AGW: The best arguments a lay person can make!

[Lord of Planar]

Petrol engines emit less particulate matter, but more nitrous oxides and much more (<20 times more) carbon monoxide than diesel.

Not the newer ones following USA standards.

On balance the immediate health risks of diesel may be worse, but honestly does any sane person think that sucking up exhaust fumes from a petrol engine is a good idea?

No a good idea, but your information is obsolete.

Yet you are evidently opposed to policies which would reduce car usage in general, such as more compact and efficient city planning.

I'm fine with improved infrastructure as long as choices aren't taken away.

Electricity generation from oil and especially coal power plants are other massive contributers to air pollution and that associated death count. Wind and solar? Not so much...

Have you seen the emission specs of the newer designs? Sure, they sill pollute. It's a pretty small amount however.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When petrol cars are fitted with catalytic converters the CO and NO should be all but zero.

It is negiligible, if not zero.

If fact, the air, CO2, and water coming from the exhaust is cleaner than the air that the IC engine takes in.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You are just utterly incapable of logical / honest / intelligent thought, aren't you? All Air pollution 'kills 40,000 a year' in the UK, says report - and this was a link which you yourself posted. So within the space of a single day you've decided to start claiming that diesel fumes alone kill 40,000 people per year. In a month or two, I'm sure you will have decided that this is all from the increase in diesel usage due to CO2 regulations. It perhaps gives us some insight into how you came up with your biofuel crops bull****, but this really is beyond pathetic.

You have a reasonable point that the figure was for all pollution. Badly expressed and your level of anger at me is very telling of your internal loss of confidence.

Take the point up with Greenpeace as well if you will;

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/pa...PCAIRPOLLAD4&gclid=CN3I3v6Tj9ECFU2eGwodopINWA

Alarming levels of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 premature deaths each year. Yet, the government continues to support dirty diesel despite the fact that safer and greener technologies are available.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It is negiligible, if not zero.

If fact, the air, CO2, and water coming from the exhaust is cleaner than the air that the IC engine takes in.

Yes. Most of the disagreements around this subject area seem to be down to the degree to which you can understand the difference between none, a small amount, some and a lot.

 

[Mithrae]

You have a reasonable point that the figure was for all pollution. Badly expressed and your level of anger at me is very telling of your internal loss of confidence.

Take the point up with Greenpeace as well if you will;

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/pa...PCAIRPOLLAD4&gclid=CN3I3v6Tj9ECFU2eGwodopINWA

So one day you're blaming Greenpeace for the increase in diesel usage (12-24-16, 08:28 PM #119), and the next you're defensively citing them for their opposition to diesel :roll: C'mon man, I know you struggle with even the most basic comprehension levels, but what you're seeing from me here is not anger or loss of confidence; it's an attempt to convey how profoundly absurd and irrational your posts so frequently are. This (yet again) is a case in point: Your quote from Greenpeace does not share your (supposedly just "badly expressed") claim that diesel causes 40,000 out of forty thousand air pollution deaths per year... and yet you are implying that it does.

So in a post in which you're complaining about my "level of anger" and "loss of confidence" for pointing out the incredible frequency with which you make these ridiculous 'mistakes' against blindingly obvious reality, you have managed to make not one but two more; contradicting your own rhetoric against Greenpeace, and thoroughly misrepresenting a quote from their website. It's enough to make any sane man's blood boil!

 

[Skeptic Bob]

you mean climate is changing for the better as temp rises 1/100 degree per year? Do you have any evidence it is changing for the worse?

Whether it is for the better or worse depends on your geography and how you earn your living.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Whether it is for the better or worse depends on your geography and how you earn your living.

Who will be affected negatively by a slight warming except for the owners of ski chalets?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have a reasonable point that the figure was for all pollution. Badly expressed and your level of anger at me is very telling of your internal loss of confidence.

Take the point up with Greenpeace as well if you will;

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/pa...PCAIRPOLLAD4&gclid=CN3I3v6Tj9ECFU2eGwodopINWA

I never understood the push for diesel, especially since any "layperson" can tell how much worse they pollute, from firsthand observation.

The power density is important for trucks and trains. Not for cars.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes. Most of the disagreements around this subject area seem to be down to the degree to which you can understand the difference between none, a small amount, some and a lot.

Well, the evidence I have read over the years is that a properly running US standard gasoline powered car only produces pollution until the catalytic converter gets to temperature. Then it is zero on the pollutants.

 

[Mithrae]

Well, the evidence I have read over the years is that a properly running US standard gasoline powered car only produces pollution until the catalytic converter gets to temperature. Then it is zero on the pollutants.

I haven't been able to find any specific information about that. In fact a lot of the information I've found seem to contradict each other: Petrol engines are still bad polluters vs. petrol engines are okay, diesel engines are much worse vs. diesel engines are a little worse vs. modern diesel filters make them as good or even better than petrol engines. It would depend a lot on the country and year of course, which might explain a lot of the discrepancies.

If something as dirty as gasoline combustion actually can be filtered down to zero harmful emissions, why not slightly dirtier diesel? If that were in fact plausible, obviously the lower CO2 option would be preferable.

 

[James972]

Whether it is for the better or worse depends on your geography and how you earn your living.

but liberals claim the negatives will far outweigh the positives?

 

[Threegoofs]

but liberals claim the negatives will far outweigh the positives?

No.

Scientists have demonstrated it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No.

Scientists have demonstrated it.

No they haven't.

The pundits misrepresent the papers of scientists to lie to the layperson.

Again, you prove you don't read and understand the papers. Just the alarmist bloggers you read.

 

[Threegoofs]

No they haven't.

The pundits misrepresent the papers of scientists to lie to the layperson.

Again, you prove you don't read and understand the papers. Just the alarmist bloggers you read.

It's outlined here.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Sorry, once again, that it's too much information for you to process.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's outlined here.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Sorry, once again, that it's too much information for you to process.

Once again my ignorant friend. That is not a paper. It is a governmental activists site. It cherry picks parts out of hundreds of papers, but is not a paper.

Why do you bother responding with that tripe every time I ask for a paper?

Please grow up.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

The bees are dying!

This, to me, is a much more alarming calamity.
We need to bees in so many ways.

However, I am neutral to this climate change thing, but i very well remember walking to elementary school in Houston, Texas and needing to wear a thick jacket in winter, and even slipping on puddles of ice on the way.

Now you only seem to need a light jacket in winter, and in February, all bets are off...anything can happen.

This is just what I have seen with my own eyes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This, to me, is a much more alarming calamity.
We need to bees in so many ways.

However, I am neutral to this climate change thing, but i very well remember walking to elementary school in Houston, Texas and needing to wear a thick jacket in winter, and even slipping on puddles of ice on the way.

Now you only seem to need a light jacket in winter, and in February, all bets are off...anything can happen.

This is just what I have seen with my own eyes.

Weather cycles in climate naturally occur around a 30-40 year interval. I have seen cycles complete. If you aren't very old, you don't see what us older people have seen.

 

[Tim the plumber]

This, to me, is a much more alarming calamity.
We need to bees in so many ways.

However, I am neutral to this climate change thing, but i very well remember walking to elementary school in Houston, Texas and needing to wear a thick jacket in winter, and even slipping on puddles of ice on the way.

Now you only seem to need a light jacket in winter, and in February, all bets are off...anything can happen.

This is just what I have seen with my own eyes.

Well, it has got a bit warmer. Your memory may well be full of only the exceptional times and all the others blended together. Then again we always seem to see the moment as exceptional and the hottest December the 28 for 50 years seems something to get excited about.

Do you think it is better or worse with warmer weather in winter?

I keep challenging 3goofs to say what has happened that is bad so far with little come back as the only thing he seems able to point to is some disease affecting pine trees in an area of Nrth America that has not seen much in the way of warming. Bit like blaming globalwarming when your car breaks down.

You will also note the burry the other guy in a mountain of words (his link to the whole of the IPCC's report) when challenged to provide any evidence at all. Eventually if I pursued it he would post quotes that talk about models which predict stuff that they cannot predict next week never mind 80 years in the future.

 

[blackjack50]

VW just paid $20 billion in fines because they could not filter it and lied about it

Well I think Everyone heard about that. But I still don't grasp the logic behind a diesel car unless it is about fuel efficiency only. Every diesel I've ever driven is pretty darn dirty. Tractor or truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[longview]

Well I think Everyone heard about that. But I still don't grasp the logic behind a diesel car unless it is about fuel efficiency only. Every diesel I've ever driven is pretty darn dirty. Tractor or truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Diesel is a very mixed bag from an Engineering standpoint.
They increased the fuel air ratio to decrease the amount of unburned furl in the exhaust, but that
increased the emissions of other undesirable products.
It would be interesting to see what the emissions are from the man made fuels, that contain no sulfur.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Diesel is a very mixed bag from an Engineering standpoint.
They increased the fuel air ratio to decrease the amount of unburned furl in the exhaust, but that
increased the emissions of other undesirable products.
It would be interesting to see what the emissions are from the man made fuels, that contain no sulfur.

I wold love to see that too.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's been bothering me, and I have to say somethging about the title:

AGW: The best arguments a lay person can make!

There are no arguments a layperson can make. Any opinion they have is from the pundits they listen to.

Zip... Nada...

Simply no good arguments a layperson can make.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Weather cycles in climate naturally occur around a 30-40 year interval. I have seen cycles complete. If you aren't very old, you don't see what us older people have seen.

I am 61, so thank you for the compliment.
Glad to know i am a young kid again.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Well, it has got a bit warmer. Your memory may well be full of only the exceptional times and all the others blended together. Then again we always seem to see the moment as exceptional and the hottest December the 28 for 50 years seems something to get excited about.

Do you think it is better or worse with warmer weather in winter?

I keep challenging 3goofs to say what has happened that is bad so far with little come back as the only thing he seems able to point to is some disease affecting pine trees in an area of Nrth America that has not seen much in the way of warming. Bit like blaming globalwarming when your car breaks down.

You will also note the burry the other guy in a mountain of words (his link to the whole of the IPCC's report) when challenged to provide any evidence at all. Eventually if I pursued it he would post quotes that talk about models which predict stuff that they cannot predict next week never mind 80 years in the future.

You are probably right about my memory. This was 1962 to 1968. So, Yeah, I may only be remembering what i want to, but each and every winter i had to walk to school, and froze my little tushy off.

 

[James972]

.

Simply no good arguments a layperson can make.

why cant a lay person quote a liberal puppet scientist who said hurricanes would increase and another scientist who has demonstrated that hurricanes have decreased?