Is your car a "gross emitter"?

[ws23rt]

Again, think about the worst thing that could happen if the scientists are wrong and we clean up the planet anyways, versus if they're right and we do nothing.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tree hugging hippie per say, but as an avid science enthusiast, it's hard for me to bite my tounge on this one.
[/quote]


I've heard this statement before.----Let's just clean the planet just incase.---

Who said --Everyone complains about the weather but no one does anything about it?

The same reason we would be ineffective at cleaning the world is the one that says we made it dirty.  It's a matter of SCALE.
The only thing we do is kick some dirt around like all the rest of the plants and animals do.

[Daytona R/T SE]

I'm not a tree hugging hippie per say, but as an avid science enthusiast, it's hard for me to bite my tounge on this one.

What is a "science enthusiast" ?  

[JR]

The controversy over the emails sounded familiar, I can't help but think this is related;

I assume you're referencing the hacked emails that were released out of context? From Wikipedia:


The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[4][5] Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet.

The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs,[6] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[7] Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[8][9] The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[10][11]

The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December.[12] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[13] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[14]

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]

[JR]

I'm not a tree hugging hippie per say, but as an avid science enthusiast, it's hard for me to bite my tounge on this one.

What is a "science enthusiast" ?  

You know, like a Dodge enthusiast, but for science instead?

As far as the clean up the planet argument, ws23, are you proposing we do nothing instead? You're right that just a few people won't make a difference amongst 7 billion, but everyone has to start somewhere. One person would never have built the pyramids, but 1000 people moving one stone each would.

To sit back and do nothing is literally risking the lives of our grandkids, and possibly, our own.

[Daytona R/T SE]

I'm not a tree hugging hippie per say, but as an avid science enthusiast, it's hard for me to bite my tounge on this one.

What is a "science enthusiast" ?  

You know, like a Dodge enthusiast, but for science instead?

OK.

I thought it might be some made up bullshit like :

"Community Organizer"

[ws23rt]

I'm not a tree hugging hippie per say, but as an avid science enthusiast, it's hard for me to bite my tounge on this one.

What is a "science enthusiast" ?  

You know, like a Dodge enthusiast, but for science instead?

As far as the clean up the planet argument, ws23, are you proposing we do nothing instead? You're right that just a few people won't make a difference amongst 7 billion, but everyone has to start somewhere. One person would never have built the pyramids, but 1000 people moving one stone each would.

To sit back and do nothing is literally risking the lives of our grandkids, and possibly, our own.

I'm making no proposal.  I am an observer and I ask questions.

I do believe however that if we did all we could the result would be about the same as if we did nothing.  Let's say we could effectively plug a volcano (for example). It could very well cause another to burp because of the effort. Would blocking out the sun be a good idea?  When one throws big numbers around like billions of tons it sounds like a lot until it's put in perspective.  One Sq ft. of ground has over a ton of atmosphere on it.  That works out to around 27.9 million tons per sq mi.---183.4 million sq miles on our disk.  ( I still think our world is flat )

To apply all the power of our collective abilities to keep the planet at an arbitrary temperature would not be enough to do it.  Also what would be the temperature target? And why?

[lloyd3]

JR: What you believe is determined by who you find to be credible sources of information.  I do not believe much, if anything science-related, coming out of the United Nations as they always have their own ax to grind. I'm also fairly convinced that most of the mainstream traditional media in this country is hopelessly biased and left-leaning (and going further left all the time). I worked inside the environmental industry as a government contractor for way too-many years, and it was not, overall, a positive experience for me. The science relied upon by many (if not all) of the Federal Agencies I interacted with was highly influenced by political considerations. Accordingly, decisions were made for mostly political reasons and were not always supported by sound science IMHO. From what I understand, that has only gotten worse since I left the industry.  You may call me overly cynical, but my opinions are based upon my natural sciences education and my professional experiences.  I am also not a "big government" kind of guy, so I obviously have my biases.  With all of that said, I stand by my "opinion" that anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change is a spectacular fraud, perpetrated by people with truly nefarious intentions.  

[myk]

Everything made or touched by man POLLUTES.  Crushing the few remaining Dodge Chargers and Shelby Mustangs in the world won't bring about a new age of rainbows and unicorns.  The existence of mankind is simultaneous to pollution.  To eliminate pollution would equate to eradicating mankind.

The next time you run into one of these enviro-mental lunatics or one of their bimbos, ask them about their clothes, their phones, the material that comprises their booths, their Starbucks cup/drink, their HYBRID, or the tampons stuffed into their collective twats: ask them "how are these things made?  How are they packaged?  How are they transported? How do they reach your stupid, ignorant hands?  That's right, by ways that are far more polluting and damaging to mother freaking Earth than some 40 year old car.  

We are man, we're here on the planet, the planet belongs to US to use and consume as we see fit.  When and IF the time comes that the planet is no longer habitable because of mankind using it, then the next stage of evolution or whatever GOD divines will take place.  Until then, just keep on driving!!!

[Bob T]

My Hemi is beautiful emitter, nothing gross about it.

Lloyd, brother Comrade, ask your fellow Coloradans about whether all their dope smoke qualifies as gross emissions. Shouldn't that be regulated  I know their answer of course.  

I think I'll get me a "gross emissions medical" card.  They have their medicine, my medicine is carbon and gas fumes.  

Sooo, when you need a change from your 68X426 number plate, you should look out for a 1GRSEMTR or UPINSMOKE 

[Mike DC]

                                                                      
Them:  "Your old car pollutes more."  

Me:  "How many square feet is your climate-controlled house?  How many hamburgers did you eat this month?"


-------------------------------------


As for the political issues . . .


This didn't used to be a debate about what is causing climate change.  

For decades the skeptics were hurling insults at believers for saying CC was happening at all.  



So I guess the skeptic crowd will be making some humble apologies about that past stuff?  
And perhaps showing a bit more respectful tone towards the believers in the future, whether they agree about current debates or not?  

[NHCharger]

                                                                     
So I guess the skeptic crowd will be making some humble apologies about that past stuff?  
And perhaps showing a bit more respectful tone towards the believers in the future, whether they agree about current debates or not?  

From what I have seen recently the CC believers are no slouch when it comes to hurling insults.
The United States has made great strides when it comes to the protecting/cleaning the environment. And it's true we could do more
One problem I have is that the news is so biased today and our elected asshats make such outrageous statements it's hard to believe what is right or not grow cynical about all this.
Remember when our President Jimmy Carter said that at the current rate of consumption the world would run out of oil by the end of the century (the year 2000).
how about Al Gore over twenty years ago stating that at the current rate of melting the polar ice caps would be gone by the year 2000.

From what I have read (if true) is that Obama is giving all the nations that produce cheap goods and have very low labor costs (like China) almost a free pass when it comes to this reduction of global emissions, while promising that the USA will cut emissions by a large percentage. I don't have a college degree but to me this seems like a great way to flush even more American jobs down the toilet.

[XH29N0G]

I hesitate to write this because I do not think it will sway anyone, but that I think it should be stated.  I think if we took a critical look that the issue of global warming and climate change is something that scientists agree on and that point is generally made above.  I also think that if we went to a conference where climate scientists were and asked a number of them if  man had an effect on climate that we would not find it to be a minority.  Asking them for proof is another issue.  Science does not prove, but it does follow certain rules and those rules have probability.  We could probably ask a number of them for the probability that man has had an impact on climate (or the probability that man has not had an impact) and those who have models that address this, maybe models that compare the amount of these gases put in from what is known about natural sources and those that are known from human sources and link them to thermodynamics parts and physics parts, and those models could give you a probability that was based on the understanding of the uncertainties associated with each.  They obviously have to continue to test the models and refine/revise with new information to check again and again.  That is the way to approach the problem and it presumably circles around the right drain to give the most probably answer.

I believe that something will face our kids/grandkids.  It could be climate, it could be war, it could be energy, it could be disease, it could be water or food (which boils down to soil and some other things).  The water and soil issues are real ones.  I think we are at an interesting point in history and will be thinking carefully about what I choose to do.  

One thing I recently found out about is that there are bills to cut Geoscience budgets in part because of climate science.  I personally think that efforts to stifle the people who stand to answer these questions is the wrong thing to do.  

You know my thoughts on old cars.  I like them and drive them, but I run more gas through my daily driver and I mostly ride my bike back and forth to work - not because it has less pollution, but because it doesn't cost me $600/yr to park it, doesn't cost for gas, and it helps me keep my 50 y.o figure in check  

 

[skip68]

Everything made or touched by man POLLUTES.  Crushing the few remaining Dodge Chargers and Shelby Mustangs in the world won't bring about a new age of rainbows and unicorns.  The existence of mankind is simultaneous to pollution.  To eliminate pollution would equate to eradicating mankind.

The next time you run into one of these enviro-mental lunatics or one of their bimbos, ask them about their clothes, their phones, the material that comprises their booths, their Starbucks cup/drink, their HYBRID, or the tampons stuffed into their collective twats: ask them "how are these things made?  How are they packaged?  How are they transported? How do they reach your stupid, ignorant hands?  That's right, by ways that are far more polluting and damaging to mother freaking Earth than some 40 year old car.  

We are man, we're here on the planet, the planet belongs to US to use and consume as we see fit.  When and IF the time comes that the planet is no longer habitable because of mankind using it, then the next stage of evolution or whatever GOD divines will take place.  Until then, just keep on driving!!!

Amen.   Well said.    Like all the hippie tree huggers that would drive around in old smoking polluting Volkswagens.  WTF?    These hypocritical idiots think they have the right to pick and choose what's good for me and you.   They still live in houses made of wood and all kinds of other things.   
Yes we should all do our part to be responsible with pollution just as much as stopping all wars and having world peace.   I believe that having world peace and stopping pollution are two dreams that can never be achieved as long as man has freewill. 

So, in short, don't waste your life becoming a bible beater so to speak or defender of climate change when it's something you can never fix.   Basically fighting a fight you can never win.  Try and do your part and live and enjoy the life you have because in the end, only the rocks live forever.   

[RallyeMike]

With all of that said, I stand by my "opinion" that anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change is a spectacular fraud, perpetrated by people with truly nefarious intentions. 

Unfortunately the world has joined nasty bedfellows and developed nastier tricks to achieve their goals. Fraud is everywhere on both side of any argument. Deception to achieve financial or other goals as become an art form and the effect is that masses of people start to ignore the basics of science, scientific observation, and reasoning. Hence the perfect example you have laid out as the basis of this thread: Even if there is a problem, the gross polluting muscle car is not a millionth of the cause.

[JR]

I'm making no proposal.  I am an observer and I ask questions.

I do believe however that if we did all we could the result would be about the same as if we did nothing.  Let's say we could effectively plug a volcano (for example). It could very well cause another to burp because of the effort. Would blocking out the sun be a good idea?  When one throws big numbers around like billions of tons it sounds like a lot until it's put in perspective.  One Sq ft. of ground has over a ton of atmosphere on it.  That works out to around 27.9 million tons per sq mi.---183.4 million sq miles on our disk.  ( I still think our world is flat )

To apply all the power of our collective abilities to keep the planet at an arbitrary temperature would not be enough to do it.  Also what would be the temperature target? And why?

I have to ask, are you serious about that?

As far as man's influence on damaging the earth and it's ecosystems, lets see what we can find real quick.

On wiping out complete species:

Sometimes extinction happens naturally. Other times humans are to blame. Given the many millions of plant and animal species that have ever existed, it's tough to know exactly how to assign responsibility. But new research indicates that we have an alarmingly large role.

Humans are wiping out species at least 1,000 times faster than nature is creating new species, according to a new study in Conservation Biology (paywall). And it's getting much worse. In the future, plants and animal species will go extinct at 10,000 times the rate at which new species emerge, the researchers assert.

Link. http://qz.com/259355/humans-are-wiping-out-species-a-thousand-times-faster-than-nature-can-create-new-ones/

A good article on what this means for us if this continues:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/30/one-in-six-of-worlds-species-faces-extinction-due-to-climate-change-study

The absolute verified effects on what this has on our oceans:

Ocean acidification is sometimes called "climate change's equally evil twin," and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.

...However, while the chemistry is predictable, the details of the biological impacts are not. Although scientists have been tracking ocean pH for more than 30 years, biological studies really only started in 2003, when the rapid shift caught their attention and the term "ocean acidification" was first coined. What we do know is that things are going to look different, and we can't predict in any detail how they will look. Some organisms will survive or even thrive under the more acidic conditions while others will struggle to adapt, and may even go extinct. Beyond lost biodiversity, acidification will affect fisheries and aquaculture, threatening food security for millions of people, as well as tourism and other sea-related economies.

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

The ramifications of that potentially include food shortages for marine life and for humans.

Pacific island nation of Kiribati that is literally sinking as we speak due to rising sea levels:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation



I don't know what else it would take to convince some of you guys before the ocean is wiping out costal cities or our food supply is in jeopardy. No ones coming to take away our classic cars, no ones saying you should live in a cave. But small changes to limit waste, unnecessary energy use, switching to clean renewable energy when possible, and, you know, actually giving a damn about the only planet we've got couldn't hurt.

[Troy]

I'm making no proposal.  I am an observer and I ask questions.

I do believe however that if we did all we could the result would be about the same as if we did nothing.  Let's say we could effectively plug a volcano (for example). It could very well cause another to burp because of the effort. Would blocking out the sun be a good idea?   When one throws big numbers around like billions of tons it sounds like a lot until it's put in perspective.  One Sq ft. of ground has over a ton of atmosphere on it.  That works out to around 27.9 million tons per sq mi.---183.4 million sq miles on our disk.  ( I still think our world is flat )

To apply all the power of our collective abilities to keep the planet at an arbitrary temperature would not be enough to do it.  Also what would be the temperature target? And why?

I have to ask, are you serious about that?

As far as man's influence on damaging the earth and it's ecosystems, lets see what we can find real quick.

On wiping out complete species:

Sometimes extinction happens naturally. Other times humans are to blame. Given the many millions of plant and animal species that have ever existed, it's tough to know exactly how to assign responsibility. But new research indicates that we have an alarmingly large role.

Humans are wiping out species at least 1,000 times faster than nature is creating new species, according to a new study in Conservation Biology (paywall). And it's getting much worse. In the future, plants and animal species will go extinct at 10,000 times the rate at which new species emerge, the researchers assert.

Link. http://qz.com/259355/humans-are-wiping-out-species-a-thousand-times-faster-than-nature-can-create-new-ones/

A good article on what this means for us if this continues:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/30/one-in-six-of-worlds-species-faces-extinction-due-to-climate-change-study

The absolute verified effects on what this has on our oceans:

Ocean acidification is sometimes called "climate change's equally evil twin," and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.

...However, while the chemistry is predictable, the details of the biological impacts are not. Although scientists have been tracking ocean pH for more than 30 years, biological studies really only started in 2003, when the rapid shift caught their attention and the term "ocean acidification" was first coined. What we do know is that things are going to look different, and we can't predict in any detail how they will look. Some organisms will survive or even thrive under the more acidic conditions while others will struggle to adapt, and may even go extinct. Beyond lost biodiversity, acidification will affect fisheries and aquaculture, threatening food security for millions of people, as well as tourism and other sea-related economies.

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

The ramifications of that potentially include food shortages for marine life and for humans.

Pacific island nation of Kiribati that is literally sinking as we speak due to rising sea levels:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation



I don't know what else it would take to convince some of you guys before the ocean is wiping out costal cities or our food supply is in jeopardy. No ones coming to take away our classic cars, no ones saying you should live in a cave. But small changes to limit waste, unnecessary energy use, switching to clean renewable energy when possible, and, you know, actually giving a damn about the only planet we've got couldn't hurt.

Assume I agree with everything. What's that got to do with the original post (basically that all old cars should be crushed)? Because they way I see it, if I crush my old cars I will find something to take their place. New car? Golf clubs? Backyard movie theater? The net effect of crushing a bunch of hardly used, well cared for, recycled (generally) old cars including their replacement is likely miniscule.

Yes, I made changes in my life to limit waste (moved 27 miles closer to work and family, switched to water and energy efficient appliances, turn the heat lower or A/C higher when I leave the house, shut off lights when I leave the room, turn the water off while brushing my teeth, etc.). If I could get a windmill and geothermal heat I would. I just see these as "good" things to do and they really don't impact my life negatively. I have no reason to be purposely wasteful - even if I'd argue anyone's science. The smallest things tackled by billions of people have a much greater impact than some big things done by very few. Well, there are some really big things like parking a G5 instead of flying around the world with 1 passenger...

Troy

[ws23rt]

JR  you seem to be either missing or rejecting my point as well as others. And as a way to restate your beliefs you move to other similar or related scam issues as if they back up your understanding of reality. The oceans rising, acidification of the oceans, etc.

Global warming for example was a term used for awhile until it was shown that global temps. have been falling for a number of years. ^^back to the op^^
Those that resist accepting a contradiction to their commitment of the way things are just said--well uh--then the fact that the climate changes at all must be what we meant.  So we will now call the big issue at hand climate change.  That is a good one because you no longer have to back trac.

Where I live the normal average winter temp. is in the low fifties. It does snow here and that is normal as well. Abnormalities are normal.

I remember when not long after the ozone layer was identified a hole was observed. The next thing was to panic and find a way to identify humans as being the cause of the hole.  Whew--that was a close call indeed. We now use different propellant in hair spray and R13 in our car ac systems.

What has happened from bad science and human haters is the loss of credibility of a noble and vital part of who we are. All scientific exploration suffers badly because of a few flat earther's convincing many that what we learn can't be trusted.

This is where I find myself.  I am not trained officially in any science.  With an open mind I see over and over bad information which makes any information suspect. To dismiss anything new is to hide in the dark.

So back to even considering some sort of guilt for enjoying my old cars.--If anything I am helping the big picture. As others have said I am conserving something as opposed to tossing for the next.

I do not deny that humans affect the environment. Of course we do. My whole intent is to complain about those that don't even have a good sense of the scale of things so common sense can't even be used in their own minds.

If the motivation of the uninformed/agenda driven were to convince everyone that humans were exactly what made the world stable than perhaps owning and driving my 8mpg hemi coronet would not only be as fun as it is but good for the environment in the long run. ---That is equal to the argument against. ---It is without proper scientific conformation.

[cdr]

Why yes!! yes it is!!! all 512 of those cubic inches do an awesome job, of emitting some pretty gross tire smoke & burnt fuel.   

[ws23rt]

Why yes!! yes it is!!! all 512 of those cubic inches do an awesome job, of emitting some pretty gross tire smoke & burnt fuel.  

I propose that the release of carbon from it's confinement in the earth is just what we need to answer all the issues we have about the vast areas of desert and the arctic.  Let the planet be green again.  We can all do our part by releasing carbon in any way we can. ---What do I know?  

[Patronus]

The Earth is a survivor. She has a rhythm. And a base-line disposition - kind of like a ship righting itself in the waves.
Sure things have happened. Extinctions are simply the opportunity for life to evolve. Maybe we are to blame? Who cares?
Don't be worried about the Earth. She's fought through much much worse. Be worried about us.

[ws23rt]

The Earth is a survivor. She has a rhythm. And a base-line disposition - kind of like a ship righting itself in the waves.
Sure things have happened. Extinctions are simply the opportunity for life to evolve. Maybe we are to blame? Who cares?
Don't be worried about the Earth. She's fought through much much worse. Be worried about us.

Well done. ---We and all we do is nothing more than being fertilizer for the next era. A foundation if you will. We are as natural as all the other forms of life. If we don't last long it's because we missed the boat. (so to speak).

[skip68]

So are we part of the circle of life or flat constant line?   

[ws23rt]

So are we part of the circle of life or flat constant line?    

Yes   ----  BTW a flat constant line that goes both ways forever is just as long as one that only goes one way and is twice as long as well.  The only difference is every point on the one that goes both ways is the center. The one way line has no center.  

Comprehending infinities is something we don't do well and should not be tried at home alone. 

[JR]

I'm not concerned about us outlasting the earth. The planet doesn't care if were here or not. But I'd like to, you know, not be the cause of our own extinction when we render the planet uninhabitable for ourselves.

[1974dodgecharger]

I had people say to me while backing up my car to park, 'There goes a gallon of, 'our gas' so he can back up his car'