Why Electric Motors Are 3X - 4X More Efficient Than Internal Combustion

That hardly changes the fact that man made CO2 is a pollutant.

Bret Cahill

NATURE !

Do you expect climate to be static ?

Jesus Holy Christ !

Graham

currently

are currently seeing.

A good post. Why can't all of yours be to the same standard ?

Graham

Sulphur content too.

Graham

CO2 is NEVER a pollutant. More CO2 > more plant growth > less CO2.

Graham

Is it the current engine model?

My recollection is that the intake valve closed earlier for high power and later for low power but in a brief search I didn?t find a source.

The Wikipedia entry for the "Hybrid Synergy Drive" used by Prius

(Performance) "the Atkinson cycle engine itself was also designed specifically to minimize engine drag via an offset crankshaft to minimize piston drag during the power stroke, and a unique intake system to prevent drag caused by manifold vacuum versus the normal Otto cycle in most engines." The "unique intake system" is not described.

You may be right that there is a throttle plate, I don?t know.

--
bud--

Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind Eeyore wrote just the pathetic excuse for a juvenile troll thats all it can ever manage.

That's one possible explanation. I have another one :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the facts came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health as well. Which makes it a pollutant.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ? Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

Rob

Don't you know ? It's pirates ! Here is the proof :

NO CO2 is a pollutant.

Almost all plants grow faster and better in higher levels of CO2. Hence more food.

Graham

Diesels don't have any.

Graham

Rob Dekker wrote

No you dont.

after considerable analysis and looking

reasonable doubt'

No they didnt. Thats the CRIMINAL test, not the civil test.

health as well.

You can make the same stupid claim about water too.

Pity about water.

right ?

It aint a binary choice.

They obviously didnt when they would have come to the same conclusion about water.

after considerable analysis and looking at the facts

CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy

right ?

Maybe oxygen is a pollutant too ?

Graham

after considerable analysis and looking at the

that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy

be right ?

Once our oxygen emissions end up increasing the O2 quantity in the atmosphere by more than 50% that question would be a good one to investigate.

Sigh. So in France all air pollution problems are solved now ?

Yes I do. It's right here :

after considerable analysis and looking at the

doubt'

Picky with words ?

health as well.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

be right ?

It kind of is : Human induced CO2 emissions are a pollutant or not. You can talk until the cows come home, but your opinion in this is rather irrelevant : The Supreme Court made a decision that it is (a pollutant). End of story, unless they overturn the decision.

water.

Once our human induced water emissions end up increasing the water quantity on the planet by more than 50% I'm sure the Supreme Court will look at the impact of that, and determine if these human-induced water emissions are damaging to the planet and our heath and need to be regulated.

Meanwhile, you are free to appeal the Supreme Court decision with the 'water' argument. Good luck with it.

Rob Dekker wrote

Nope, it isnt.

and after considerable analysis and

reasonable doubt'

Pathetic excuse for bullshit in your case.

health as well.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that. They ACTUALLY found that the EPA does have the legal say on CO2 emissions from cars, a different matter entirely.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

be right ?

Nope.

That aint what the supremes ruled on.

irrelevant : The Supreme Court made a

No it didnt. It actually made a decision that the EPA does have the legislative authority to deal with CO2 when it comes from some sources, but not with others.

Nope, nothing like the actual story.

And that too. The Congress can change the EPA legislation if it wants to too.

water.

the planet by more than 50% I'm sure

Your surety is completely irrelevant. Thats nothing like the Supreme Court's role.

planet and our heath and need to be

The Supreme Court didnt even do that with CO2.

ALL they actually did was rule that the current EPA legislation allows the EPA to deal with SOME CO2 sources.

A different matter entirely.

argument.

Not even possible, it isnt something that the Supreme Court gets any say what so ever on.

Dont need any luck, just an understanding of the Supreme Court's role.

Its nothing like what you claim it is.

To quote Honest Abe, "Callin' a tail a leg, don't make it a leg."

and after considerable analysis and looking at the

doubt'

health as well.

entirely.

human activity.

human activity.

be right ?

Yes it did. And re-emphesized it : The Court had no problem determining that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were pollutants, because the Clean Air Act AND Global Climate Protection Act had already determined that (albeit implicitly). The Supreme Court put these two together and clarified that they clearly are air pollutants. They did not even have to add an opinion to conclude that.

irrelevant : The Supreme Court made a decision that it

others.

That was just the first question : if the EPA has the authority to regulate man-made CO2 emissions. Since greenhouse gasses are clearly air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (see above), that question was easily answered : They do have the authority.

But it got even better : The second question question was if the EPA should act on their authority or not.

That one was deliberated in the ruling (link below), and the Court finds that at least for emissions from new vehicles that the EPA has an OBLIGATION to act under the Clean Air Act. The Court did not enforce such an obligation for other forms of (man-made) CO2 emissions. Yet.

It gave the EPA one way out (of not acting) : Form a scientific judgement showing that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are NOT related.

Read the whole thing here again :

Couple of interesting quotes : Page 3: "Finding that .manmade pollution.the release of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and other trace gases into the atmosphere.may be producing a long-term and substantial increase in the average tem-perature on Earth,"

Page 30 : "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant', ......"

Page 31 : "EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate."

Right. The story is not over yet. There will surely be more legal action if the EPA fails to act on greenhouse gas emissions.

Unlikely. Page 4: "Congress emphasized that .ongoing pollution and deforestation may be contributing now to an irreversible process. and that [n]ecessary actions must be identified and implemented in time to protect the climate.."

Congress would have to reverse that statement before EPA responsibility could be changed.

water.

on the planet by more than 50% I'm sure the Supreme

role.

It will as soon as someone presents them with a case.

planet and our heath and need to be regulated.

They did. See above.

to deal with SOME CO2 sources.

Not just 'allow the EPA', but 'force the EPA' is what they decided. There is a big difference.

argument.

so ever on.