Restricting What’s Not Regulated . . .

72
3171
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Engineers are becoming like magicians – pulling improbable things out of their hats.

The difference is, it’s not a trick – and they haven’t got much choice.

Every car company has armies of engineers trying to figure out how to maintain the performance and power the market expects of new cars while also complying with the government’s demands – which are becoming harder and harder to comply with.

Some of these demands aren’t even official  . . . yet.

For example, this idea that carbon dioxide (C02) is – hey, presto! – an “emission.”

Of course, it is – in the literal sense that it’s emitted from the tailpipe of all internal combustion-powered cars.

So is water vapor.

But C02 (like H20) isn’t an “emission” in the regulatory sense – as far as cars are concerned.

The EPA has “bins” and “tiers” specifying allowable limits for combustion byproducts such as incompletely burned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulates (i.e., soot) and so on.

These are “emissions” in the regulatory sense. The car companies are obliged to comply with the limits set.

But  there is nothing in the bins and tiers about C02.

Not yet.

Perhaps because – like water vapor – C02 is not an “emission” in the sane sense.

Carbon dioxide coming out of car tailpipes doesn’t affect air quality in the slightest, or choke the asthmatic or dissolve statues with acidic rain. It is a chemically inert gas – as opposed to the highly reactive gasses discussed above and heretofore considered emissions in the regulatory (and sane) sense. With some cause – at least back in the ’70s and before – when those emissions were high and did cause air quality problems and breathing problems and so on.

Today, they are infinitesimally small – and have been for years. The problem no longer is.

Enter the need for a new “emission.” To justify new restrictions.

It is of course alleged that C02 is a “climate changing” gas; we’ve all heard the mantra.

But consider: If the climate really were changing in some unnatural and harmful and preventable way, don’t you suppose the government would impose restrictions on itself? Is government exempt from the perils of the climate changing? It is very interesting, to say the least, that government does not impose the slightest restrictions on itself, but proposes draconian restrictions to be imposed upon us. As is also equally interestingly the case with regard to the very very dangerous guns it insists kill and which must be given up by everyone – except the government.

Regardless, there’s no federal mandate, fatwa or ukase yet on the books classifying C02 as a tailpipe exhaust “emission” subject to EPA regulation – even though certain parties have attempted to conflate EPA mileage standards on the books since the mid-1970s – Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards – with emissions standards. This is a deliberate, despicable lie (more here) and it’s being repeated as if it were truth, over and over and over again. Per Dr. Goebbels’ dictum about repetition transforming the most blatant lie into an accepted truism.

But CAFE is about fleet average fuel efficiency; your car’s  (everyone’s cars’) city/highway numbers.

C02 doesn’t enter into it at all.

Even so, the car companies are anticipating a C02 “emissions” mandate. And then the engineers will have to work some more magic.

Jeep just sent me a 2019 Cherokee to test drive and write about (see here for the review). It’s the first 2019 model year car I’ve been sent so far this calendar year. Before I write anything, I always read the technical materials provided by the manufacturer, to familiarize myself with what’s new.

I found something new, all right.

In the Jeep press materials for the 2019 Cherokee (you can read them yourself here) I discovered that a new 2.0 liter turbocharged four cylinder engine has been added to the lineup because it “minimizes greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

Meaning, CO2.

This is the first time in 25 years of writing a weekly car review that I have discovered such language in a car company’s press kit materials. It is the equivalent of the white flag of surrender; Jeep’s pre-emptive acquiescence.

Jeep is writing about C02 “emissions” as if in fact they were. Before the fatwa, ukase or befehl comes down.

Why?

Because they believe the fatwa, befehl, ukase to be inevitable.

Because they have already been issued in Europe and elsewhere. The manufacturers – Jeep’s not the only one – do business in those other markets and have assumed the inevitability of C02’s formal classification here as an exhaust emission in the near future as well. The certain future, if Trump isn’t re-elected and someone like Elizabeth Warren is elected instead.

And if that should happen it will mean extinction-by-regulation of most IC engines larger than 2.0 liters, as in the Jeep. And in many other makes/models of cars, too. You may have noticed the sudden proliferation of 2.0 liter engines in almost every type of car and make of car.

It’s because 2.0 liters is as big as you can go before the Euro C02 regs make it really expensive (via heavy fines) to go any larger – and so they generally don’t. The bigger the engine, the more air it flows – and the more C02 it exhales. So the car makers try to go ever smaller.

Eventually, they’ll have to go nonexistent. The car companies will be forced to get rid of their IC engines entirely in the name of “zero emissions” – at the tailpipe, at least.

Then it’ll be the Electric Car Future we hear so much about – not because it makes sense, but because it’s the only thing they’ll still allow us.

Until, of course, they decide not to.

Which of course, they will decide – using the pretext of smokestack C02 emissions (at the utility plants which make the electricity electric cars “burn”) as the reason why. Because, you see, the object isn’t “clean” cars. Those already exist – and they’re not electric.

The idea is to get us out of cars, period. Just as the idea is to get guns out of our hands.

 . . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets – they’re back!  are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. Also, the eBook – free! – is available. Click here. Just enter you email in the box on the top of the main page and we’ll email you a copy instantly!

 

Share Button

72 COMMENTS

    • Great story by John Wyndham but a rather disappointing movie. So, how old are you RT, ringing up a story from 1951? That’s almost as old as me.

  1. To quote Harry Browne: “The government is someone who sees you walking down a street, and comes over to you and breaks both your legs. Then it hands you a pair of crutches and says, “See? If it wasn’t for me, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”

    Ronald Reagan had a similar argument against government restrictions when he came up with the three ways government makes things worse for everyone. I don’t remember the exact quote, but the first thing government does with activities it doesn’t like is to tax them. The second is to regulate them. And the third is to outlaw them.

    And that summarizes this pattern of fatwas against different activities related to motor vehicles.

    • Actually, Ronald never said to outlaw it. He said, “f it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

  2. Why don’t the car makers offer to plant a half-dozen trees when you choose the Platinum/Limited model? That way the people who can’t afford the Luxe trim packages aren’t penalized, while those that can are covering the “emissions” from the sale of those low-end models.

    • The trees only take in CO2 during the day and convert that to oxygen. That’s why it is called photosynthesis [make by light]. At night the trees take in the oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. You do NOT hear the greenies tell you that, do you? What they giveth they taketh away!

  3. I’m still waiting for the promised Global Warming. It’s the middle of April and it’s snowing like crazy on top of the drifts that still haven’t melted. We’re just about to surpass the snowiest winter on record, and that was only four years ago!

    • Don’t worry; you didn’t miss anything. Global warming has been delayed by the next decade; the sunspot cycle is showing that the earth is not getting warmer.

      Each 14-year cycle is reaching lower maximum temperatures, which means the earth is getting cooler. But if the greenies find this detail, they’ll say, “Our plans are working!” They’ll then call for more dramatic changes in human activity, since it gets harder to move the needle after it goes so far one way. If it were to keep getting warmer, then they would say we need more drastic action because the goals they set aren’t being reached. It’s a heads-they-win, tails-you-lose way of thinking. The one consistent feature is they are the ones setting the goalposts.

  4. Military, police and other government employees waste more fuel than most countries annual usage and kill more people than all mass murder shootings combined. F16 1 pilot @ .7mpg. depleted uranium rounds cause more pollution than you can shake a fatwa at. Our personal exhalation is CO2 will we be required to breath less or perhaps just kill a billion or 2 off to saaaave the planet.

  5. The bigger the engine, the more air it flows – and the more C02 it exhales. So the car makers try to go ever smaller.

    Compressing the air using a turbocharger and a 2-l engine doesn’t reduce the amount of air an engine uses. That air will expand once it leaves the engine.

      • Does the EPA take into account the Co2 going into the engine and subtract that off the final emission figure or do they lump it all together ?

      • eric, small being when the engine is off boost sounds good if you know nothing about a turbo engine. The goal always seems to be to bring on the boost as early as possible to create low-end torque. It’s the very thing that’s touted when an improvement is made. Big rig engines now make peak torque as low as 900 rpm. Of course that isn’t peak power but the torque curve below that is always increased as well. Same goes for gas car engines. Now there can OTOH, be a benefit of total reduced rpm. That’s the reason I have doubts how well those turbo gas engines are going to last.

  6. CO2 a greenhouse gas? Ask the question: Where is the empirical study that CO2 has any warming effect in a room? So far, it is only a hypothesis that has never been confirmed.

    • It was proven a very long time ago that CO2 traps the energy at a certain range of wavelengths. That’s known. What people are not told of is the concept of diminishing returns. Almost all the energy CO2 can trap is done so below 300ppm. Further increases do approximately nothing. Even on the order of doubling and doubling again there just isn’t that much more energy to trap.

      For those of us who understand this the powers that be will respond with the notion that these tiny increases in trapped energy will be magnified by responses other places in the system. Methane releases and so on. The last 30 years of measurements show this is not happening. Which is why they adjust the data. When the adjusted data doesn’t match other data sets they adjust those too. They also play a variety of presentation tricks.

      So, anyway, yes, CO2 causes warming and we had about all it could ever cause long before the first combustion engine ever turned over.

      • CO2 not only traps energy, it traps the attention of the ignorant masses, and fools them into thinking that CO2 is some sort of pollutant. The fact is that CO2 is as necessary to life as H2O. All environmental organizations agree that CO2 levels are at around 400 ppm right now. What they will never tell you is that at 150 ppm ALL life on this planet goes extinct. Just how low to we really want to go? And why are we even talking about lowering CO2 levels when we’re already so close to these catastrophically low levels???

        Focusing on CO2 allows the oligarchs to distract the populace away from all the garbage their pumping into the air and water around us. These auto manufacturers are really just playing games to screw their competition. They come up with a car that gets lower CO2 emissions and then have their attorneys write up the legislation to lobby the government, which then in turn makes it law causing the competition to have to scramble to come into compliance.

      • Most importantly, CO2 emissions were tested in a closed container, which acts completely different to a planet which has an atmosphere that extends for hundreds of miles vertically and sits in a vast universe full of vacuum. Secondly, the thermometer was only invented 200 years ago. Before then no one could assign a numerical value to temperature. Third, only in the last 50 years has any attempt been made to measure temperatures planet wide. Here in Melbourne temperatures have been measured for only 150 years. That is a non statistic in terms of the 5 billion year age of our planet. You can see where this is leading, so I will say no more.

        • The thermometer isn’t necessary to see that the earth has been warming and cooling for millennia; long before humanity began to kindle fire. The fact that human generated climate change may be true is still not looking at the whole picture because all it really boils down to is that these cycles may be hitting their warming peaks a little earlier than usual. So if it peaks a day, a month, or a decade earlier, what does it really matter in the long run?

          As someone pointed out already, these warm spells are a benefit to life on this planet. Given that this fact won’t stop the government from regulating us all out of our gross polluters, it’s going to become a moot point. I’ll probably end up with a bicycle and a sailboat, although peddling a bike releases a lot of hot air into the atmosphere so I’m sure they’ll find a way to tax me for all that pollution I’m producing…

        • > Most importantly, CO2 emissions were tested in a closed container, which acts completely different to a planet which has an atmosphere that extends for hundreds of miles vertically and sits in a vast universe full of vacuum.

          The idea that the greenhouse gases trap heat has been falsified in 2009 by a couple of scientists because it fails to follow basic physics. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

          Here is their abstract:
          The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

    • Hi David,

      The pioneering work in this field was done by John Tyndall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall and, as Brent notes, is well established and uncontroversial (even among so called deniers). When we are told that 97% of scientists agree with the consensus, it is important to note that consensus is never precisely defined.

      So, what is the consensus?
      – CO2 is a greenhouse gas
      – CO2 concentration has increased from approximately 280 ppm to a little over 400ppm since the mid 19th century
      – Global average temperature has increased about 0.8° C since the late 19th century
      – It is likely that most of the increased CO2 concentration is due to human activity
      – It is likely that some of the observed warming is due to the increased CO2 concentration

      It is true that 97% (probably more) of credible scientists agree with the above. So, what do the so-called deniers dispute?
      – The current warming trend is aberrant
      – Current CO2 concentration is dangerously high and historically unprecedented
      – Climate sensitivity is likely to be about 3° C per doubling of CO2
      – The effect of this warming will be catastrophic
      – Radical reductions in CO2 emissions are necessary to prevent the catastrophe
      – The economic impact of doing nothing will vastly exceed the impact of mitigation

      The above is assumed when activists label skeptics as deniers. However, there is certainly no consensus to those views. Ironically, pretty much all of the “deniers” are part of the consensus. In short, the skeptics dispute the climate sensitivity assumptions embedded in the models. All of the catastrophic claims rely on the assumption of net positive feedback mechanisms that increase the climate sensitivity of about 1° C (in controlled lab experiments) due to a doubling of CO2 to a climate sensitivity significantly higher than that. Skeptics assert that the negative and positive feedback mechanisms roughly cancel each other out and that the actual climate sensitivity is likely to be around 1° C. If they are right, and history and the observable data suggests that they are, there is nothing to worry about. This is why the morally despicable term “denier” has been adopted to malign those who dispute the necessity of the extreme measures (and the consequent further empowerment of government) advocated by the climate alarmists. After all, if there is nothing to worry about then there is no justification for the radical restructuring of society that is the end goal of the elite class pushing the climate change agenda.

      Kind Regards,
      Jeremy

      • The adjustments to the temperature record as I recall are greater than 0.8C warming.

        “Climate sensitivity is likely to be about 3° C per doubling of CO2”

        Just plain wrong. There’s little more energy for CO2 to trap. The adjustments to the temperature record have an effectively perfect linear fit to CO2 concentration.

        “The effect of this warming will be catastrophic”

        Unlikely. It’s been episodes of cold that were catastrophic in the past while warmth is connected to good times.

        “Current CO2 concentration is dangerously high and historically unprecedented”

        It’s neither. 280ppm was likely dangerously low.

        “It is true that 97% (probably more) of credible scientists agree with the above. ”

        The 97% consensus was proven to be false on its methodology. (It was a junk paper as is much of the climate science once one looks under the hood)

        • Hi Brent,

          I agree with you. The second list I made was intended to demonstrate the false assertions made by climate alarmists to “justify” action. There are no credible skeptical scientists who deny the basic science. The term denier is disgusting and intended to silence real debate and scientific inquiry. I hoped to show the dishonesty of those screaming 97% by pointing out that pretty much all of the prominent “deniers” (Tim Ball, Judith Curry, John Christie, Patrick Michaels, Willie Soon, etc…) are part of the properly defined “consensus”.

          Yes, the 97% claim is bogus and based primarily on two papers (Cook and Oreskes), both of which are “junk”, as you correctly note.

          I apologize if my intent was not clear.

          Cheers,
          Jeremy

        • Hi Brent,

          “The adjustments to the temperature record as I recall are greater than 0.8C warming.”

          I’m pretty sure that there is general agreement, even among skeptics, that the temperature rose about 0.8 C from the late 1880’s until around 2000. The adjustments you refer to are modern and, according to at least one paper, account for all of the supposed warming since 2000. I believe that the record has been adjusted at least 3 times since then; always pushing down past temperatures and increasing current temps. Without these adjustments, 1934 would still be the hottest year on record.

          These adjustments are considered invalid by the skeptics, who claim (probably correctly) that there has been no significant warming since around 1998. Conveniently for the alarmists, these adjustments eliminate the embarrassing pause and bring the data more in line with the models, which have proven extremely inaccurate without manipulation of the data. It’s tempting to believe that this manipulation is intentionally fraudulent. I suspect it is better explained by irrational fervor and confirmation bias. Climate alarmists behave like religious fanatics, if evidence (data) contradicts their faith, then the data must be wrong.

          Whatever the reason for the adjustments, one thing is unquestionably true, the claim of 95% certainty is incompatible with the continual manipulation of the data.

          Kind Regards,
          Jeremy

            • Hi Brent,

              I’ve seen that before. However, many prominent skeptics accept the warming up until 1998. But, then came the “pause”, which prompted the alarmists into offering a slew of theories as to where the heat was “hiding”. When that didn’t work, recent adjustments to the record erased the pause. I don’t know who is correct but I’m pretty sure that the dominant view among skeptics is that the pre 1998 warming trend was real.

              I don’t think we disagree about much. Our posts have been quite in line on this topic over the years.

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

              • They accept it because they arguing politically without looking at actual measurements and what the “authorities” are doing with it.

                There were some warm years in the 1990s but they didn’t even peak over the 1930s.

                • Hi Brent,

                  I don’t think that Tim Ball, John Christie, Patrick Michaels, Willie Soon, Judith Currie, Anthony Watts, Steve Macintyre, Ross Mcitrick, Christopher Monckton, etc… are arguing politically. And they certainly look at actual measurements and are very concerned with what the “authorities” are doing with it.

                  I am well aware that the 30’s were hotter than the 90’s through now. But, that doesn’t mean there was no warming in the last century. The point being made by most skeptics is that the little warming that has occurred (at least according to them) is neither aberrant not dangerous. And that increased CO2 levels will not produce the catastrophic, runaway global warming feared by the alarmists.

                  Jeremy

                  • The ‘respectable’ skeptics will concede certain things to be respectable. And before we knew what the government climate scientists were up to many people did go along with that. The problem is we know more now, we know there is no warming without the adjustments and estimates.

                    It snowed today, april 15th. It didn’t snow this late even in the ‘ice age is coming’ years in the 1970s here.

                    Once summer eventually comes we will again be told it is the warmest year on record. And it will be after estimates and adjustments.

                    • mid-to-high 20s here with snow that was able to stick to cars and pavement.

                      I don’t recall ever needing a snow brush this time of year.

                      Warmest year on record. Count on it.

                    • Hi Brent,

                      I’ve been reluctant to respond to this as I agree with almost all of what you’ve written about climate change hysteria. However, your implication that “respectable” skeptics have gone along with what they know to be untrue because they want to be respectable needs to be challenged.
                      First, as far as alarmists are concerned, “respectable” skeptics do not exist. The alarmists dismiss all skeptics as deniers. Second, these skeptics have suffered damage to their careers and reputations by challenging the dominant narrative. All of them could have enjoyed a more lucrative career and more accolades if they had supported the CAGW hypothesis. So, why would they succumb, on this one point, to gain respectability?

                      Your assertion that no warming occurred during the 20th century seems to be based on one paper by Steven Goddard. I do not claim to know who is correct. However I think it is unfair to those skeptics who do not accept his conclusions to be accused of merely seeking respectability.

                      As to your last point, I have written numerous posts describing the meaningless of “hottest year on record” claims made by the alarmists.

                      It is not necessary to insist that no warming occurred in the 20th century to challenge the claims of the alarmists. While I remain open to the possibility that Goddard’s conclusion is correct, claims of certainty should be viewed with skepticism, no matter who makes them.

                      Kind Regards,
                      Jeremy

                    • Hmm… I checked again… I didn’t write they know it to be untrue. I have no idea what they know. Once upon a time we all conceded to the adjusted record, but we know more now, but I don’t know if they know.

                      Also, there are many libertarians who try to be “respectable” despite the left hating them all no matter what. The same is true in any field.

                      Concessions are made to keep a career alive even with taking damaging stands.

                      Also I didn’t say no warming occurred in the 20th century. There were warming periods in the 20th century and the 20th century I believe was a net rise in temperature. However we are now almost 1/5 the way through the 21st century now and the trend of measurements is not warming in the surface record, at least in the USA and some other places. It now takes an expert to show warming.

                      We’ve gotten to the point where today’s adjusted record is outside the error bars of years past or vice versa. Something is amiss. I’ve been following this subject on and off since the 1990s. In the 1990s the data was supposed to be accurate. Today it’s rife with error and needs to have the true nature teased out of it. What’s different? The 1990s were the end of one of the warming segments in the 20th century. So for the 1990s the measurements worked fine. 20+ years later well, things need adjustment.

                      As to Tony Heller, he does data analysis that tests what NASA etc are doing. Comparing before and after adjustments for instance. We can all do that if we want to put in the time. It’s public. We can grab the files ourselves from the keepers of them.

                      One thing Tony Heller does is compare yesterday’s climate scientists to today’s. Often they are the same people. That’s the most damning thing really, and it goes with the adjustments. Just keep track of what they do and it is apparent what is going on.

                    • Hi Brent,

                      “… we know there is no warming without the adjustments and estimates.” I see your point. I misinterpreted the above as saying that no warming occurred.

                      Once again, I agree with almost all of what you say. I am well aware of the adjustments to the temperature record and that, without them, no significant warming has occurred in the 21st century.

                      I said that your statement, “‘respectable’ skeptics will concede certain things to be respectable” implied that some skeptics were going along with what they knew to be untrue. I think that is a valid interpretation, but I’m happy to learn that was not your intent.

                      I agree with all that you have written about the adjustments. That these are downplayed by the alarmists is a red flag. And, as I said before, whatever the validity of the adjustments, they do show that the level of certainty is far less than claimed by the alarmist community and the IPCC.

                      Kind Regards,
                      Jeremy

      • The founder of Greenpeace made an interesting observation while delivering a speech announcing his resignation. He pointed out that if the Industrial Revolution hadn’t occurred, it would have been less than 50,000 years before all life would have become extinct due to CO2 levels being too low.

        What was interesting about what he said was that it was as if the earth produced humanity as a mechanism to keep life balanced on the earth. In a nutshell, he pointed out that the earth is self regulating and doesn’t need us to meddle or fiddle with greenhouse gas levels.

  7. I suspect the fundamental problem in today’s society is not cars, with whatever the emissions, but too many humans. Pretty well everyone needs food, shelter, and mobility to get around easily, which usually means jobs with some practical means of personal transportation. But the fact is there’s a finite limit to the natural resources of this planet and their ability to sustain life as we know it (just ask the former inhabitants of Easter Island what happened there). For anyone who cares to look, more and more canaries are dying. I say sooner or later, we’ll be fuct! Nature always finds a way.

    • Mankind will die before the Earth’s natural resources will run out. The limit of natural resources is only a question about technology.

      • Hi David,

        I’ve been a full-time car journalist for pushing 30 years. All those years – and before, while I was a kid – I kept reading and hearing that we are on the verge of “peak oil,” that we’re going to run out… soon.

        And yet, the cost of oil (gasoline) is lower today than it was 30 years ago, in real terms. Despite an at least doubling of worldwide demand.

        There is clearly plenty of oil – and probably for a long, long time to come. Harmful vehicle exhaust emissions are nearly nil, too.

        This is driving the collectivist left batty. So they came up with the “climate change” line as their new way to attack what they can’t stand – which is our freedom to get around inexpensively and easily.

        • I’m not sure there is such a thing as “peak oil”, since recovery techniques are so much better than ever before. I do know(1)multiple holes in known structure are drilled from the same place and (2)as many as 24 holes are drilled from a single location. It takes about $1M per hole to complete and this will cover a large area in taking oil from the ground, regardless of the source of oil or if it does or doesn’t recover. I only participate and see the results. I do know since last year when the law was repealed to allow US oil to be sold out of this country there is a big effort to extract and sell to foreign countries as much oil as possible(profits). Kinder Morgan built a new fleet of double hulled tankers..in the US so they could use them to ship to mainly Europe.

          There is a “supersite” near Garden City, Tx. that’s so big it has 65 wells drilled on one site. And yes, I participated in creating many of those sites. Whether or not oil regenerates, we’re about to find out in the next few years if it does or does not. Till then I’ll be doing my part in bringing up Texas Tea. I smell, every day, all day long, what many call the smell of money. True enough, it just ain’t my money…..dammit.

          • The real shame is that the government gives up “public” owned resources for pennies on the dollar. If the government did only what it was supposed to and managed those lands for public benefit I think calculation would show that there would be little to no taxation necessary. Well maybe not now, but if they had done it since the 19th century at the very least. There’s no good reason why government in this country couldn’t have reached a self sustaining financial condition by the 1950s.

            We should be living tax free by now.

    • Hi Steve,

      The interesting thing about the “too many humans” line is those who trot it out never seem to include themselves in that grouping. Nor – when it comes to advocating for “sacrifices” – accepting such themselves.

      The “climate change” thing is a shibboleth. It is socialism repackaged – very cleverly, I admit.

      • Maybe the Elon Musks of the world don’t include themselves in that grouping
        but a lot of us ordinary mortals do. Dammit even China with it billion plus people had a 1 child policy for years because its leaders saw its population would become unsustainable, not considering the possibility of ending up with an oversupply of males. As for the “climate change” thing, well if polar bears could talk…

        https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513

        • Hi Steve,

          It ought to trouble any reasonable, logical, fair-minded person that the people pushing this use the term, “climate change” – which is a purposefully vague, all-encompassing term. It’s getting warmer? The climate is changing! Colder? The climate is changing!

          But – so what?

          The climate changes – naturally. Has since the Earth first had a climate, billions of years ago.

          The questions in need of a specific answer are:

          Is the climate changing unnaturally?

          How?

          Why?

          “Climate change” and the associated loaded terms (e.g., “denier) are transparently non-scientific, meant to browbeat people. Not describe verifiable facts.

          • Hi Eric

            Of course climate change is an ongoing fact throughout geologic history and no climatologist would ever deny that. So, yes, it’s natural in that sense. What they are pointing out is the overall global rate of climate change the planet since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The effects of climate change that occurred over spans of 1000s of years in the geologic past are now being measured over 100s of years, or less. At least what’s what the data from multiple sources is telling them.

            • Hi Steve,

              Yes, but that data has been cherry picked (and data which contradicts the agenda left out).

              To return to the question at hand, though: Doesn’t it bother you that such a demagogic term has been chosen? “Climate change” is purposely vague; whatever occurs can be described as “climate change” – which is political science, not science.

              They had problems with “global warming,” for obvious reasons. It was too precise a term. Too scientific. People began to ask questions when the globe cooled instead, contrary to the predictions.

              Hence “climate change.”

              Ask yourself: If “climate change” is a real danger, which threatens us all, how come the government is not doing anything meaningful to curb its “carbon footprint”? What is the “carbon footprint” of just one F18 flying around for an hour? I suspect it emits more C02 than every SUV in my county does in a month. Why doesn’t the Dear Leader drive an electric car?

              Have you noticed that whenever a “danger” threatens that “requires sacrifices” it’s always us that is doing the sacrificing – never them?

              It is exactly like “gun control” – which is about taking away our guns. But not the government’s guns.

            • “The effects of climate change that occurred over spans of 1000s of years in the geologic past are now being measured over 100s of years, or less. ”

              They simply are not. For two reasons. First a study of past records shows that really nothing exciting is happening climate wise compared to the known past. Two things like the changes of the younger dryas reduce “climate change” to a level somewhere below noise.

              • Exactly correct Brent….but some things climate changers leave out is the sudden climate change starting in the late 1200’s and continuing into the 1600’s.

                So what brought that mini-ice age on? Oh, they don’t even know enough history to know OF it….but it was all too real for the people living during that time.

                Last year we had the largest, by far, sun event since we’ve been keeping track of such. It was a real game changer and nobody who wants to use climate change for some nefarious purpose will even acknowledge it.

                Everything that’s happened climate wise has had old Sol doing it’s thing but most people don’t pay a bit of attention to that, the most powerful force the earth comes under. Gravity anyone? What you talkin bout Willis?

                • More like 400 years of temperature measurement ability, but that does not matter is there are reliable proxy records. The problem with proxy records is that they don’t show what warmists want to show. For instance Briffa’s tree ring paper diverges from the official surface temperature record so they trim the data and paste the official adjusted surface temperature record to it.

                  Just one thing though, the actual measurements agree with the tree rings.

                  I have yet to see proof of something scary that doesn’t involve some sort of subjective analysis, method, whathaveyou.

      • Has there ever been any studies pertaining to rising Earth temperatures being caused by more living things being on Earth ? for instance if you take a cold room and put 20 people in it wouldn’t the rooms temperature increase ?

        • I’ve long considered it an error not consider the ‘waste’ heat of human civilization when making arguments on the order of 0.01C where people live. Also the official adjustment for UHI is very small while anyone who has experienced the change between even so much as a suburban neighborhood and an open field knows the difference can be 10 degrees F or more at times.

        • Hi KT,

          Not to my knowledge. But logic says that in terms of the immediate environment, certainly the temperature goes up as more living things occupy the space. For example, imagine a small, closed room in which a dozen people are standing. Their body heat (and exhalation) will almost certainly cause the air in the room to be noticeably warmer than it would be if the room were empty.

          But what if the windows are open? What if there is lots of airflow? Then the difference in temp would likely be much less noticeable, if noticeable at all.

          My main issue with “climate change” is its lack of specificity. That sets off alarm bells for me, because science is very specific. If the claim is that the earth’s temperature is warming unusually (relative to known trends) then that can be quantified (or not) and some conclusions drawn – or dismissed. But when people speak of “climate change,” they are speaking of nothing in particular.

          Any “change” relative to static is (somehow) taken as evidence of an unnatural change. But the climate isn’t static. It changes constantly and naturally. To speak of “climate change” is meaningless and dishonest at the same time.

          • You broke the code, Eric: “Climate change” is a perfectly natural process that the earth has been undergoing since its beginning.

            I’ve been hearing environmentalist lies since those control freaks came out of the woodwork into the public eye 50 years ago. They frighten people, particularly the young, into believing that “Something Must Be Done Right Now!” — that “something” of course involving massive government expansion and intervention into our personal lives.

            Not to mention that part and parcel of the enviro-statists’ pitch is that that THEY will control the earth’s climate by forcing US to drive electric pregnant roller skates (if they let us drive at all) and pushing the proles into the “proper” green lifestyle. Their attitude just drips of the hubris that comes with believing that government is the ultimate power in the universe and will control nature.

            • Hi Jason,

              Fear mongering can be very profitable, just look at Paul Ehrlich. Despite a lifetime of false predictions, beginning with the population bomb, he has become a very wealthy man peddling his Malthusian claptrap. Every single catastrophic prediction he made proved spectacularly wrong. But, he’s still taken seriously and people pay to hear him talk. He’s like the Bill Kristol of the left, being wrong about everything never hurts him. Maybe because, whether he knows it or not, he and Kristol actually serve the same masters

              Environmental hysteria is also deadly. Everyone knows the great mass murderers of history, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Missing from this list is Rachel Carson. Her hysterical, scientifically invalid crusade against DDT has led to over 50 million deaths (second only to Mao). It was well known at the time that this would be the outcome of banning DDT, but most of the carnage would take place over there in the dark part of the world. Which clearly matters less than allaying the irrational fears of privileged tree-hugging busy bodies in the west.

              Environmentalism has a dark past, obsessed with eugenics and the culling of the human herd to achieve a “better” world. The almost comic irony of the useful fools who parrot the looming climate change catastrophe narrative is that most of them are leftist SJW types who are so obsessed with racism that they see it in simple questions like, “where are you from”? Yet, they are advocating an agenda that is perhaps the most blatant and destructive example of “white-privilege” the world has ever seen.

              https://www.corbettreport.com/what-is-sustainable-development/

              Note: IMO, white-privilege is nonsense. The term is used to distract the masses from noticing “elite-privilege” and to keep the races bickering with each other instead of noticing their common enemy.

              Jeremy

    • Hi Steve. The problem is not too many people, but too much government and cronyism. We are not even close to maximum real food growing capacity yet. Here is some information about square foot and vertical gardening: https://www.planetnatural.com/square-foot-gardening/
      There also exists 32 million square kilometers of desert that can be greened. The following wiki page explains desert greening, and many of the methods listed could also be used to improve present agricultural land and vastly increase our supply of fresh water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_greening
      The pollution of our air, water, and soil committed by government and its cronies are legitimate concerns though. Examples include factory farming, (tightly) confined animal and poultry operations, fertilizer run-off, ground water pollution, and so fourth.

      • Brian, you don’t need to do anything with the desert, just change what govt. subsidizes(more cronyism). Of the 5 largest cotton growing states, Texas is by far the largest producer. It could just about feed the world by itself.

        I once worked for the USDA(never again…talk about cronyism and not being able to criticize any part of govt…..sheesh) I gathered stats and inspected farms and drew maps showing what grew where.

        You might think govt. really gave a shit but what it came down to was figuring out, for the likes of those immoral non-producers of Wall Street, where the next year’s best investment would be….and of course it was plotted into the future as far as something like farming can be…..which can change quite literally like the wind.

  8. Hmmmm.. maybe its time to resurrect that old V 12 Flathead Lincoln out in the barn. The one with the tri-carb setup sitting atop the mill.

    Eeedjits.

    Of course, something like a Morgan Plus Four with the 1600 CC Coventry Climax in Stage Three tune would likely be faster AND burn far less fuel.

    Sigh.. I guess, value being a consideration, both of those are out fo reach financially. So I’ll have to settle for the ’71 Volvo 145 with the B 20 engine. Its currently got the Bosch K Jetronic FI system on it, they never did get much in way of fuel economy. But I can always put four nickels in to plug the holes where the injectors now sit, and hang a pair of SU HS 6 carburetters on an old manifold. Should get me about 40 MPG at a nice brisk cruise. And hey, what can they SAY, its still ONLY two litres displacement. Probably makes less smog than the new ones they’re forcing down our throats. And we KNOW it will outlast any of their new things by at least double. No backuo camera, ATP system, no Cataclysmic Pervertor, not even a Confuser to try and tell the fuel feed system what to do. Oh, and it does not even have seatbelt warning lights, and no one had yet thought up the catastrophe of airbags. Four wheel vacuum boosted disc brakes, with dual circuit,

  9. I have a non emissions v8 diesel from the 80s.they can suck it. You know what’s next though once co2 is considered a poison. Too many people on earth breathing out co2—must ‘reduce’ the population.

  10. Easy. Tow a Greenhouse with your “Liberty Garden” planted in it to filter out the new Mind Bender offender gas. Just attach a hose to the tailpipe and insert to the Greenhouse. Note: Solar panels may cause a reduced efficiency of your garden if placed on top of your Greenhouse.

    Makes about as much sense, and I’m not even getting paid for the idea.

    • Makes as much sense as banning petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Click the link to see how easily people are willing to ban a “pollutant, dihydrogen monoxide. Penn and Teller’s sent a petition to do just that at an Earth First conference. Yup, dihydrogen monoxide is H20. https://youtu.be/yi3erdgVVTw

      • Hi Larry,

        Yup. The “climate change” thing is easy to sell to a generation of ignoramuses and neurotics, conditioned to be in Constant Fear of Threats to Their Safety.

  11. It’s starting to seem like the old ‘mad max’ movie was right. “Is that a V8?” Like it was the rarest thing in their world.
    Glad I got mine. Hope it last till I die…………

    • The iron block V8 in my truck will be the last vehicle I ever own. Buying new is too much debt slavery and too much garbage feminist crap that I don’t want in my vehicle.

    • Hi Chris,

      Yes, it is.

      Big Mad Max (Original) fan… and I have “the last of the V8 Interceptors” in my garage… along with the Goose’s Kaw!

      • I have the last of the 7.3 turbo diesels in my garage, along with a modified 350 with a carburetor and manual choke. Nothing like the smell of sweet unburned gasoline on a cold the morning to take you back to a better, vanished time.

        • Amen, Guerrero…

          Remember the second Night Owl from the Watchmen graphic novel asking the Comedian: What happened to the American Dream? He replies: It came true; you’re looking at it.

LEAVE A REPLY