What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

Karl · Jul 28, 2012

DVSentinel said:
[...] In your example above, both cars end up emitting 50ppm (parts per million), but both use more gas than at 100ppm and car 1 uses twice as much gas as car two per mile [...]

As point of fact, car 1 and car 2 could be using the same amount of gasoline per mile, or very close to it. A Corvette can get 26 MPG highway, a Cobalt will not get twice that amount (or anywhere close to twice -- actually it gets about 35). The difference in total emission is related to the amount of air that each engine is pumping through it... it appears that you don't understand your own argument:

The small engine produces, say, 1.9 liters of air per second with 50 ppm of pollutant.
The large engine produces, say, 5.7 liters of air per second with 50 ppm of pollutant.

5.7 liters of air is three times as much as 1.9 liters, so even though the ppm figure is the same, the larger engine has produced three times the total pollutant.

I thought that was your argument. In fact, I thought it wasn't all that bad; even though your conclusion was faulty

MoSurveyor · Jul 29, 2012

DVSentinel said:
Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.

Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.

Both of these are full of half truths and pseudo-science. Where did you get this stuff?

MoSurveyor · Jul 29, 2012

DVSentinel said:
LOL, in the early 1970s, there were "smog" pumps on automobiles. What they did was simply pump fresh atmoshere into the exhaust stream. When measured by parts per million, this of course caused the measurements to decrease, however, since it was introduced directly into the exhaust and not the combustion process, it actually did not change the total amound of pollutants being emitted.

:lamo More half truths/pseudo-science!

Adding O2 to hot exhaust gases continued combustion so that more fuel was oxidized. However, adding so much extra heat to the exhaust caused problems. The practice was replaced with catalytic converters.

DVSentinel said:
Wow, and some people wonder why people with common sense wouldn't trust the EPA and environmentalist backing them.

If your recent examples in this thread are any guide it's obvious these 'people' of whom you speak don't have any common sense and are in dire need of an education.

PrometheusBound · Jul 30, 2012

Catawba said:
I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the majority of scientists in the world are politically motivated. You might try the conspiracy forum. Its down the hall and to the right.

This is a useful debating weapon: anyone who suspects the motives of established authorities is a conspiracy nut. Was Machiavelli a conspiracy nut? What about George Orwell?

And who benefits by funding irrational accusations anyway? It makes those attacked look like victims of nutcases and leads people to trust only what they are told by self-appointed authorities in the mainstream.

PrometheusBound · Jul 30, 2012

Karl said:
So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?

"Clean" natural air is the most toxic of all. It is full of bacteria and viruses, which pollution kills. How many mass-murdering plagues have hit since auto "pollution"? The last, which killed over 20 million people, was in 1919, when car exhausts had not yet been prevalent enough to cleanse the air. Nature is not benevolent, those who worship it hate man's drive to overcome nature. "Mother Nature" is a childish cartoon fantasy.

Catawba · Jul 30, 2012

PrometheusBound said:
This is a useful debating weapon: anyone who suspects the motives of established authorities is a conspiracy nut. Was Machiavelli a conspiracy nut? What about George Orwell?

And who benefits by funding irrational accusations anyway? It makes those attacked look like victims of nutcases and leads people to trust only what they are told by self-appointed authorities in the mainstream.

The difference between a skeptic and a denier, is that a skeptic doesn't deny empirical evidence and a scientific consensus.

UtahBill · Jul 30, 2012

PrometheusBound said:
"Clean" natural air is the most toxic of all. It is full of bacteria and viruses, which pollution kills. How many mass-murdering plagues have hit since auto "pollution"? The last, which killed over 20 million people, was in 1919, when car exhausts had not yet been prevalent enough to cleanse the air. Nature is not benevolent, those who worship it hate man's drive to overcome nature. "Mother Nature" is a childish cartoon fantasy.

and what have YOU been breathing lately?:shock:

Karl · Jul 30, 2012

PrometheusBound said:
"Clean" natural air is the most toxic of all. [...]

Well then, I can only suggest the obvious -- stop breathing :2razz:

waas · Aug 1, 2012

PrometheusBound said:
"Clean" natural air is the most toxic of all. It is full of bacteria and viruses, which pollution kills. How many mass-murdering plagues have hit since auto "pollution"? The last, which killed over 20 million people, was in 1919, when car exhausts had not yet been prevalent enough to cleanse the air. Nature is not benevolent, those who worship it hate man's drive to overcome nature. "Mother Nature" is a childish cartoon fantasy.

Please tell me you're joking. That you have a basic awareness of climate and environmental science. That this ridiculous, bigoted post isn't representative of your actual views.:doh

UtahBill · Aug 1, 2012

waas said:
Please tell me you're joking. That you have a basic awareness of climate and environmental science. That this ridiculous, bigoted post isn't representative of your actual views.:doh

welcome to DP, and the dark side of it....:2razz:

What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

A balanced budget amendment

A line item veto amenndment

replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

Raise taxes on the rich

Raise taxes on the middle-class

Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

Cut federal spending

Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

other

More options

Karl

MoSurveyor

MoSurveyor

PrometheusBound

PrometheusBound

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

UtahBill

Karl

waas

UtahBill

What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

A balanced budget amendment

A line item veto amenndment

replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

Raise taxes on the rich

Raise taxes on the middle-class

Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

Cut federal spending

Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

other

Disappointed Evolutionist

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency