In reply to mtn:
After figuring out chocolate milk did you read Chicken Little?
In reply to mtn:
After figuring out chocolate milk did you read Chicken Little?
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to mtn: After figuring out chocolate milk did you read Chicken Little?
Don't be so harsh. Many people tend to follow the alarmist philosphy because they're wired that way. I'm wired to be the skeptic. TO ignore both sides of any equation puts you into an echo chamber of silliness. I like to think that here at GRM we have the opportunity to see all sides of any topic. Whether we make decisions and opinions based off other's viewpoints or we stick with our own is a purely personal matter.
While I don't agree with the alarmist take on things, I also don't agree with the rose tinted glasses version either. BUT.... until we get the rest of the world on board, there is only so much we as a nation can do to slow the current trend of "scorched earth" policy places like China have adopted.
The other thing that annoys me is the hypocrisy of the greenies about creating energy. Dams are bad because they might displace a 2 toed purple frog. Nukes can't be used, ever. But solar and wind are not enough to provide all the power we as a country consume. So by stamping their feet int protest of cheaper, less environmentally harmful energy solutions they are continuing to force us to use the dirtier options.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to mtn: After figuring out chocolate milk did you read Chicken Little?
Which version? Chicken Little? Henny Penny? Chicken Licken? The one with the happy ending for brave birds or the one where the fox eats them? Even the moral lessons of my childhood had different stories based on who the teller was.
Mmmmm... chicken. Time for lunch!
In reply to Bobzilla:
Yeah, came across harsher than intended. I was raised a skeptic-the "sky is falling" approach is pretty much the quickest way to get me to argue with you. (You should suddenly feel bad for doing something that was normal yesterday comes in a close second).
In reply to Huckleberry:
We were read the nice ones when we were little and Grimms were on the bookcase for when we started searching out reading material on our own.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to mtn: After figuring out chocolate milk did you read Chicken Little?
Not sure when, or if, I ever read it, but I do know what it is about. I'm not sure how it applies here--this is among the worst imaginable choices to head the EPA that I can realistically imagine. I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but jeebers, this guy makes me look like one.
dculberson wrote:bluebarchetta wrote: I am for any political appointment that allows me to enjoy automobiles and motorcycles as freely and inexpensively as possible, regardless of any real or imaginary threat to the environment. Can't wait to log back on here tomorrow morning - to a site called Grassroots Motorsports - and read about how misinformed, ignorant, and selfish I am for wanting unfettered access to participate in grassroots motorsports.I just love how reasoned and informed your opinion is, and how you spend so much time supporting it with in depth information. I am interested in motorsports and do a bit of racing and a lot of wrenching. But I'm also aware of its impact and am not so blind as to think that the only important thing in the world is my hobby and my "free and inexpensive" access to it.
This. I can get new hobbies, I won't be so selfish as to want global policies dictated to my personal whims.
Were it that elected and appointed officials would similarly put global good over personal benefit.
Bobzilla wrote: ...While I don't agree with the alarmist take on things, I also don't agree with the rose tinted glasses version either. BUT.... until we get the rest of the world on board, there is only so much we as a nation can do to slow the current trend of "scorched earth" policy places like China have adopted...
And this MIGHT be a bright side to this guy. Strangling our industry / economy to try and and make up for the rest of the dirty world could screw us in the long run (while the "cheaters" get ahead). Instead, hitting the "gas", using what we need now to get to the more advanced energy generation and use technologies as fast as possible might be better tactic.
As a note, and as I have mentioned before: Say what you like about the absurdity of CARB (and I certainly understand and relate to much of it), it has done WONDERS for the air in Los Angeles. Something that absolutely would not have happened if left to industry and the populace.
most appropriate comment about appointee..
aircooled wrote: And this MIGHT be a bright side to this guy. Strangling our industry / economy to try and and make up for the rest of the dirty world could screw us in the long run (while the "cheaters" get ahead). Instead, hitting the "gas", using what we need now to get to the more advanced energy generation and use technologies as fast as possible might be better tactic.
There's not a lot of making-up the US can do, the US is the No. 2 CO2 emitter as a country (after China) and No. 12 per-capita. Also this guy doesn't want to hit the gas towards solving any energy problems. He just wants to make doing business in the fossil fuel industry cheaper.
Side note: WTF are they doing in Trinidad & Tobago? 
mtn wrote:Bobzilla wrote: My #1 problem with most of the EPA/Green left and all is the inability to get unbiased, non-politically driven data. The studies are funded by grants, given out by people with an agenda. If you don't think that has an impact, you're more naive than I thought. I'm of the belief that we do need to be as environmentally friendly as we can. The problem is, there are so many people that have different ideas of what that means. not to mention the reality that things we did yesterday to help, actually made things worse (60's and 70's emissions regulations for instance) and the ever changing goal-posts of what is deemed "bad". Look, my father was taught (in the 60's) that we were headed for a global ice age in 50 years, and that by the year 2000 the world's population would be 15 billion and there would be no resources left for human kind. That all the polution we were putting into the air would cause the sun to dim, cooling the planet killing off vegetation. Now we're told the opposite.We're told the opposite because we have more information now than we did before. We learned. When I was 4, I thought that chocolate milk came from brown cows. Then I learned that it comes from regular milk and chocolate syrup. Because I was wrong before doesn't mean I'm wrong now. Actually, we're not told the opposite. We're told the same--we need to reduce carbon emissions. The result is different.
From my prospective, being wrong in the past does matter. Wherever you are on the continuum from climate change denier to someone that drives a car powered by Spotted Owl farts, it all comes down to a cost / benefit analysis…the cost side is fairly easy to estimate but the benefit side is far more complex. The same agencies that (in the not too distant past) got it totally wrong, are the one’s producing the estimated benefits we’re using today…how could an objective individual not discount their claims at least to some extent as a result of this.
In no way am I suggesting that we should throw up our hands and walk away from this due to the challenges associated with characterizing the cause and effect relationship between human activity and climate change. However, my support (and by extension, the support of a big percent of the U.S. population) is contingent on being honest.
Q: What is the tipping point?
A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval.
Q: What is the rate that we’re approaching the tipping point?
A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval.
Q: For each $1,000 the average American spends per year protecting the planet, what will the net effect be?
A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval.
A lot of people, myself included, essentially make a career out of dealing with uncertainty…I’m an applied statistician but meteorologist and many others basically get paid to do the same thing; manage chaos.
I’m looking for an honest acknowledgement that’s there’s a metric E36 M3 load of uncertainty here. The ramifications of getting this wrong are incredibly high and they’re irreversible based on current technological constraints so the wise course is to play it safe in terms of protecting the planet.
Having said that, pompous, definitive proclamations are a huge turnoff to me…I see this as a drive to jump over the analysis phase and go straight to the execution phase as the proponents know our lack of understanding will be revealed if we spend much time in the analysis phase.
aircooled wrote:Bobzilla wrote: ...While I don't agree with the alarmist take on things, I also don't agree with the rose tinted glasses version either. BUT.... until we get the rest of the world on board, there is only so much we as a nation can do to slow the current trend of "scorched earth" policy places like China have adopted...And this MIGHT be a bright side to this guy. Strangling our industry / economy to try and and make up for the rest of the dirty world could screw us in the long run (while the "cheaters" get ahead). Instead, hitting the "gas", using what we need now to get to the more advanced energy generation and use technologies as fast as possible might be better tactic. As a note, and as I have mentioned before: Say what you like about the absurdity of CARB (and I certainly understand and relate to much of it), it has done WONDERS for the air in Los Angeles. Something that absolutely would not have happened if left to industry and the populace.
Hi.. China is coming off coal, fast. the whole finger pointing at china will probably end in 3 yearsish as they reduce try hard to reduce emissions.
RX Reven' wrote: Q: What is the tipping point? A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval. Q: What is the rate that we’re approaching the tipping point? A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval. Q: For each $1,000 the average American spends per year protecting the planet, what will the net effect be? A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval.
I think the idea of setting a "tipping point" (we all know about the 2C one) was a very bad one. There is no real tipping point, just a continuum of damage made of many tiny tipping points. 2C was set around a cluster of smaller tipping points but it doesn't mean much. The idea of a "tipping point" also creates a "might as well give up, the damage is done" point which is an incredibly dangerous falsehood.
RX Reven' wrote: I’m looking for an honest acknowledgement that’s there’s a metric E36 M3 load of uncertainty here. The ramifications of getting this wrong are incredibly high and they’re irreversible based on current technological constraints so the wise course is to play it safe in terms of protecting the planet.
Around a single "tipping point," absolutely. But how are the ramifications of getting it wrong high or irreversible? Reversing action towards addressing climate change is all too easy and affordable as we're about to see. Playing it safe in terms of protecting the planet would actually mean more aggressive environmental policies. Right now we're playing it safe for business and fast and loose with the only habitable planet in sight.
GameboyRMH wrote:RX Reven' wrote: Q: What is the tipping point? A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval. Q: What is the rate that we’re approaching the tipping point? A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval. Q: For each $1,000 the average American spends per year protecting the planet, what will the net effect be? A: Unknown but here’s our current best point estimate and a 90% confidence interval.I think the idea of setting a "tipping point" (we all know about the 2C one) was a very bad one. There is no real tipping point, just a continuum of damage made of many tiny tipping points. 2C was set around a cluster of smaller tipping points but it doesn't mean much. The idea of a "tipping point" also creates a "might as well give up, the damage is done" point which is an incredibly dangerous falsehood.RX Reven' wrote: I’m looking for an honest acknowledgement that’s there’s a metric E36 M3 load of uncertainty here. The ramifications of getting this wrong are incredibly high and they’re irreversible based on current technological constraints so the wise course is to play it safe in terms of protecting the planet.Around a single "tipping point," absolutely. But how are the ramifications of getting it wrong high or *irreversible?* Reversing action towards addressing climate change is all too easy and affordable as we're about to see. Playing it safe in terms of protecting the planet would actually mean more aggressive environmental policies. Right now we're playing it safe for business and fast and loose with the only habitable planet in sight.
No, no, no, we’re on the same page Gameboy…I mean playing it safe the same way you do.
Added later…
I do think there is a single, discrete tipping point (as defined by a non-linear relationship between GHG’s and GMT). We already know that at some point, we’ll have a runaway liberation of sequestered methane.
That’s one tipping point that we know about…how many others are there (unknown)…at what GMT do they go off (unknown).
Also, I don’t think that “might as well give up, the damage is done” is necessarily dangerous or a falsehood. Look, people want me to part with my money and freedom in the name of protecting the planet. Awesome, I’m on-board with that but I require total, brutal, naked honesty…that’s not at all too much to ask.
If we’re hosed, so be it, bring it on, let’s deal with the truth…I have no interest in parting with my money / freedom to support a bunch of ideological spin drivel. I make ~four times the median U.S. household income…one thing we know with absolute certainty is that I will be handed the bill for this…I’m on-board but do not B.S. me…those are my terms.
Bobzilla wrote: My #1 problem with most of the EPA/Green left and all is the inability to get unbiased, non-politically driven data. The studies are funded by grants, given out by people with an agenda. If you don't think that has an impact, you're more naive than I thought. I'm of the belief that we do need to be as environmentally friendly as we can. The problem is, there are so many people that have different ideas of what that means. not to mention the reality that things we did yesterday to help, actually made things worse (60's and 70's emissions regulations for instance) and the ever changing goal-posts of what is deemed "bad". Look, my father was taught (in the 60's) that we were headed for a global ice age in 50 years, and that by the year 2000 the world's population would be 15 billion and there would be no resources left for human kind. That all the polution we were putting into the air would cause the sun to dim, cooling the planet killing off vegetation. Now we're told the opposite.
Bob, What you say is true for the Green left just as it is for the very non green right. There is heavy bias in the fringes.
But that's not how the EPA works- they are required, by law, to do very extensive research, understand both the environmental AND economic impact of a rule, and then are guided by that. The recent CO2 rules were born of a lawsuit that convinced the SCOTUS that something needed to be done- so it was done. Right now, there's a mid term review going on to see if the OEM's are making progress or not on that rule- if so, stay on track, if not, we deviate the rule- that is baked in.
The only reason you see them being biased is that you don't agree with the conclusion. Which is pretty common. Are there studies that are tinged with agendas? Sure- both the oil burners and the global warmists do that. Do I know 100% how the EPA decided? Other than doing their own study, I don't.
bigdaddylee82 wrote: On the automotive side of things, I'd much prefer the EPA to stop blindly adopting CARB's standards, do their own damn research, and help set standards applicable to individual states, or the US as a whole, not just accepting one state's rules as gospel.
Do you have an example of that? Or are you just reading into the LEVIII/Tier3 tea leaves?
LEVII and Tier 2 were very different standards. CO2 rules are not part of CARB what so ever. And actually, LEVIII and Tier 3 are different, too- it's just that we are given the option to be LEVIII over 50 states to be good enough. They DID their research and concluded that having a fleet of SULEV30 average was a good thing.
BTW, for those who want state control over their auto emissions rules- that would be 100% insane for the people who make the cars. It's bad enough dealing with CARB/Green States and the EPA, I can't even imagine having more than two sets of rules to sell cars for. Let alone that states have impact on other state's air quality. Air does not stop at borders.
I'd personally like to see one emissions standard across the country, as well as a massive limit on the kinds of fuel blends that are seen across the country- that will help air quality and fuel economy at the same time.
aircooled wrote: As a note, and as I have mentioned before: Say what you like about the absurdity of CARB (and I certainly understand and relate to much of it), it has done WONDERS for the air in Los Angeles. Something that absolutely would not have happened if left to industry and the populace.
It was even worse in the gold rush days when everyone used coal and fire for light. Building a city in a bowl, and then expecting clean air is hilarious.
bigdaddylee82 wrote: Coming from the agricultural side of things, I'm cautiously optimistic, that this appointment is the best chance to see a death to EPA's power grab with their "technical" change to the definition of Waters of the US. On the automotive side of things, I'd much prefer the EPA to stop blindly adopting CARB's standards, do their own damn research, and help set standards applicable to individual states, or the US as a whole, not just accepting one state's rules as gospel.
I just want the next phase of regulations to go into effect so we can have a serious conversation about removing CARB and stopping California from having such an out-sized impact on the rest of the US (Tier 4? AlfaDriver mentioned it to me at one point in one of these threads when I was bitching about CARB.) Competing standards have their place but I'd rather have a unified standard as it saves a lot of time, money, and grief for everyone.
Then again I complain about a lot of things and then change my tune when presented with actual information. I'm more than happy to keep my emissions equipment intact but I also don't want to be answering questions about why I have blue silicon couplers for my intercooler rather than the factory black rubber ones. Or an argument about what constitutes an "or aftermarket equivalent" for other parts.
I think what's disapointing is that even within not very green industries there are lots of people employed doing things to make them more green.
I work in the natural gas utility industry. Leaks are bad for the environment, but they are also bad from a safety and efficiency standpoint. Regulations that require pipeline operators to do more maintenance, be more efficient, etc, are good for my position, even if they aren't great for the profit of the company.
In the end, I don't care about how profitable the company is if it suddenly decides it doesn't need me because it no longer has regulations that justify my position.
I'd rather have a sustainable-but-low profit margin and keep my job, my community, and my environment safe than get slightly better return on my company stock.
Ross413 wrote: In reply to ProDarwin:Ok, not "minor league", but, we are a major league nation blind folding ourselves to what we are supporting outside of our borders...
So if your neighbor murders his wife and you just beat yours, it makes it okay?
(BTW not implying any domestic violence is occuring, just using the analogy)
In reply to captdownshift:
More like your neighbor, and his neighbors all kill their wives and then their neighbors and their wives while you stopped beating your wife and merely yell at her now (US starting to trend down while rest of the world is trending up like a hot air balloon on meth).
In reply to Bobzilla:
In the true spirit of lies, damn lies and statistics, I'd like to blame the increase in the rest of the world's CO2 levels on 9/11
The earth has been warming for centuries even before mankind existed.
Lowering the CO2 level "might" slow it.
The year I was born the earth was in a hot spell, then it cooled and we had artic temperatures. January 1970 the temperature hardly rose above zero F.
So yes, I am a bit of a skeptic.
The0retical wrote:bigdaddylee82 wrote: Coming from the agricultural side of things, I'm cautiously optimistic, that this appointment is the best chance to see a death to EPA's power grab with their "technical" change to the definition of Waters of the US. On the automotive side of things, I'd much prefer the EPA to stop blindly adopting CARB's standards, do their own damn research, and help set standards applicable to individual states, or the US as a whole, not just accepting one state's rules as gospel.I just want the next phase of regulations to go into effect so we can have a serious conversation about removing CARB and stopping California from having such an out-sized impact on the rest of the US (Tier 4? AlfaDriver mentioned it to me at one point in one of these threads when I was bitching about CARB.) Competing standards have their place but I'd rather have a unified standard as it saves a lot of time, money, and grief for everyone. Then again I complain about a lot of things and then change my tune when presented with actual information.
That's not going to happen. CARB will always exist in harmony with the EPA. CARB came first, and then the Feds stepped in, as I recall it. States are all allowed to choose between CARB or the EPA- which is why there are "green states" right now. CARB gets to legislate only what their charter says- which is why they can't regulate CO2- that was always part of CAFE- even though few know that (CAFE is mostly a CO2 standard).
But we are probably going to be given the choice of EPA or CARB on a federal level. So that's good. That will be Tier3.
That will still leave local areas to blend whatever fuels they want, which I really hate.
Even though people here complain that neither have to answer to anyone- there are mechanisms that are commonly used to make sure things don't get out of hand. For the last 15 or so years, the best thing is that CARB and the EPA have worked closely with most OEM's to develop the new plans- far more effective than suing.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
