Global warming.

Somebody needs to unspin this issue so here it goes:

This whole Kyoto thing shows that the "green" part of the lunatic fringe is at it again. Now they want governments to declare that Carbon Dioxide is some kind of unnatural pollutant. The fact that CO2 is literally a part of life does not faze them since they are already completely convinced and the facts no longer matter.

Reminds me of the time in the sixties when the "greens" lobbied for automobile emissions legislation. The most obvious result of these laws was a doubling in fuel consumed by cars. For about five years starting in '73 all North American cars burned about twice as much gasoline (and produced twice the waste heat) as similar vehicles from the late '60s. Economic chaos was the most obvious result.

Now the "greens" are warning that the "greenhouse effect" is causing global warming. It does appear that there is a warming but it is not gradual as would be expected. Most of the warming happens over a few years and according to Professor Richard S. Lindzen at MIT, "Warming has been concentrated in the period … 1976-1986" (from his presentation, "On the meaning of global warming claims"). This agrees nicely with the center of gas guzzling emissions controlled vehicle production in mid-1975. The gutless gas-guzzlers of the mid-seventies were clearly the primary cause of the "global warming" that was observed later. It is ironic that the "greens" of today lament about a problem that was created by the "greens" of thirty some years ago.

What is really needed now are not more laws inspired by lunatic lobby groups like the "greens" but a complete end to their influence upon government. The sooner this happens the better it will be for everyone.

Murray B.

Makes me want to buy a Schwinn

Makes me want to buy a Schwinn

If you do that then the lobbyists win. They want you to ride a bicycle while they drive SUVs. Besides I am not sure that would prevent CO2 emissions. As I am sure that you know they are already taxing sheep farts in New Zealand. Can taxing all flatulence be far behind?

global warming...in five years the entire earth and its land will be overwhelmed with water... i dont know much about sheep rippin ass and im not sure what the hell that has to do with global warming...o yeah everyone will die in five years due to the massive amounts of water overwhelming the earth and land

sheep rippin ass ... what the hell that has to do with global warming

Sheep farts are mostly Methane (CH4) which contains Carbon. New Zealand has signed onto the Kyoto Accord which means that they have to purchase carbon credits for every methane emitter including sheep. So their government has wisely applied the tax to every head (butt?) of sheep. Of course in North America the tax will be applied to cows and pigs. Eventually they should be able to make an implant to measure emission volumes to keep the taxes fair. Even the EPA could get into the act by imposing surtaxes on the really smelly ones.

Bodily emissions are a new and completely unexplored source of government revenues. Expect many more such taxes in the future.

There is a distinction here. There is evidence that the globe is warming up. What is lacking is proof that its because of the activity of humans.

I blame the sun myself :p

Prooving something is hard to do but since the main warming that they're whining about happened from '76 to '86 there is a smoking gun. Just ask any car nut over 40.

The "greens" lobbied the Congress for emissions legislation. Congress responded with laws that forced automobiles to have half the power and double (I kid you not) the fuel consumption. The extra fuel all went to warming the air which is what was then measured as "global warming".

This is what I remember but I could be wrong.

Naaw, my '62 Parisienne 283 got 20 mpg, my '69 Wildcat 430-4 got 12 and my '76 T-bird 460 got 6 on a good day. That Thunderchicken ate up half of my salary since I was working out of town at the time. It is hard to forget a car like that.

When they dropped compression ratios it was to control NOX emissions. These are the visible smog forming contaminates that come from high combustion heat. However, the engines became less efficient. When new engines were designed in the last 30 years they were made with computerized EGR control, timing control, etc to bring back the power and efficiency. They also improved the cooling so they could raise the compression and regain the mileage. The LS6 chevy motor makes over 300hp and gets 20mpg. It took 30 years for technology to recover from what happened in 73.

I think diesels need to be regulated. They produce far more NOX emissions than any car, but the trucking companies pay off the officials to put the burdon on cars.

Carbon dioxide in the air is only part of the problem. The concern here is the 'carbon cycle'. Whenever you breathe out, or vegetation, like dead leaves in the fall decompose, they release carbon into the air. As plants and animals grow, they take in carbon and use it to make vegetation, like leaves, wood etc, or meat, skin, etc, in the case of animals.
Over millions of years, billions of tons of carbon have been locked away, as vegetation has died and eventually formed coal and crude oil.
Now our burning these fuels is releasing carbon into the air faster than the plants and animals can suck it in. This is extra carbon that has been locked away for millions of years, so it is the source of the feared climate change.
It is a sound theory and should be addressed regardless of our enthusiasm for cars.
It is possible to process the carbon from the air and pump it back into the ground, at tiem same time crude oil is being pumped or coal is removed )from it.

When they dropped compression ratios it was to control NOX emissions. However, the engines became less efficient. It took 30 years for technology to recover from what happened in 73.

I think diesels need to be regulated. They produce far more NOX emissions than any car, but the trucking companies pay off the officials to put the burdon on cars.

Yes, Tomsriv, I remember when they were doing it. I also remember thinking about why a Montana farmer should have to burn twice as much fuel because L.A. has a smog problem.

Now, when the engines became less efficient where did the extra energy go? Let's don't forget that they were blowing raw fuel into the exhaust system and pumping in air to finish the burn. Those catalytic converters ran so hot that they instantly torched anything that they touched. All I'm saying is that all that extra fuel went to heating the air and this is what was measured as global warming.

As far as trucks go I don't think the problem is a simple as bribing officials. A truck with a 18:1 compression diesel might give 5 or 6 mpg loaded. With a 12.5:1 gasoline motor it might give 3 mpg on a good day and at 8.5:1 about 1.5 mpg. Fuel costs are already a major factor in overall transportation costs. Who would benefit from doubling or tripling the fuel consumption?

Hello all studys done on the matter conclude that man at best only contributes less than 4% and one valcano dose in less than thirty seconds more than that of all man throughout history. Hello people.

Hello all studys done on the matter conclude that man at best only contributes less than 4% and one valcano dose in less than thirty seconds more than that of all man throughout history. Hello people.

Yes, I believe that the volcano's do inject Sulphur compounds into the atmosphere. If man contributes 4% then I won't argue but I do think that it is some small number like that. SO2 is not the reason that compression ratios were lowered.

Compression had to be lowered because of NO2 emissions. The laws were passed before any baseline studies were done to estimate mans' contribution to the total. Considering that green plants like trees emit NO2 it is quite possible that all of mans' activities contribute only a small fraction to these emissions as well. I have personally seen smog hanging over forests in the middle of nowhere.

The gas emissions are not the issue here. Given that the law requred that compression be lowered which also decreased engine efficiency (horsepower hours per gallon) did this waste of fuel cause the "global warming" that was measured from 1976 to 1986? Don't forget that the extra fuel had to produce waste heat since these cars emitted no hydrocarbons.

Maybe I am off subjuct (can't really tell) but this globle warming stuff is a touchy issue especialy when someone threatens to mess with my classic car or anything that makes it so. And speaking of globle warming and such someone go into the general discussion where this is posted and let me know what you think about my alt fule maybe the answer is in useing something that didn't come from the old black stuff. And to add the oceans release and obsorbe most of CO2 and O and other.....

Alternate fuels do not hold much promise. Hydrogen can never be made safe and alcohol can never be produced economically. Current alcohol production receives massive government subsidies to be used in fuel. Without the subsidies alcohol would be $8 a gallon and you would burn twice as much due to lower energy content.

The truth is that the problem was caused by mistaken government legislation and the solution lies with repealing that legislation.

The time is short. Oldsmobile is already gone. Ford and GM are driving their customers to Toyota and Chrysler has already been sold to the Germans. The time to act is now while something still remains of the American auto industry.

:smokin: In the past I have contacted the very people that can effect change (I once studied this and used to be addicted to the news[a combination that equals depression if one is not careful] this all changed when I said the h3^^ with the world I'll only be here a short time and only God is in control. [I'm not bragging but it has been said that my intelegence is to blame.] Whether or not you belive that you have to belive something when it comes to things that are out of your immediate control i.e. so called global warming.-now back to what I was saying) but it was pointed out every time that the hardest thing is to repeal laws. To effect change in the laws, one-or many-of us would have to affect change in the masses. If you have any good ideas I'm game! :icon16:

P.S. The alt fule I was talking about paint :evillol: thinner..............Think about it..................

P.S. The alt fule I was talking about paint :evillol: thinner..............Think about it..................

Well I did think about it an now I've got a headache.

Anyway doing something is infinitely better than doing nothing.

First thing that people over 45 can do is tell those under 45 that it was the mid-seventies cars that were the gutless gas guzzlers and not cars of the sixties. If enough people do this then it might start a real debate on the matter.

Another thing that could have an effect is to write to News sources and complain about the inaccuracy of "gas guzzlers of the sixties" articles. Letters to their advertizers might also help and even posts on these forums can help.

If we do all this and they still ignore us then it is their bad and not ours. Our obligation is to tell the truth and not to force anyone to believe it.

My '76 T-bird was so hard on gas that I literally crawled underneath to see if there was a hole in the tank. No leaks just 5 or, on a good day, 6 mpg and it was gutless besides. My '69 Wildcat got 12.5 and went like lightning. Who do these environmentalists think they are kidding?

Hydrogen can never be made safe and alcohol can never be produced economically.

Not to mention that hydrogen can never be produced economically, not from water, anyway.

Carbon fuel (especially methane) from agricultural wastes might be an idea, especially with good fertilizer as a by-product.

Pity we can't collect the methane from those New Zealand sheep.

BTW, the "flatulence taxes" in New Zealand are being fought by an interest group called Farmers Against Ridiculous Taxes (FART). I was going to say that this is not a joke but, despite the fact that it is the truth, the group probably chose their name as a joke that would make sure people remember who they are and what they stand for...