RE: cats on a classic?
Login  | |
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/30/2007 10:16:21 PM
|
|
|
Smothers
Posts: 755
Joined: 12/28/2005
From: North Idaho
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 66GTKFB
quote:
ORIGINAL: Smothers
I personally believe global warming is happening and human are a huge factor. I can't recite bunch of scientific facts or mumbo-jumbo, but my common sense tells me things are getting worse, not better (as they relate to the environment), as each year passes. Not exactly an ideal subject for a classic car forum LOL. Anyways, I appreciate the replies.
If you can tell me why the ice caps are melting - on Mars, and why the storms have increased - on Jupiter, and why there was a warming period without SUV's around to do the nasty deed 1000 years ago, you might have a point about human activity being responsible.
I repeat, we live around a variable star.
Jim
Jim, are you saying that because we live on a "variable star" that human activity does not have a bearing on the environment? Why are there emmisson controls on modern cars? Why is there a whole in the ozone? Are all of the scientist (not car enthusiests but scientist) that warn of gobal warming as a reasult of green house gasses all in on a big joke.
I realize Earth has gone through ice ages, and then heated up again, but to pass the buck onto mother nature for everything that is occuring in the environment seems naive to me. Da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt 
Anyway, I started this thread to learn about cats, not start a debate on global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/30/2007 10:42:12 PM
|
|
|
67mustang302
Posts: 5421
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline
|
Human activity DOES have an impact on the environment, but when it comes to global warming we really contribute very little. As far as emissions equipment, it's there as a knee-jerk reaction and government mandates in an attempt to make our air clean. Newer emission controls work and help, and aren't problematic, but early emission controls did little more than cost more $$ and lower fuel mileage. And I already said the hole in the ozone layer is caused by the sun. Let me explain....
The sun gives off solar wind, which is comprised of highly ionized(having an electrical charge) particles and radiation. The Earth's magnetic poles generate a field around the planet that deflects most of the solar wind around the Earth and harmlessly off into space(the Van Allen Radiation Belts). When large concentrations of solar wind strike these radiation belts the electromagnetic charge of the particles distorts the magnetic field around the Earth, reshaping it, and when that happens some of the charged solar particles follow the curvature of the reshaped magnetic field and head towards the north and south poles of the Earth(where the magnetic fields converge). When this happens, these extremely energetic particles impact gasses in the Earth's upper atmosphere, and in the process of transfering their energy generate plasma(extremely heated ionized gasses) from those gasses. This is commonly seen at night in the northern/southern continenets and we call it the Aurora Borealis(northern lights) and the Aurora Australius(southern lights). The spectacular color show of those lights is actually the atmospheric gasses of the Earth turning to plasma and giving off electromagnetic radiation in EM bands visible to the human eye. Some of what gets "burned off" in this manner is the Earth's ozone layer, which is why the holes in the ozone layer occur at the north and south poles and are concentrated in the areas that have the highest convergance of the Earth's magnetic field. It's also why the holes in the ozone layer increase and decrease in size in direct relation to the amount of solar activity on the side of the sun facing Earth.
Jim said it and it bears repeating......THE SUN IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ON THE EARTH, AND CONTRIBUTES MORE THAN ALL OTHER FACTORS COMBINED.
Seriously, don't you think a gigantic nuclear fusion generator that's 1.3 million times larger than Earth might have an effect on us?
_____________________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!
Best run 13.23 at 106.97mph with a 2.183 60'
Times from before tune and driver mod.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/30/2007 11:05:08 PM
|
|
|
gothand
Posts: 2051
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: South Shores, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 67mustang302
Because the greenies are more afraid of nuclear engergy than they are of spewing tons of HC and CO and CO2 and other crap into the air because around 70% or more of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. Look at France, they're almost entirely nuclear, and they have clean air, and none of their children are born with 3 eyes or not finding it necessary to turn the lights on at night to go pee.
They just need a cause to pioneer apperantly. Just like Al Gore, if he's so concerned about the environment why does his big mansion have an electric bill that's like $15k a month? And why does he fly around in his private jet rather than using the public airline system?
As far as why we don't actually build nuclear energy, is because it's gotten more expensive to get the permitting for one(thanks to the environmental lobby) than it is to build one. That and every time a permit is issued, then greenies file an injunction against it while they litigate in court until the permit expires, so everything has to be repermitted several times before construction ever begins. No private power company, which is a business, will bother to build a plant because it takes them eons just to recover the cost of building the thing, which is completely cost ineffective.
And as far as nuclear's effectiveness, it's something like 8% of power plants in America are nuclear, yet provide more than 20% of America's electricity. And they don't burn crap and throw combustion byproducts into the atmosphere
I was being facetious about nuclear power plants but your post is very informative.
FWIW, I once had a girlfriend whose father worked at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powerplant. Somehow, I don't think he told all his buddies in the Sierra Club and the Wildlife Fund that he worked there or that he used to ride in the Barstow to Vegas dirtbike race every year. Ah, you've got to love the hypocrisy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/30/2007 11:06:07 PM
|
|
|
mustdoc
Posts: 138
Joined: 6/10/2007
Status: offline
|
Real quickly:
1. Global warming is a theory - if it could definitively be proved or disproved, then scientists would no longer be investigating it! Anyone who states definitively that it exists or does not exists is not being honest with themselves or others. No single person or group of scientists knows for certain. According to a National Public Radio report on a global climate science meeting that I heard a while back, they reported a poll that stated that >95% of the scientists in attendance "thought" GW was real. That was the source... not a bunch of tree-hugging, earthy, cruchy granola eating cosmic earth biscuits without a clue!
2. Although the explanation is intuitive, it appears that the reality is likely counter-intuitive. The authors, ('Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1500 years' by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery) recently quoted that explained the earth's temperature changes were a result of solar radiation variation had their "theory" brought into question recently and possibly disproven. See below:
'No Sun Link' to Climate Change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland. Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity. But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining. Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.
3. Just think a little bit - Who stands to profit the most from buring petroleum products? Oil companies, of course. Who is enjoying record profits resulting from bottlenecks of refining capacity, high oil prices, government subsidies and tax breaks? Oil companies, of course. Who funds think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, that pay "guns-for-hire" scientists to write books and give talks on the "Myth of GW"? Fact: Exxon sponsors the AEI and their scientists are among the leaders in the "GW is a myth" industry. Just think a little bit and then follow the money. BTW, it was the AEI who rolled out the recent Iraq "surge" plan back in January. For those who have not kept up, the administration is not happy because the Iraqi leaders will not finalize the oil profit distributions as was originally planned. It appears that the western oil companies want more than the Iraqi leaders want to give.
This is not pie in the sky conspiracy theory garbage - It is not conservative vs. liberal politics - read "The Secret History of the American Empire" by John Perkins and you will learn from an insider what the oil companies are all about... and it ain't pretty.
As for how this applies to mustangs, just think - if less cars are manufactured, then less raw materials are consumed and manufactured. This means less mining for raw materials, less transportation of parts and fewer number of automobiles - all of this adds up to a win-win for the environment and the mustang driver who is helping by, in effect, re-cycling an old car. Classic car drivers are more eco-friendly than they realize!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 8:54:00 AM
|
|
|
JMD
Posts: 3138
Joined: 1/18/2007
From: Las Cruces, NM
Status: offline
|
Wow,,,, I wonder what the "off topic" crowd is going to do to this thread when it gets moved?? It won't be pretty....
I have a hard time believing anything that people try to ram down my throat,,,, the history of science ain't doing too good on explaining the climate and it's changes, and in fact, in my lifetime, it looks as if science seems to go the direction of which ever way the (popular) wind blows, I say this while still sitting here waiting for the new "ice age" predicted in the 70s.
forgive me if I am a cynic...... In my eyes, the case for human induced global warming has not been proven, nor has it been presented in a fashion that would make me want to believe it.
_____________________________
66 Coupe
I-6 Conversion, 408 Windsor, Tremec TKO 600
Wilwood fronts, SSBC Rears
9" Track Loc.
"Thats Dumb."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 8:58:36 AM
|
|
|
PReal
Posts: 2250
Joined: 8/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mustdoc
Real quickly:
1. Global warming is a theory - if it could definitively be proved or disproved, then scientists would no longer be investigating it! Anyone who states definitively that it exists or does not exists is not being honest with themselves or others. No single person or group of scientists knows for certain. According to a National Public Radio report on a global climate science meeting that I heard a while back, they reported a poll that stated that >95% of the scientists in attendance "thought" GW was real. That was the source... not a bunch of tree-hugging, earthy, cruchy granola eating cosmic earth biscuits without a clue!
2. Although the explanation is intuitive, it appears that the reality is likely counter-intuitive. The authors, ('Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1500 years' by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery) recently quoted that explained the earth's temperature changes were a result of solar radiation variation had their "theory" brought into question recently and possibly disproven. See below:
'No Sun Link' to Climate Change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland. Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity. But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining. Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.
3. Just think a little bit - Who stands to profit the most from buring petroleum products? Oil companies, of course. Who is enjoying record profits resulting from bottlenecks of refining capacity, high oil prices, government subsidies and tax breaks? Oil companies, of course. Who funds think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, that pay "guns-for-hire" scientists to write books and give talks on the "Myth of GW"? Fact: Exxon sponsors the AEI and their scientists are among the leaders in the "GW is a myth" industry. Just think a little bit and then follow the money. BTW, it was the AEI who rolled out the recent Iraq "surge" plan back in January. For those who have not kept up, the administration is not happy because the Iraqi leaders will not finalize the oil profit distributions as was originally planned. It appears that the western oil companies want more than the Iraqi leaders want to give.
This is not pie in the sky conspiracy theory garbage - It is not conservative vs. liberal politics - read "The Secret History of the American Empire" by John Perkins and you will learn from an insider what the oil companies are all about... and it ain't pretty.
As for how this applies to mustangs, just think - if less cars are manufactured, then less raw materials are consumed and manufactured. This means less mining for raw materials, less transportation of parts and fewer number of automobiles - all of this adds up to a win-win for the environment and the mustang driver who is helping by, in effect, re-cycling an old car. Classic car drivers are more eco-friendly than they realize!
Just a little side note.
The is one oil company that beleives in global warming, and is taking steps to reduce it. It does however invest heavily in alternative energy forms and makes decent money doing so.
_____________________________
It needs a little work...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 9:02:00 AM
|
|
|
gothand
Posts: 2051
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: South Shores, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JMD
Wow,,,, I wonder what the "off topic" crowd is going to do to this thread when it gets moved?? It won't be pretty....
This should never get moved! Next time, and there will be a next time, someone does a search for cats for their early Mustang, they will get all the answers here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 9:45:30 AM
|
|
|
jcomp
Posts: 289
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Smothers
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcomp
As a matter of fact, I've seen most of Idaho. I know that it has more than one town because I've been to both of them.
J/K. The Idaho panhandle is a nice place. Ever been down to Mountain Home? If so, you'll know what I meant by "bowels". If not, then you should learn more about your great state before you get all butt-hurt over a little ribbing.
IMHO, if you are so concerned about reducing emissions... ride your bike to work/school/crazy survivalist militia camp/whatever. Then you won't feel so guilty about your Mustang's emissions and all the drowning polar bears.
Yep, I grew up in Pocatello Idaho. Talk about the arm pit of the state. My butt is just fine, I just got a bit bent because I was looking for info and only found insult.
As for your humble opinion, don't think much of it. I don't think it has to be one extreme or the other.
btw I think the Denver area is pretty nice. A bit crowded, but nice.
I spent a few days in Pocatello working at the airport, I think I've been to almost all the regional airports and FAA radar sites in the Northwest US. Even though Southern Idaho may not be the greatest part of the state, it's still far better than some of the other places in the US.
I think it's admirable that you are willing to step up and try to fix something that you perceive as a problem, whether or not the rest of the people here agree. But if you really want to reduce your net carbon emissions, a reduction in fossil fuel usage (like biking to work) will be more effective than adding cats to your car. In fact, one could argue that catalytic converters will increase your fuel usage.
It's always interesting when this topic appears on a classic car forum. It really demonstrates the American public's general lack of understanding of how research is conducted, how the scientific community operates, and what a peer-reviewed article represents.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 9:50:16 AM
|
|
|
66GTKFB
Posts: 2623
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mustdoc
Real quickly:
1. Global warming is a theory - if it could definitively be proved or disproved, then scientists would no longer be investigating it! Anyone who states definitively that it exists or does not exists is not being honest with themselves or others. No single person or group of scientists knows for certain. According to a National Public Radio report on a global climate science meeting that I heard a while back, they reported a poll that stated that >95% of the scientists in attendance "thought" GW was real. That was the source... not a bunch of tree-hugging, earthy, cruchy granola eating cosmic earth biscuits without a clue!
2. Although the explanation is intuitive, it appears that the reality is likely counter-intuitive. The authors, ('Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1500 years' by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery) recently quoted that explained the earth's temperature changes were a result of solar radiation variation had their "theory" brought into question recently and possibly disproven. See below:
'No Sun Link' to Climate Change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland. Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity. But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining. Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.
3. Just think a little bit - Who stands to profit the most from buring petroleum products? Oil companies, of course. Who is enjoying record profits resulting from bottlenecks of refining capacity, high oil prices, government subsidies and tax breaks? Oil companies, of course. Who funds think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, that pay "guns-for-hire" scientists to write books and give talks on the "Myth of GW"? Fact: Exxon sponsors the AEI and their scientists are among the leaders in the "GW is a myth" industry. Just think a little bit and then follow the money. BTW, it was the AEI who rolled out the recent Iraq "surge" plan back in January. For those who have not kept up, the administration is not happy because the Iraqi leaders will not finalize the oil profit distributions as was originally planned. It appears that the western oil companies want more than the Iraqi leaders want to give.
This is not pie in the sky conspiracy theory garbage - It is not conservative vs. liberal politics - read "The Secret History of the American Empire" by John Perkins and you will learn from an insider what the oil companies are all about... and it ain't pretty.
As for how this applies to mustangs, just think - if less cars are manufactured, then less raw materials are consumed and manufactured. This means less mining for raw materials, less transportation of parts and fewer number of automobiles - all of this adds up to a win-win for the environment and the mustang driver who is helping by, in effect, re-cycling an old car. Classic car drivers are more eco-friendly than they realize!
I got this in a personal e-mail last night with some embellishments, some flattering some not. I read it twice, mostly out of curiosity. There was one word used in the text I received - 'kook'.
The author has fulfilled the requirement of 'kook'. Congratulations doc.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 10:10:42 AM
|
|
|
67mustang302
Posts: 5421
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline
|
I don't know if I'd ever use the BBC as a reference for anything if I wanted to be taken seriously. So the sun USED to affect our climate and now suddenly it stopped? What happened, the sun just decided to stop affecting the Earth at the same time some scientists came up with their theory on global warming? It's hard to have credibility with an argument like that.
_____________________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!
Best run 13.23 at 106.97mph with a 2.183 60'
Times from before tune and driver mod.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 11:03:14 AM
|
|
|
JMD
Posts: 3138
Joined: 1/18/2007
From: Las Cruces, NM
Status: offline
|
I wonder what kind of device was used over the last 20 years to determine that the sun has cooled over this period? How is it calibrated?
Is this one single device that has been used, or are there different devices that are subject to interpirtation and "calibration"?
What is the sunlight "standard"?
_____________________________
66 Coupe
I-6 Conversion, 408 Windsor, Tremec TKO 600
Wilwood fronts, SSBC Rears
9" Track Loc.
"Thats Dumb."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 11:33:09 AM
|
|
|
66GTKFB
Posts: 2623
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline
|
There are several solar observatories in the world, the ones in Tuscon, AZ, and in Big Bear Lake, CA, come to mind. They have ways to to monitor the output of the sun and have been doing this for decades. If you want to see some pictures of the sun, and some science that will boggle your mind, go to - http://www.spaceweather.com/
Some of the scientist drive Mustangs too (just to keep it Mustang related).
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 12:06:12 PM
|
|
|
mustdoc
Posts: 138
Joined: 6/10/2007
Status: offline
|
OK, guys. First of all, like others, I really love this "Mustang" forum. So lets move on shortly.
2nd, I like others, do not like being attacked as I was for making an accurate statement for which I gave a credible reference.
3rd, I am not sure if all are understanding the arguments or are mistaking them for quarrels - I do not want quarrels (arguments, in the classic sense, are fine) so I will try to be more clear.
No one can state with certainty whether or not GW exists. NO ONE. That is why it is a theory and subject to debate.
Many, many scientists have devoted their lives to investigating tiny facets of this field. Some scientists in the climate field are devoted to such small specific areas where the big picture is not so clearly portrayed. Nonetheless, their research leads them to make contributions to the field where other scientists build upon the added knowledge. They make conclusions based upon the best available data and facts of which they are aware. This is reasonable.
There are facts, like them or not, (I certainly do not) that exist and suggest that GW may be real. These facts do not prove GW but do suggest that it may be real and warrants further study. This is not seriously debated and, again is reasonable. This is reality, like it or not.
For example, very recent research exists that suggests that climate change is not entirely attributable to solar activity (as some quoting older sources are adamant about) but rather greenhouse gases are purported to be the culprit. Yes I am aware that the masive fusion reaction by the sun produces a lot of different radiation and is constantly bombardng us with all types of radiation (I almost went into nuclear fusion research.). For what it is worth, even my mother studied nuclear physics at both Duke and Yale with Manhattan project participants, so I am acquainted with the topic. But I digress.
Furthermore, this research was not PRODUCED by the BBC, but rather, it was REPORTED by the BBC. There is a difference! There are other references to this same research by other news outlets one can investigate if you have the inclination - I encourage it as I do with all of my own students. Don't believe it? Prove it to yourself - do the research yourself.
BTW, this unqualified statement that "the BBC cannot be taken seriously" begs the question, "why not?" Where is your data? If it came from Fox News would it be more credible to you? FYI, Fox News is considered a joke by those that study this subject. My data? Pew Center, Univ. of Maryland and the PIPA/ Knowledge Center as well as many discussions with journalists.
And this leads us to the problem that has stirred the controversy I am tiirng of discussing.
Way too often, political attitudes get injected into the GW debate and assertions, many of which are false or were credible at one time but have been subsequently dis-credited, are accepted as facts and this muddies the discussion and cheapens the arguments to where they can degenerate into outright quarrels.
One of the chief problems the public has with this whole GW issue, aside from the fact that none of us are fully apprised of every bit of research, is that a lot of money is at stake. A lot of money!!!
When there is a lot of money at stake, history has shown that those who stand to profit do whatever they can to enhance their profit, even if it involves lies, deception, injury and death.
The tobacco industy is a good example. They insisted for years that there was no link between cancer, lung disease and cigarettes. Now we know they and their scientists lied. They denied that they increased the nicotine levels in cigarettes to enhance their addiction. Now we know they and their scientists lied. This issue is pretty much settled in the public's eyes now that the evidence has come out over many, many years and it is unassailable.
Please realize that we are in the early stages of the public debate over GW. EXPECT mistakes on the part of honest scientists but also expect lies from companies and scientists whose profit motives cloud their judgments and taint their data. Take it all, on both sides of the debate, with a grain or two of salt.
But for me and in my experience, credibility tends to cluster around those whose "science" are less likely to be compromised by profit motives. Think tanks like the AEI, whose activities are monetarily supported by Exxon, and who pays scientists to discredit GW aleady have a cloud of suspicion over them given their funding sources.
If you deny this then you may wish to move to NC... I hear cigarettes are cheaper there... JUST KIDDING. Smoking was the principle cause of my godfather's heart attack and death when he was 45 (2 packs a day of unfiltered Luckies) and why my mother lives's with oxygen for emphysema - Nicotine is addictive stuff.
As for JMD's question, it is a question of "controls" within an experiment. I am afraid I just read a few press reports and the scientist's comments on their article which hit the major points, I believe. That is as far as my curiousity at the time took me! I am not a climate scientist. I encourage you to find out for yourself and report back. Educate us! Remember, some experiments, by their nature, do not have good or any controls. This does not mean it is a bad experiment but raises issues regarding probability and error - your research may unearth poor experiment design. You never know until you try!
FWIW, No hard feelings on my part. I really enjoy learning about mustangs from you guys who know more about them than I do... and I doubt any of you have a profit motive as evidenced by your good natured assistance and tips on how to save money on fixing these ponys up!!! In other words, you have Classic Mustang credibility!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 1:54:21 PM
|
|
|
Jamison
Posts: 87
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline
|
why not try to put a hybrid engine in it ...better for the enviornment
_____________________________
http://community.carcrazycentral.com/Members/MemberPhoto.aspx?UserID=10546
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 2:25:26 PM
|
|
|
JMD
Posts: 3138
Joined: 1/18/2007
From: Las Cruces, NM
Status: offline
|
Everyone always knew that smoking was hazardous whether the cigarette companies would admit it or not.....
IMO the whole global warming debate is not that cut and dried.... Is coffee good for you this week or is it bad for you? Has science discovered how and why gravity works?
Science has added much to society and each of our lives, but science does not know everything, and I do not treat it as if it does know everything. IMO, the majority of what science has offered over the years has been motivated by the promise of comercial gain. "Big Bussiness" has both it's positives and negatives. There was once great aprehension and fear directed at the railroads for all of their wealth and power, but their influence has come and gone, as will the influence of "big oil" if we survive long enough, both as a nation and as a species.
Do you know that the use of a catalytic converter actually causes a car to produce about 7% more "greenhouse gasses" than the same car without a cat?
_____________________________
66 Coupe
I-6 Conversion, 408 Windsor, Tremec TKO 600
Wilwood fronts, SSBC Rears
9" Track Loc.
"Thats Dumb."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 4:26:24 PM
|
|
|
Norm Peterson
Posts: 1386
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: Delaware Twp, NJ
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JMD
Do you know that the use of a catalytic converter actually causes a car to produce about 7% more "greenhouse gasses" than the same car without a cat?
Interesting. I hadn't realized that, although less HC and CO does inply more CO2. I guess the NOx reduction is an environmental 'win' from the get-go.
Jamison - If the addition of an electric motor of sufficient oomph to make up the difference between a 300 or so CID small block and a 430-ish big-block could be made lighter than the difference in the weights of those engines I might actually consider it. Make it short enough that it doesn't affect the overall engine CG location (SB vs BB) and the batteries and other related stuff lighter than a typical nitrous setup and the chances get better. Where it should end up being classed for autocross is something the SCCA will eventually have to address.
Norm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 7/31/2007 7:36:26 PM
|
|
|
deadmanrob
Posts: 68
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
|
If it ain't broke don't fix it and there absolutly nothing wrong with a mustang the way it was build maybe with a couple mods ;)
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: cats on a classic? - 8/1/2007 9:31:09 PM
|
|
|
Colorado_Mustang
Posts: 4069
Joined: 6/26/2006
Status: offline
|
Global warming is a real affect...without, we'd still be in an ice age. The question deals with how much is natural (99.9999999999999999999%) and man made (~0.0000%). The one thing many people forget is that it only takes a single inaccuracy to disprove any theory. Of course, if this was applied, it would soon be found out that really know absolutely nothing about the world we live on and the galaxy we live in...which opposes natural human arrogance that spawns a new religion every day (or so it seems...and many theories may as well be considered religions).
As for the benefits of cats on a classic...negligable at best, destructive at worst. The chassis and engine were not designed for a cat, so it will cause many more issues that it will solve. This has been stated many times in this thread.
And, if you want to know why the temperatures are reported higher and higher every year, just see how the recording stations are located (there are several just like this, not just this one). The station is labeled MMTS shelter in this photo.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
Printable Version
