Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishsig
I'd love to see how they would implement these so called regulations.
|
If I were them I would go after the suppliers, far easier to go after the few that make the parts than the ones that buy them. There's a reason why law enforcement focuses on drug dealers to reduce drug use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFerry
This type legislation effort (scam) is routed in the debunked Global Warming con. Climate change is caused by sun spot cycles - not race cars or street cars emitting CO2. By the way people exhale C02. And while we are at it: There are currently approximately 1.3 to 1.5 billion cows grazing, sleeping, and chewing their cud at any given time on planet Earth. And these 1,300 pound (average weight for both a beef and dairy cow) animals eat a lot. Much like humans, when they eat, gas builds up inside of their guts and has to be expelled. (See Why Beans Make You Fart) Cows fart and burp… a lot. The result is a large amount of methane being introduced into the atmosphere.
In a 2006 United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization report, it claims that the livestock sector, most of which are cows, “generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport.” According to a Danish study, the average cow produces enough methane per year to do the same greenhouse damage as four tons of carbon dioxide. So is this significantly contributing to global warming?
The Global Warning scam is aimed at conning folks into accepting a carbon tax so various governments of the world and the UN can take your money while they fly around in private jets and ride around in luxury limos. No modding for the little people… No, no, no.
Climate change (global cooling) is a natural cycle of the earth and solar system. Yes, in the 1970s the media narrative was about global cooling. Then they fudged the data and switched to warming… So let's ban cows farting and giraffes and goats and pigs too before we accept the no modding con..
Article Link:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....lobal-warming/ |
First, I am not sure why CO2 was brought to the front. I don't believe the emission controls on anyone's car can remove CO2 and the only thing that can cut CO2 is reducing the amount of fuel that is burned. The
primary function of the emission controls is to remove CO (carbon monoxide), NOx, SOx, hydrocarbons (partially burned fuel that creates smog), and soot. Modifying your car (normally requires reprogramming) to burn more fuel will increase its' CO2 output, taking the cat off won't increase it.
The sun spot theory is a good one and I will consider it as a possibility along with the other theories until something is proven. You present it as proof just like all of the other theories. At the same time a large part of scientists also believe human activity is at least partially to blame. Based on the evidence I don't see making reasonable cuts in CO2 output as being a bad idea, worst case that I see is we cut the overall use of hydrocarbons which I think we all agree aren't in unlimited supply. Some say eating lots of red meat will lower my life expectancy but reality is many things might kill me and there still seems to be disagreement with scientists as to whether or not it even matters. Based on the evidence I decided to reduce how much red meat I eat but when I am 70 it may turn out that science was wrong and it was a waste of time.
I agree, all animals (I believe all) produce methane and CO2. Not sure why people defend what they do as being ok based on something or someone doing something that is the same or worse but it seems to be popular. In the end many feel we should cut all output, including ships, trains, animals (we really don't need to eat as much beef as we do), power plants, and slow population growth. I don't know if all of this is necessary or will even be helpful but I am open to listening and if the cut can be made without huge downsides I would probably want to do it (if someone said they could increase the mpg of ships or trains without major downsides I would be for it or when I was offered a high efficiency heating system I decided the extra cost was worth it even though I may not be in my house when it finally breaks even).