THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Dave Head on 16 Jul 2010 20:00 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:38:15 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 14, 9:15�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:29:35 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" >> >> <fbloogy...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >"rally2xs2" <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote in message >> >news:584248b1-fabe-489f-a6ef-21751299edde(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> As I pointed out before, we cannot use the same diesel engined cars >> >> that Europe has been using for years. �Why? �Because 5 enviro-wacko >> >> state EPAs have passed radically strict diesel emission laws for their >> >> states. >> >> >As I pointed out earlier, it's not 5, it's 17. >> >> It _was_ 5 when I 1st read it several years ago. �Here is an article >> that mentions them: >> >> http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/18/audi-launches-tdi-initiative-in-... >> >> The states were: >> >> �California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. >> >> I don't go looking these things up every time I discuss a subject to >> see if they've changed. �It took about 45 minutes to find _that_ when >> I knew what I was looking for. >> >> > �And the US EPA has >> >pre-empted even those 17 and now requires that diesel engines >> >meet the same requirements as gasoline engines. >> >> Tier 2 Bin 5 - the envirowackos are having a field day making things >> harder for manufacturers and more expensive for us. �Meanwhile, it >> will take some kind if sensitive electronic meter to tell the >> difference. �No person with unaided 5 senses will be able to tell the >> difference. >> >> >>It requires a special reservoir of a chemical to meet it, and >> >> manufacturers aren't wild about installing such Rube Goldberg >> >> devices. >> >> >They have installed them on several cars, and exported them >> >to the US. �Further, US heavy diesel manufacturers are going >> >to be using them. >> >> Just great. �And the prices of everything transported by heavy trucks, >> which is basically everything, can be expected to continue to rise. >> Has anybody noticed that the Dow Jones is _smaller_ than it was 9 or >> 10 years ago when it nearly touched 14,000, while the cost of living >> has increased fairly dramatically? �Just keep loading down the economy >> with useless BS like this, as well as raising the taxes, and we should >> be looking at a several decade long economic depression. �No kidding, >> I think that's where we're going. >> >> >> So, we cannot have the diesels that are perfectly OK in >> >> Europe. �Is that not "envirowacko"? �Dang straight it is. �And it does >> >> enourmous harm to our situation, since we could really, really USE 68 >> >> mpg vehicles for sale in the country. >> >> >The smaller engines - VW's 2L TDI for instance - use a filter >> >that lasts for the lifetime of the car, and can then use non-urea >> >catalysts. �It's very likely that you will see Fiat and other >> >small cars using similar technology in the next 2-3 years. >> >> OK, but we needed them 5 years ago. �We also need bigger engines than >> that to be diesels, too. >> >> >Seems like you need to actually read other people's responses, >> >and do some research before you make wild, wacko postings. >> >> I've seen the other responses, but I also know what I read. �And its >> bloody difficult to get solid information on this stuff - lots of >> internet searches that return things like 22,000 responses. > >it's possible to slice and dice to much fewer... though There used to be a search engine where you could search your search results. Wish it was still around. >who do you trust to speak about the pros and cons of things like the >Diesel? Nobody that thinks that we have to have a standard that is so high that cars that are running in supposedly "advanced" parts of the world like Europe can't meet them. >do you not trust any groups? Some. But none that have damaged the USA to the extent that the envirowackos have.
From: Dave Head on 16 Jul 2010 20:01 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >so there are no environmental groups you support? I've never considered supporting one, so no, not currently. If I find one that is attempting to repeal expensive and unnecessary environmental rules, I might even join it.
From: Brent on 16 Jul 2010 20:50 On 2010-07-16, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>Look deeper. Here's an entry point: http://www.rffund.org/environment/ >>Remember where Rockefellers made their money? Getting interesting eh? > > I'm definitely not interested in the Rockefellers. And global warming > is a crock, BTW. If you wish to understand it is best to have some interest in these foundations and orgs. They finance the political movements, create much of the manipulation towards the ends you don't want. >>social darwinism at its finest. > > Uh huh. It is the essence of what we are looking at. The strong kill or dominate the weak. The strong are those ruthless enough to use political manipulations on a grand scale to bring all the resources of the planet under their control.
From: Clark F Morris on 16 Jul 2010 21:30 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 15, 10:35�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> >> >> >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 14, 9:30�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent >> >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: >> >> >> >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental >> >> >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. �Yeah, they're >> >> >> wackos. �No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything >> >> >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in >> >> >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country >> >> >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. �As I said, I >> >> >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are >> >> >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. >> >> >> >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >> >> >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. >> >> >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better >> >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years >> >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, >> >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. >> >> >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of >> >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY >> >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution >> >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. �That is, if its >> >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US >> >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the >> >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the >> >> environment of OUR PLANET. �It doesn't matter if they're spewing >> >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all >> >> still on this planet. �Screw everybody equally, and internationally, >> >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a >> >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. �But >> >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. >> >> >> >A rich >> >> >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >> >> >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >> >> >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >> >> >must lay elsewhere. >> >> >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. �It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz >> >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. �China, et. al., can >> >> have a pass. �They don't care. >> >> >> >Who funds the environmentalists? >> >> >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. �I >> >> don't really know. �I'd expect George Soros is one source. >> >> >> >Who pushes for the foreign and trade >> >> >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? >> >> >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've >> >> had only ourselves to blame for that. >> >> >> >What sort >> >> >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >> >> >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? >> >> >> The Al Gore sort. >> >> >> >Who benefits >> >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >> >> >money to further the creation of those conditions? >> >> >> The Al Gore sort. �This global warming nonsense is just another >> >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously >> >> expensive. � I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. >> >> >so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted >> >for environmental policy? >> >> Some are, some aren't just as in any major operation. �There probably >> some wackos in the EPA that got hired because they were wacko going >> the other way (the environmental harm of x isn't that great). >> Sometimes the wackos are overridden in any government organization, >> sometimes not. �In whatever organization you were or are in, did or do >> you have always confidence in the competence and sanity of management? > >yes... but is NONE of the EPA and NO Environmental Group believable/ >acceptable in environmental issues? > >do you believe or trust NONE of them? > Probably the smartest thing is to trust neither side (none of the sides) implicitly but weigh everything for your self. Track record also counts. In many ways trust is an inappropriate term. In the field where I made my living, mainframe computer systems administration there were two main ways of controlling work flow (JES2 and JES3 on IBM computers for those interested in detail). Both had and have their passionate supporters. I trusted the integrity of both sides but it was up to me and my management to decide which was better for us. The people in the EPA with the best intentions and diligent research can come up with what many believe to be wrong decisions either because the people in the EPA weight factors differently (including requirements for proof and jurisdiction) or there is fundamental division on what the data means. It is nothing new in science for those who believe in theory X to try to freeze out those who support Y. The idea that sanitation mattered was fiercely resisted. Whether you believe in global warming or not, you should recognize there is an enormous amount of money and power at stake for each of the sides and many of the players. This alone should cause us to look at BOTH sides with skeptical eyes. Incidentally there may be a more important reason than global warming to be worried about carbon dioxide and that is acidification of the oceans and what it can do to the ecosystem there. Personally I believe that we should become more energy efficient and pollute less for a number of reasons such as peak oil and water source contamination. I even make that the basis of SOME of my decisions although probably it is more lip service than anything else. I am not certain about global warming and if it exists (there are a number of signs pointing to it) how much is solar activity, how much is pollutants, how much of it is changing the reflectivity of the land, and how much is that we are just producing a lot more heat world wide. On the latter, air-conditioning at the site is probably a net producer of heat completely ignoring the heat needed to produce the electricity. Subsidy of mobility probably is counter-productive if you believe in global warming (Al Gore's trips anyone). In the case of the EPA, you have to believe that they have correctly identified the problem, correctly identified the solution and have correctly identified the implementation. We don't have consensus here on many of the highway issues even among the professionals here. Why should the environmental issues be different. Clark Morris
From: Larry G on 17 Jul 2010 07:13
On Jul 16, 7:50 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 15, 12:28 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-15, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >name two groups you support.... > > IEEE and ARRL. So what? You won't find any environmental groups in > there unless I find one that is attempting to repeal unnecessary and > costly environmental excesses. two groups that purport to have an interest in the environment, guy. are there ANY Groups that say they are concerned about the environment that you support? |