Catalytic converters, government policy and CO2.

[gsvol]

Let's Talk About Global Warming - Gate

The Global warming Scam was obviously created by a group of people who had something to gain. A LOT of money has been made by certain people in the right positions.

Our own Governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown has a personal vested interest in Global warming. You see, Moonbeams family owns rights to a patent on catalytic converters. Uncle Jerry and his family have made a LOT of money off of this Global Warming scam, dating clear back to the early 1970's.

The main function of a catalytic converter is to "convert" CO, (carbon MON-oxide), into CO2, ( Carbon DI-oxide) .

Here's a short quiz:

Do you know what type of gas your government says is the most dangerous "greenhouse gas", the one that is the main cause of Global Warming?

Yep. It's CO2.... Carbon Dioxide. The same gas that our new cars, with catalytic converters, produce in large quantities.

So, one question should be: WHY did our government make the car companies produce cars that make CO2, and then turn around and tell us that CO2 is BAD ??

---- Food for thought, my friends.

I am old enough to remember the T.V. commercials back in the early 1970's, put out by the Federal Government. They derailed Carbon Monoxide as being a "poisonous gas", killing thousands of people each year, causing all kinds of trouble for people with breathing problems, yada yada yada.... Then the commercials would turn to Carbon Dioxide, and you would see beautiful flowers and trees and rainbows in the sky, because plant just LOVE CO2. Plants breathe in CO2 and produce OXYGEN, so people have nice, clean, fresh, oxygen-rich air to breathe......... It all sounded so PERFECT !!

On these Government funded commercials, you definitely got the idea that by making our cars produce carbon DI-oxide instead of MON-oxide, we could make everything all better in our world.

Those commercials ran a lot back around 1971 and 1972, just before catalytic converters were FORCED upon us, by the Government. Car manufacturers had no choice, it was a Government mandate. The people had no choice, we just had to believe the flowery commercials they showed us.
------------------------

It's funny how they aren't telling us how GOOD CO2 is for plants anymore. According to our good and caring Government, there is NOTHING good about CO2 these days. I suspect even plants have rejected CO2 it at this point, if they listen to the drivel that is coming from Washington D.C.

But our newer cars produce huge amounts of CO2, as MANDATED by our good government.

Go figure......
-----------------------

Our Government, as I said earlier, beats us over the head for our CO2 emissions. They tell us we are killing the Earth with all of our fossil fuel burning. Nobody has come up with a better alternative to petroleum and we are still buying petroleum from our enemies and funding their terrorist operations, because we can't drill at home, so what is actually improving here?
-------------------------

Here's something your government doesn't want you to know:

One good-sized volcano eruption can produce more greenhouse gasses than a full year's worth of human activity. Your Good Government doesn't want you to know that. They like to keep their subjects nice and stupid, so we are easily manipulated......... It seems to be working.

Back in 1979, Jimmy Carter signed the Education Department to cabinet level status. This move was opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

However, many Liberals and Democrats see the department as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. --- you gotta love those TAX and SPEND Democrats --- The National Education Association supported the bill, while the American Federation of Teachers opposed it.

--- For the record, I believe the Republicans and the National Federation of Teachers were correct in opposing this behemoth that has cost this country so dearly.
-----------------------------

Since the inception of the Education Department, the Federal Government has done a great job of dumbing-down our students and indoctrinating them into the Government -controlled mind-set. For the last 35 plus years, we and our children have literally been subjected to Government control of our thinking. Nearly two full generations of dumbing-down and brainwashing have occurred.

So, we have a Government who forces catalytic converters upon us, knowing that those converters actually INCREASE Greenhouse gasses. Then, they establish an Education Department, to dumb everyone down and make us believe that everything our government does is for our own good.

The fact is that the most prestigious scientific group in the world, CERN, has informed us that CO2 has zero affect on global temperatures is, sadly, beside the point.

 

[TennTradition]

GS - The whole first part of this post, which seems to be the focus based on the title, is absolutely baseless. I'll try to explain why the entire argument doesn't make sense.

Catalytic converters serve two major purposes - to convert CO to CO2 and NOx (NO and NO2) to N2. They also give off water.

CO is poisonous while CO2 is only dangerous in locally high concentrations (near the tail pipe) if it displaces oxygen levels to the point that you aren't breathing in enough oxygen. Thus, there is a health advantage to converting CO to CO2.

Now, what about global warming impact? If there were no catalytic converters on cars, all the CO emitted would be converted to CO2 naturally in the atmosphere. So, a molecule of CO leaving the tailpipe would ultimately become a molecule of CO2 and therefore has at least as much greenhouse gas impact.

However, the truth is that CO is actually a stronger greenhouse gas (has a higher global warming potential, or GWP) than CO2 because not only does it ultimately become CO2, but it also is involved in other atmospheric chemistry that increases the global warming potential of other greenhouse gases. As a result, the GWP of CO is 3 times higher than that of CO2.

Thus, the argument that catalytic converters are some sort of government conspiracy to create more global warming that it can then turn around and regulate is completely baseless. Catalytic converters actually reduce the global warming impact of what is coming out of the tail pipe.

 

[DynamiteMcGhee]

Got factual up in here.

 

[milohimself]

I was going to rebuke the nonsense in the op but it looks like it's already been taken care of. Kudos on a concise explanation, rt

 

[Danl]

I was going to rebuke the nonsense in the op but it looks like it's already been taken care of. Kudos on a concise explanation, rt

That won't make a damn bit of difference to GS. He'll be back with 3 (count'em ...3) gifs and call rt a liar and doubt his ancestry and his mental facilities. This will, of course, reverse and/or neutralize any of the heretofore reliable physics involved in Co or CO2. Well, it will in the GS universe.

Oh, it will be further documented that radical Mooselimbs invented catalytic converters.

 

[rmsmith]

4 posts in here, 2 are lulz. Well done.

 

[volinreallife]

GS - The whole first part of this post, which seems to be the focus based on the title, is absolutely baseless. I'll try to explain why the entire argument doesn't make sense.

Catalytic converters serve two major purposes - to convert CO to CO2 and NOx (NO and NO2) to N2. They also give off water.

CO is poisonous while CO2 is only dangerous in locally high concentrations (near the tail pipe) if it displaces oxygen levels to the point that you aren't breathing in enough oxygen. Thus, there is a health advantage to converting CO to CO2.

Now, what about global warming impact? If there were no catalytic converters on cars, all the CO emitted would be converted to CO2 naturally in the atmosphere. So, a molecule of CO leaving the tailpipe would ultimately become a molecule of CO2 and therefore has at least as much greenhouse gas impact.

However, the truth is that CO is actually a stronger greenhouse gas (has a higher global warming potential, or GWP) than CO2 because not only does it ultimately become CO2, but it also is involved in other atmospheric chemistry that increases the global warming potential of other greenhouse gases. As a result, the GWP of CO is 3 times higher than that of CO2.

Thus, the argument that catalytic converters are some sort of government conspiracy to create more global warming that it can then turn around and regulate is completely baseless. Catalytic converters actually reduce the global warming impact of what is coming out of the tail pipe.

I know for a fact Catalytic converters hurt diesels in the mpg department. I don't know anything about the rest of the stuff you just said.

 

[Danl]

I know for a fact Catalytic converters hurt diesels in the mpg department. I don't know anything about the rest of the stuff you just said.

That's OK. Neither does GS.

 

[volinreallife]

That's OK. Neither does GS.

Atleast I admit it.

So what is the difference between the C02 that we produce as humans and the c02 that cars produce?

 

[TennTradition]

Atleast I admitted it.

So what is the difference between the C02 that we produce as humans and the c02 that cars produce?

Just where the carbon that goes into making that CO2 came from (plants that were planted last year vs. fossil fuels produced from plants that grew millions of years ago).

 

[Danl]

Atleast I admitted it.

So what is the difference between the C02 that we produce as humans and the c02 that cars produce?

I'm no chemist, but a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule, 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms. One difference between a human and a car is that the car typically produces a lot more CO2 than a human.

 

[volinreallife]

Just where the carbon that goes into making that CO2 came from (plants that were planted last year vs. fossil fuels produced from plants that grew millions of years ago).

Still the same plants though.

 

[TennTradition]

Still the same plants though.

Yes...well, maybe. Many/most are likely different...but same basic idea.

If you are asking why CO2 from cars might be more of a concern than CO2 from humans with regard to gobal warming - the answer doesn't lie in the makeup of the molecule or the makeup of the plant that provides the carbon that makes the CO2. The answer lies in the fact that plants we are planting now are soaking up CO2. We will eat those plants later this year. We will make CO2 from that, and this CO2 will foster plant growth for the next cycle. On the other hand, fossil fuels rapidly release carbon that was collected over a very long time into the atmosphere as CO2. This leads to buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, unlike you or me breathing.

 

[volinreallife]

Yes...well, maybe. Many/most are likely different...but same basic idea.

If you are asking why CO2 from cars might be more of a concern than CO2 from humans with regard to gobal warming - the answer doesn't lie in the makeup of the molecule or the makeup of the plant that provides the carbon that makes the CO2. The answer lies in the fact that plants we are planting now are soaking up CO2. We will eat those plants later this year. We will make CO2 from that, and this CO2 will foster plant growth for the next cycle. On the other hand, fossil fuels rapidly release carbon that was collected over a very long time into the atmosphere as CO2. This leads to buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, unlike you or me breathing.

Ok so we are looking at an excess amount?

Does anyone really know how much C02 plants can take in?

 

[TennTradition]

Ok so we are looking at an excess amount?

Does anyone really know how much C02 plants can take in?

There are calculations (based on measurements, extrapolated to global levels). However, the entire calculation becomes complex because it also involves other methods of removing CO2 from the air, such as fixation at the bottom of the oceans.

 

[volinreallife]

There are calculations (based on measurements, extrapolated to global levels). However, the entire calculation becomes complex because it also involves other methods of removing CO2 from the air, such as fixation at the bottom of the oceans.

And it's a big ass ocean.

 

[BearCat204]

There are calculations (based on measurements, extrapolated to global levels). However, the entire calculation becomes complex because it also involves other methods of removing CO2 from the air, such as fixation at the bottom of the oceans.

You lost me at however, lol

 

[YorkVol]

This whole time I thought it was methane emissions from sheep in Australia...but now I see it is new threads from gs that are the leading cause of global warming.

 

[theutvolunteers]

Well done TennTradition, well done.

 

[gsvol]

GS - The whole first part of this post, which seems to be the focus based on the title, is absolutely baseless. I'll try to explain why the entire argument doesn't make sense.

Catalytic converters serve two major purposes - to convert CO to CO2 and NOx (NO and NO2) to N2. They also give off water.

CO is poisonous while CO2 is only dangerous in locally high concentrations (near the tail pipe) if it displaces oxygen levels to the point that you aren't breathing in enough oxygen. Thus, there is a health advantage to converting CO to CO2.

Now, what about global warming impact? If there were no catalytic converters on cars, all the CO emitted would be converted to CO2 naturally in the atmosphere. So, a molecule of CO leaving the tailpipe would ultimately become a molecule of CO2 and therefore has at least as much greenhouse gas impact.

However, the truth is that CO is actually a stronger greenhouse gas (has a higher global warming potential, or GWP) than CO2 because not only does it ultimately become CO2, but it also is involved in other atmospheric chemistry that increases the global warming potential of other greenhouse gases. As a result, the GWP of CO is 3 times higher than that of CO2.

Thus, the argument that catalytic converters are some sort of government conspiracy to create more global warming that it can then turn around and regulate is completely baseless. Catalytic converters actually reduce the global warming impact of what is coming out of the tail pipe.

Thanks for (as per usual) informed reply.

Havn't seen you around lately, thought this might draw you out of the woodwork.

I knew this guy was an amateur but I thought his rant worth discussion.

Questions;

1. Just how dangerous is CO as it concerns auto emissions?

2. Does the health advantage of converting CO to CO2 actually warrant the mandate that all autos have converters and who decides that?

3. You say; (the GWP of CO is 3 times higher than that of CO2) so I ask; if the GWP of CO2 is zero, as is stated by the most prestigious scientific group in the world, the the GWP of CO would also be zero, would it not.

(BTW, CERN just announced the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle.)

4. No one said anything at all about a conspiracy unless you are talking about a conspriacy of dunces, what we are talking about is ignorance, personal greed and misplaced use of governmental power based on junk science.

At least in the past we have both agreed that to the supposition corn based ethanol mandates should be abandoned as being ignorant and counter productive, even if we don't agree on all the reasons why.

The biggest problem is knee jerk political policy based on bad science.

Check this:


Navy To Test Out 'Green Fleet' Concept - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego

For the first time ever, the U.S. Navy will be trying out its "Green Fleet" concept during the exercise known as RIMPAC, or Rim of the Pacific Exercise.
----------------

East County-based Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. said with military budgets shrinking, "now is not the time to be spending billions of dollars on a biofuel industry when we don't even know what kind of military we're going to be left with."

Does this make sense to you since biofuels reportedly cproduce 8% less energy per gallon and cost $26.00 vs $3.60 per gallon.

There was a blurb in the paper that Obama is investing another $62 million in some start up biofuel company etc etc, it never ends.

Would it not make sense to drill our own petroleum instead of blocking new wells and even more exploration?

 

[gsvol]

And it's a big ass ocean.

And under those oceans are 80% of the planet's active volcanos.

No one can give even a ball park figure for how much CO2 they release other than the fact that recent scientific research reveals they omit exponentially more CO2 than previously thought.

It isn't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it's about removing money from your pocket.

UNMDG - Dated August 2000:

3. To move towards creation of alternative revenue sources for the United Nations. The United Nations should set up expert groups and begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.

 

[gsvol]

Well done TennTradition, well done.

You do understand that 3 X 0 = 0?

YorkVol
This whole time I thought it was methane emissions from sheep in Australia...but now I see it is new threads from gs that are the leading cause of global warming.

Or it could be a big wad of BS compounded by sheer ignorance heavily seasoned with indoctrination and propaganda?

Danl Quote:
That won't make a damn bit of difference to GS. He'll be back with 3 (count'em ...3) gifs and call rt a liar and doubt his ancestry and his mental facilities. This will, of course, reverse and/or neutralize any of the heretofore reliable physics involved in Co or CO2. Well, it will in the GS universe.

Oh, it will be further documented that radical Mooselimbs invented catalytic converters.

As per usual you are FOS and flaming away.

Heaven and milo forbid that I should respond on your ignorant level.

milohimself
I was going to rebuke the nonsense in the op but it looks like it's already been taken care of. Kudos on a concise explanation, rt

Well since tradition isn't here to rebuke the refutation to his outburst, perhaps you would like to elaborate on how you can rebuke such nonsense?

Probably though you would rather just ban any dissent to your indoctrinated insanity?

The part of my original post that reads;

Since the inception of the Education Department, the Federal Government has done a great job of dumbing-down our students and indoctrinating them into the Government -controlled mind-set.

fits you to a T.

Speaking of T as in power T, just what is it you have to do with the University of Tennessee, the state of Tennessee or anything else to do with anything Tennessee??

What brought you here, why do you stay and just what are your motives?

 

[milohimself]

As to that last part, I've explained it many times. Either stay perplexed or feel free to search for it yourself.

Guess what. You are going to get banned when you call somebody a jackass. If you don't want to get banned, don't call people jackasses.

Here's why people like trolling you: because it works every time and it's fun.

You react, without fail, with novella length diatribes, copy and pastes, old-timey insults and all sort of fun pictures to look at.

 

[gsvol]

As to that last part, I've explained it many times. Either stay perplexed or feel free to search for it yourself.

Guess what. You are going to get banned when you call somebody a jackass. If you don't want to get banned, don't call people jackasses.

Here's why people like trolling you: because it works every time and it's fun.

You react, without fail, with novella length diatribes, copy and pastes, old-timey insults and all sort of fun pictures to look at.

As to that last part, I've explained it many times. Either stay perplexed or feel free to search for it yourself.

Splain it again!

You do everything within your limited power to turn this message board into something like a dailykos chat room.

Guess what. You are going to get banned when you call somebody a jackass. If you don't want to get banned, don't call people jackasses.

I don't recall calling anyone a jackass although I do recall being called a jackass and you let that stand.

Is jackass the only word I can't use, it seems you allow the flamers to call me any name in the book without any objection from you.

Exactly which post of mine did you find objectionable?

A couple more questions;

Was it you who hacked my Volnation CP and added to my sig line?

Was it you who hacked my email account and spammed, necessitating my changing of my password which previously had been the same as my volnation password?

Here's why people like trolling you: because it works every time and it's fun.

And I find it fun to poke the lib hornet's nest.

So who is against having fun?

Clue one, it ain't me.

You react, without fail, with novella length diatribes, copy and pastes, old-timey insults and all sort of fun pictures to look at.

That is total BS, I let most troll flames go without any remark.

If the pictures are fun then why do you delete or move them to another thread of your own creation?

 

[milohimself]

Shall I make a sticky thread just for you?