One wonders what will happen when China passes us in terms of CO2 emissions, which will probably happen within 15 years." China has just begun work on over 500 new coal fired power stations, India will follow suit soon. Food for thought, huh? "To think that mankind could drain the mighty Colorado River, " Check out the Sea of Aralsk in Kazakhstan, see attachment. Nah, to think that we humans can change the way the planet looks, and works is definitely pie in the sky..... "Might as well smoke three packs a day and imagine it will never affect your health; after all, there's no way to PROVE you will get cancer." Good analogy, I stopped smoking, not for my sake, but for the sake of my bairn.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #87 March 17, 2005 QuoteQuote.... I guess I have a hard time with the "cause vs. effect" arguments I have seen so far that "definitively" prove that global warming is both real AND (most importantly) somehow under our control... I agree with this point 100%. To think this is all "mankinds" doing is the height of conceit. To think that humans can't affect the planet is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #88 March 17, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with this point 100%. To think this is all "mankinds" doing is the height of conceit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To think that humans can't affect the planet is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He never said humans can't affect the planet. He said "all 'mankind's' doing." implicit in that statement is "some of mankind's doing." But not all of it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #89 March 17, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with this point 100%. To think this is all "mankinds" doing is the height of conceit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To think that humans can't affect the planet is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He never said humans can't affect the planet. He said "all 'mankind's' doing." implicit in that statement is "some of mankind's doing." But not all of it. I see no contradiction. What I wrote is true, and to the point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #90 March 17, 2005 But if you are at a loss to explain the mechanism that takes R12 and puts it into the stratosphere,that's OK.........I understand,sometimes it can be hard to defend "junk science" Quote I am at a loss as to how your mechanism describes Oxogens'(wt 31.9988) migration down thorugh CO2 (wt 44.0098). And why isn't the Ozone Layer O3(wt 47.9982) down here so i can inspect it in person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #91 March 19, 2005 New science... www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000DA7C0-FBE9-1239-BBE983414B7F0000... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,027 #91 March 19, 2005 New science... www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000DA7C0-FBE9-1239-BBE983414B7F0000... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
