How much pollution does a car produce?

[Baron Hohenzollern]

And there a far, far more scientists who advocate anthropogenic climate change, hence the term, mainstream consensus.

And that's such an accurate prediction to go by isn't it? Wasn't the mainstream consensus that earth was flat at a time?

And that earth is the center of our planetary system? and that the sun revolves around it?

Are you a climate scientist? Just wondering what equips you to take this "more clinical point of view". Just because there have been a few cases in history where scientific brilliance has been ostracised by the mainstream, it doesn't mean that all mainstream science is misguided.

Few cases? there's not enough bandwidth on this forum for me to start listing the crass stupidity of the mainstream. The fact is all change was pioneered by the few, the masses only followed when it became too embarrassing to hold onto prior stigma's.

That's a fact of life that cannot be changed.

As Schopenhauer once said "Whenever you find yourself agreeing with the masses, It's time to stop and think"

No. It's my understanding that Roo's comment was made about the wellbeing of the earth, not about the extravagent lives of the mega rich. You like your straw men, don't you?

And you enjoy not grasping sense.

 

[BCO]

And that's such an accurate prediction to go by isn't it? Wasn't the mainstream consensus that earth was flat at a time?

And that earth is the center of our planetary system? and that the sun revolves around it?



Few cases? there's not enough bandwidth on this forum for me to start listing the crass stupidity of the mainstream. The fact is all change was pioneered by the few, the masses only followed when it became too embarrassing to hold onto prior stigma's.

That's a fact of life that cannot be changed.

As Schopenhauer once said "Whenever you find yourself agreeing with the masses, It's time to stop and think"



And you enjoy not grasping sense.

I'd like you to present some of the arguments that indicate the crass stupidity of the mainstrwam, if you don't mind. I'm open to persuasion.

 

[scotty777]

I'm sure they would...just as Pluto is now a dwarf planet.

The fact remains.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece



Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Mars is getting hotter, there's nothing there to cause any sort of "global warming"....It's a natural cycle.

Um... Yes, it's warming up, and thats nature, only problem is that humans need for energy has made the "warming up" much much faster... So we find that the climate will get more and more unstable, until there's another ice age.

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

I'd like you to present some of the arguments that indicate the crass stupidity of the mainstrwam, if you don't mind. I'm open to persuasion.

The inventor of what he called "implosion technology", Viktor Schauberger developed his own highly idiosyncratic theories based on fluidic vortices. Very little of Schauberger's work has received mainstream acceptance, and the bulk of his work is still classified as pseudo-science.

Von Leibniz who initiated the study of Topology, had been ridiculed as a "cheap thief" despite the fact that he had indipendenty and before Newton created calculus. His work lambasted and thrown into the back of history. Ignored for nearly 200 years before the stupid masses suddenly decided to have a look at it.

Karl F. Gauss born a Genius kept secret his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty years because of fear of ridicule. Lobachevsky later published similar work and WAS ridiculed. After Gauss' death his work was finally published, but even then it took decades for Noneuclidean Geometery to overturn the Greek mathematically "pure" view of geometery, and to win acceptance among the professionals.

Julius R. Mayer (The Law of Conservation of Energy)

Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.

FM was conceived about 1933 by Edwin Howard Armstrong, a noted professor of engineering at Columbia University and a recognized genius in electronic circuitry. He had contributed to early radio two basic circuits, the regenerative or feedback circuit and the superheterodyne, which are still at the heart of nearly all modern radio-television transmitters and receivers. When he sought permission in 1935, however, to erect an experimental FM station to demonstrate the unusual qualities of his new radio system, he ran into a stone wall. FM Radio was denied another 30 years.

I can go on and demonstrate the stupidity of the "masses" as well as the ignorance of the very "scientific" community you hail as "great and authoritive". Like I told you...there isn't enough bandwidth to list the ignorance of the majority.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

Here's a little list for you, read it. So I'm not accused of being a copy/paster.

Um... Yes, it's warming up, and thats nature, only problem is that humans need for energy has made the "warming up" much much faster... So we find that the climate will get more and more unstable, until there's another ice age.

Man must be a very intelligent being, to warm earth to such an extend that it's variations are in sync with that of other planetary systems. Another scientific coincidence I presume?

EDIT. Might I add, that Volcano's which had been a long lasting entity on earth as well as the Ocean, omits far more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world combined? In one single year.

 

[Mr TB]

I can go on and demonstrate the stupidity of the "masses" as well as the ignorance of the very "scientific" community you hail as "great and authoritive". Like I told you...there isn't enough bandwidth to list the ignorance of the majority.

Baron after reading the above comment combined with your response concerning phase 3 change in the philisophical section... please take a bow... brilliant!

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

Baron after reading the above comment combined with your response concerning phase 3 change in the philisophical section... please take a bow... brilliant!

Thank you kindly, Mr. TB...it seems though that the people over on the philosophical section mistake us for one and the same person. I suppose when you don't have the evidence required to support such a preposterous theory, the last resort is to accuse some one.

 

[BCO]

The inventor of what he called "implosion technology", Viktor Schauberger developed his own highly idiosyncratic theories based on fluidic vortices. Very little of Schauberger's work has received mainstream acceptance, and the bulk of his work is still classified as pseudo-science.

Von Leibniz who initiated the study of Topology, had been ridiculed as a "cheap thief" despite the fact that he had indipendenty and before Newton created calculus. His work lambasted and thrown into the back of history. Ignored for nearly 200 years before the stupid masses suddenly decided to have a look at it.

Karl F. Gauss born a Genius kept secret his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty years because of fear of ridicule. Lobachevsky later published similar work and WAS ridiculed. After Gauss' death his work was finally published, but even then it took decades for Noneuclidean Geometery to overturn the Greek mathematically "pure" view of geometery, and to win acceptance among the professionals.

Julius R. Mayer (The Law of Conservation of Energy)

Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.

FM was conceived about 1933 by Edwin Howard Armstrong, a noted professor of engineering at Columbia University and a recognized genius in electronic circuitry. He had contributed to early radio two basic circuits, the regenerative or feedback circuit and the superheterodyne, which are still at the heart of nearly all modern radio-television transmitters and receivers. When he sought permission in 1935, however, to erect an experimental FM station to demonstrate the unusual qualities of his new radio system, he ran into a stone wall. FM Radio was denied another 30 years.

I can go on and demonstrate the stupidity of the "masses" as well as the ignorance of the very "scientific" community you hail as "great and authoritive". Like I told you...there isn't enough bandwidth to list the ignorance of the majority.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

Here's a little list for you, read it. So I'm not accused of being a copy/paster.



Man must be a very intelligent being, to warm earth to such an extend that it's variations are in sync with that of other planetary systems. Another scientific coincidence I presume?

EDIT. Might I add, that Volcano's which had been a long lasting entity on earth as well as the Ocean, omits far more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world combined? In one single year.

Forgive me... I was obviously unclear - what I meant was can you present some arguments that show the crass stupidity of the mainstream regarding climate change.

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

Forgive me... I was obviously unclear

No you weren't, you're just trying to save face.

 

[Claymore]

This is really interesting. The values are correct as far as I've been able to find out.

However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2?

[edit]
It's obviously to do with something like CH-chain + O2 = Energy + CO where the oxygen's mass gets added to the mass of the CH-chains. I wouldn't have thought the effect would be that big though...

Well, the petrol/air ratio in an internal combustion engine is 1:14.7, by mass, so that's about 3 kg of oxygen per kg of petrol.

 

[Mr TB]

No you weren't, you're just trying to save face.

I think an appeal to the majority is in anycase a fallacy...hehehe...

Mistaken us for the same person, how dumb can they get...... Keep it up you have a companion I believe in Fearisgood...
PRAES... well he indeed sound like an interesting guy... maybe he will be building the next green car...

 

[Mr TB]

Well, the petrol/air ratio in an internal combustion engine is 1:14.7, by mass, so that's about 3 kg of oxygen per kg of petrol.

Rkootnr
However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2?

Maybe the answer can be found here... Have a look...

Gasoline

It seems to me it depends on the weight of the atoms C, H and O
Maybe Claymore should ask his chemics wife, she should be able to produce the answer without doubt...

 

[BCO]

No you weren't, you're just trying to save face.

Oh, thanks for explaining to me what I meant. We were dabating climate change, so is it really that far-fetched that I was asking you to provide climate change-related evidence?

 

[Mr TB]

Originally Posted by Tassidar
What a stupid argument. Just because Mars undergoes natural warming doesn't mean earth doesn't suffer from anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no link.

If your argument is true, how can you link the age of meteorites and the age of the earth?
A natural phenomenon discovered on Mars explains a phenomen that earth is suffering from, one that scientists had great difficulty with..
If you want to isolate earth isolate it, but not only when it suites your purposes...

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

Oh, thanks for explaining to me what I meant. We were dabating climate change

No the topic is climate change, you were discussing the "validity of the majority" a completely different concept altogether. Perhaps next time you'll stick to the topic of the thread itself, rather than state things like this.

Just because there have been a few cases in history where scientific brilliance has been ostracised by the mainstream, it doesn't mean that all mainstream science is misguided.

Which triggered my initial response.

Few cases? there's not enough bandwidth on this forum for me to start listing the crass stupidity of the mainstream. The fact is all change was pioneered by the few, the masses only followed when it became too embarrassing to hold onto prior stigma's.

That's a fact of life that cannot be changed.

Which in return had your request.

I'd like you to present some of the arguments that indicate the crass stupidity of the mainstrwam, if you don't mind. I'm open to persuasion.

I'm sure being capable of unique manipulation skills, you'll explain a nice colorful way around these very obvious and clear statements made by yourself. But the fact remains, this is what you stated this is what you asked.

I noticed that you avoided my tidbit on the emissions from Volcanic bursts and the Ocean itself...in comparison to that of emissions from vehicles in a yearly period.

If it is such an iminent threat, would earth's climate not have increased by more than .5 C since 1970? Instead it's consistent, and constant with that of Mars, why is that?

If your argument is true, how can you link the age of meteorites and the age of the earth?
A natural phenomenon discovered on Mars explains a phenomen that earth is suffering from, one that scientists had great difficulty with..
If you want to isolate earth isolate it, but not only when it suites your purposes...

Well put.

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

I sure do hope this is "mainstream" for you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

Seems that Russian dude really isn't the only one who thinks it's rubbish.

More than 17,100 American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Scientists who disagree with the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

 

[Fearisgood]

Global warming might not be such a bad thing afterall, 1 or 2 degrees max maybe. And all extra CO2 we put into the atmosphere might actually help food production.
Here
1) Warming Revives Flora and Fauna in Greenland
2) Temperature Effects on Rice at Elevated CO2 Concentration

Abstract
The continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) and projections of possible future increases in globalair temperatures have stimulated interest in the effects of these climate variables on agriculturally important food crops. Thisstudy was conducted to determine the effects of [CO2] and temperature on rice (Oryza sativa L., cv. IR–30). Rice plants weregrown season-long in outdoor, naturally sunlit, controlled-environment, plant growth chambers in temperature regimes ranging from 25/18/21°C to 37/30/34°C (daytime dry bulb air temperature/night-time dry bulb air temperature/paddy water temperature)and [CO2] of 660 µmol CO2 mol1 air. An ambient chamber was maintained at a [CO2] of 330 µmol mol–1 and temperature regimes of 28/21/25°C. Carbon dioxide enrichment at 28/21/25°C increased both biomass accumulation and tillering and increased grain yield by 60%. In the 660 µmol mol–1 [CO2] treatment, grain yield decreased from 10.4 to 1.0 Mg ha–1 with increasing temperature from 28/21/25°C to the 37/30/34°C temperature treatment. Across this temperature range, the number of panicles plant–1 nearly doubled while the number of seeds panicle–1 declined sharply. These results indicate that while future increases in atmospheric [CO2] are likely to be beneficial to rice growth and yield, potentially large negative effects on rice yield are possible if air temperatures also rise.

3) IMPACTS OF DROUGHT, HIGH TEMPERATURE AND CARBON DIOXIDE ON RICE PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

4) Global Warming Puzzle: Amazon Rainforest Showed Better Growth During Drought


And were did all those hurricanes suddenly disappear to? mmm
Maybe sunspot activity plays a bigger role and anthropogenic activities are minor?

But please switch off those geysers, ESKOM cant handle it... and can someone please get us off oil... its getting ridiculous, at this trend i might have to fill up my tank with Klippies (without coke).

 

[BCO]

Ok Baron, let’s start over.

I conceded beforehand that there were great scientists who've not been met with mainstream approval. So yes, thank you for providing more evidence for this. We agree. I’ll also concede that the “validity of the majority” argument is not always valid, especially in the light of the examples you posted.
However, this topic is about vehicle emissions and climate change (notice the thread topic: How much pollution does a car produce). I apologised for lack of clarity regarding my request for arguments about “crass stupidity of the mainstream”. Nevertheless, whatever YOU think my intentions were, I was asking for examples related to climate change. If you perceive that as me trying to save face, then so be it.
Another apology here – I was being lazy by making appeals to the wisdom of mainstream consensus. You’re 100% correct to assert that the validity of the majority argument is invalid. Notwithstanding, I appealed to mainstream consensus on climate change, because, it’s my conviction that in this case, the mainstream happens to be correct.


It’s my understanding that you have 3 points of contention:
1) Climate change is being used as some means of controlling the population via scare tactics. It’s the modern nuclear threat.The mainstream scientific community is acting on the behest of the powers that be in order to promote this agenda of control, silencing any voices of dissent.
2) There are numerous dissenting theories that, while presenting valid, irrefutable evidence, are marginalized and ridiculed by the scientific community. Similar situations have been evidenced before historically, and in the case of climate change we see history repeating itself.
3) Current explanations by the establishment advocating anthropogenic climate change are unsatisfactory.

Are these three statements correct? I’d really like to engage you in a meaningful debate and provide you with informed arguments (lest I be accused again of flocking with the sheep) If you could confirm your standpoint before I get started, I’d appreciate that – I don’t want you to think that I’m using my unique manipulation skills to distort your initial arguments.

 

[Fearisgood]

Here are a few links to get the debate started for you guys.
The global-warming hucksters
Gore gets a cold shoulder
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat: Precipitation Systems

Edit: 1 more link
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Edit: comment to post #40
Die ou wat jou geblok het van die PD draad kan maar sy kop gaan laat lees en die ou wat gese het niemand wil jou daar he nie lieg deur sy tande. Kan nou nie saamstem oor alles wat jy se nie (maanlanding ens) en seker visa versa, maar elke ou het sy opinie. Lyk my die materiaalistiese gomtorre hou nie juis van wat jy te se het nie. Wie gaan nou daai Darwinbots gas gee met n paar mooi versies, filosofiese gedagtes ens...

 

[Mr TB]

Originally Posted by Rkootknir
This is really interesting. The values are correct as far as I've been able to find out.
However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2?
[edit]
It's obviously to do with something like CH-chain + O2 = Energy + CO where the oxygen's mass gets added to the mass of the CH-chains. I wouldn't have thought the effect would be that big though...

In addition to your original post I did some further unwinding of knot...

4.4 What are the hydrocarbons in gasoline?

Hydrocarbons ( HCs ) are any molecules that just contain hydrogen and
carbon, both of which are fuel molecules that can be burnt ( oxidised )
to form water ( H2O ) or carbon dioxide ( CO2 ). If the combustion is
not complete, carbon monoxide ( CO ) may be formed. As CO can be burnt
to produce CO2, it is also a fuel.

The way the hydrogen and carbons hold hands determines which hydrocarbon
family they belong to. If they only hold one hand they are called
"saturated hydrocarbons" because they can not absorb additional hydrogen.
If the carbons hold two hands they are called "unsaturated hydrocarbons"
because they can be converted into "saturated hydrocarbons" by the
addition of hydrogen to the double bond. Hydrogens are omitted from the
following, but if you remember C = 4 hands, H = 1 hand, and O = 2 hands,
you can draw the full structures of most HCs.

Gasoline contains over 500 hydrocarbons that may have between 3 to 12
carbons, and gasoline used to have a boiling range from 30C to 220C at
atmospheric pressure. The boiling range is narrowing as the initial boiling
point is increasing, and the final boiling point is decreasing, both
changes are for environmental reasons. Detailed descriptions of structures
can be found in any chemical or petroleum text discussing gasolines [14].

source

 

[Mr TB]

Here are a few links to get the debate started for you guys.
The global-warming hucksters
Gore gets a cold shoulder
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat: Precipitation Systems

Ain't that one of the reasons I really like to read your comments...