Greenhouse gases and old Plymouths....kinda OT

[PatS....]

Wouldn't an electric motor over-rev as soon as the clutch was engaged? Interesting.

[Norm's Coupe]

This thread is beginning to be like the EverReady Battery. It's going on, and on, and on.

[blueskies]

Wouldn't an electric motor over-rev as soon as the clutch was engaged? Interesting.

Only if you kept your foot mashed on the throttle pedal, just like a regular engine, right?

Pete

[Falcon(63)]

Before writing this note, I read and re-read all the threads on greenhouse gases. I even went outside and looked at my flagpole, and sure enough, there was Old Glory flying. A forum according to Webster "is a place to discuss public matters". That is all we are doing. 62RebelP23 said the "J" word. Big whoopee! He has that right. There was nothing in his thread or any other that indicated that he was trying to push his belief of "J" on anyone. But, by his own admission Don feels offended. Why? Because you don't believe in Jesus? I really don't care if you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Agnostic, Atheist etc. That is your business. If you want to express that belief, so be it. But, Rebel62 has that right also. Should I be offended? No! So chill out Don! No one is trying to convert you.

Our group is made up of many nationalities, color, creeds, but we have at least one thing in common. We all love our Mopars

[62rebelP23]

i saw today an article (already forgot where darn it) about san francisco cabs using CNG (compressed natural gas) for fuel. and i KNOW that Yale forklifts used flathead Chrysler Corp engines and LP carburetors.... SO... here's an alternative to putting Ol' Bess in the shed and forgetting her; convert to LPG or CNG and put out almost NO emissions at all. i've seen websites dealing with the conversion and it really is fairly easy to do and IMHO well worth the trouble.

[Norm's Coupe]

I've seen actual old cars at car shows/swap meets running a combinations of either regular gas or LPG. First one I saw was way back in the early 90's. So, people have been doing it for years now.

[PatS....]

The problem with propane is that it is a by-product of the refining process, so still relies on gasoline use to maintain it's production.

[Captain Neon]

I had a great uncle who converted his cars to LP in the 80s so that he could avoid gas taxes. Flip-side, one of his biggest gripes was the deteriorating road system. I'm the first one to gripe about unjust taxation, but gas taxes are SUPPOSED to pay for the roads. His griping about the roads and then refusing to contribute to their upkeep struck me (and the rest of my family) as hypocritical.

[62rebelP23]

there's talk about a new Fed insurance program to replace tax revenues used for civic maintenance... wonder where the money for THAT will come from?

if you look at it from a certain point of view ( not MINE by any stretch!) all of us who keep old cars in operation are damaging the economy by not keeping the flywheel spinning so to speak. we're expected to replace our cars every two years, give or take, and the auto industry is geared for that interval. they produce enough vehicles to sell every driver a new car every other year, taking into account new licensed drivers, fleet accounts, and losses of drivers by accident/death. when we "neglect" to follow their plan, we cause them to offer cut-throat deals on year-end models or slow movers, and they lose profits. when they lose profits, they don't do expansions that create jobs for contractors and vendors. if we continue to neglect our civic duty of digging ourselves into debt, they lose MORE profit and start to cut back production, which snowballs into their vendor's cutting back, etc and so on.

which may be true. me, i don't care. i can't afford to make payments on a new car, regardless of the finance plan, so i keep my old stuff running. so blame ME when the big three shut their doors.

[PatS....]

GORE'S LAW

By Jon Christian Ryter

NewsWithViews.com

December 19, 2007

How many more lies will the American people accept from the media talking heads in the pay of the money barons before they realize that the utopian dribble doled to them in droplets—particularly when it comes to global warming and greenhouse gases—is cranial toxic waste? The sound bytes are designed to make the American people believe that transferring the industrial might of America to the third world is essential to the survival of our planet. Four decade ago, before Al Gore decided that the body heat of too many people and the pollutants from their factories created enough carbon dioxide greenhouse gases to make the polar caps melt, the money barons and already finalized their plans to transfer the wealth of the United States to the emerging nations—the human capital of the 21st century—where tomorrow's consumers, awaiting work, lived. All they needed were jobs—our jobs.

The reason for artificially creating a crisis that does not exist is twofold. First, it's harder for the US consumers who are losing their jobs to blame their employers when their smog threatens the existence of the world. The real reason, of course, has nothing to do with smog. It has to do with the human capital in the third world needing jobs in order to get the money they need to buy the products they currently can't afford. The job shift is necessary because the industrialized nations, with population replenishment levels of from .5 to .7, aren't creating enough people to replace those who died let alone create tomorrow's consumers. The third world, with replenishment birth rates of 1.2 to 1.5, are creating 12 to 15 people for every 10 people who die. Europe adds five live births for every 10 deaths and the United States creates 7 live births for every 10 deaths. To keep the wheels of profit churning in the factories of the world, the barons of industry need to cultivate the human capital of the third world—consumer who have nothing and need everything. Second, history has proven that a catastrophe—real or imagined—that threatens all of mankind is needed before people—acting like sheep being led to the slaughter by the scapegoat—will surrender their freedom for the promises of immediate safety and eternal security.

That said, on Saturday, Dec. 15, the U.S. Senate voted a new Climate Control Bill—the Lieberman-Warner America Climate Security Act of 2007, S.2191, out of committee, following the passage of the House version of the same bill, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It is amazing the knack Congress has of branding legislation that is detrimental to the people of the United States with names that suggest the bills, when enacted, will actually benefit the people of the United States when they are intended only to benefit the lords of industry, the barons of banking and the merchant princes who fill the campaign war chests of politicians and use the media they own to sell the voters on electing their lackeys in order to guarantee that the laws they need enacted so they can lord over the rest of us are signed into law by the presidents which cost the money barons millions of dollars every four years.

The cosponsors of Sen. Joe Lieberman's [i-CT] job sellout bill, the America Climate Security Act of 2007 are: John Warner [R-VA] (who is up for election in 2008 if he does not keep his word and retire), Ben Cardin [D-MD] (who beat Republican candidate and former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele in 2006); Robert Casey [D-PA] who won against Rick Santorum in 2006); Norm Coleman [R-MN]; Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]; and Susan Collins [R-ME]—all of whom are up for reelection in November; and Tom Harkins [D-IA] who is also up for reelection in 2008; Amy Klobucker [D-MN], and Bill Nelson [D-FL]. Those we can fire in 2008—in both the House and the Senate—we need to fire. Because over the next ten years, thousands of us are going to lose our jobs because of this vote by 535 Congressmen and Senators who are voting the will of those who fill their campaign coffers, not the voters who cast their votes.

On December 6 the House passed their version of this legislation, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 by a very partisan vote of 234 to 181. (The Democratic leadership called the measure a "bipartisan" bill since 14 liberal Republicans voted for it (and 7 moderate Democrats voted against it.) The rhetoric from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office suggested the legislation would "...put us on a path towards energy independence and strengthen national security while lowering energy costs..." as it "...grows our economy and creates new jobs."

The bill, which President George W. Bush has promised to veto, will not bring about energy independence. It's a bill designed to subsidize a new oil industry subculture—ethanol and other synthetic fuels that the Rockefeller family believes will conserve the world's oil supply—which they erroneously believe is being rapidly depleted and will soon be gone. Without even considering the escalating costs for gasoline on the world market, the bill begins by increasing the price of natural gas from 19% to 35% (depending on whose math you use). The bill will not only increase the price of gasoline at the pump, it will charge you more for electricity to light your home. Electricity rates will skyrocket from 35% to 60% by 2020—and, according to consulting firm of Charles Rivers Associates International, which testified before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee led by Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA], the new legislation will kill between 1.5 to 3.4 million more jobs in the United States.

In addition, it will devastate what is left of the automobile industry in the United States, forcing our "replacement" auto industry—Toyota, Nissan and Honda—to pull up stakes and join Ford, General Motors and Chrysler in their new "American" plants in Canada and Mexico—if not China. Those nations—with closer and more subservient ties to Europe and the United Nations—will be at least partially exempt from the draconian standards imposed on the manufacturers who are still in the United States. In addition tothe lost jobs will be lost tax revenues—which means in addition to lower incomes, the Democratic majority will be obligated to raise taxes—but only on the rich. (That means anyone with a private sector job.)

The America Climate Security Act of 2007 will mandate that carbon dioxide emissions be at least 19% less than they were a decade ago. It will also require that 20% of all fuel consumption be ethanol. But even worse, says Sen. Jim Inhofe [R-OK], the ranking Republican on the Senate EPW Committee told the media that "...it's hard to imagine [Lieberman-Warner] will not cost—over time—electric power and industrial—hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the demands of this bill." Inhofe also noted that "...Lieberman-Warner...will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy. Senators are going to be [expecting] the American people to pay more for home energy and pay higher at the gas pump for no climate benefit."

There can be no climate benefit since global warming is a cyclic event caused by solar activity, not the sweat from 6.770 billion people driving their cars, peddling their bicycles, running on their treadmills or jogging each morning before work. If the world was devoid of human population, global warming and cooling would still be a fact since it is the volume and intensity of the solar eruptions that determines the temperature of the surface of the inner planets in our solar system. The America Climate Security Act of 2007 is a sham designed by the ecoalarmist social progressives who are trying to capitalize on Al Gore's fictional sic fi fantasy, An Inconvenient Truth, to convince the world's population that a catastrophe of global proportions is just around the corner, and that between 2020 and 2040, the global ice caps will no longer exist, most of the Islands of the world will be submerged, and the Appalachian Mountains and the Rocky Mountains will be the new east and west coastlines of the United States.

Furthermore, if Congress adopts the carbon dioxide mandates, crop yields in every nation of the world will be reduced immediately by 25% to 30%—and the quality of the oxygen we breathe will begin to deteriorate. Less rain will fall everywhere in the world, and the dustbowls of the 1930s will become commonplace in the 2030s. And all of the nightmares predicted by the ecoalarmists if we don't dramatically reduce carbon dioxide levels will happen because we have reduced those "dangerous" greenhouse gases that are the food supply that feeds that grass, the trees and the crops we grow for food. Take away the food the crops consume to produce the food we eat, and we starve. In addition, the byproduct of the carbon dioxide that grass eats is oxygen. Without oxygen, we die.

If you will, tell me again why it is—other than because the money barons bribed them with campaign contributions to enact it—why do we, as American citizens, want anyone to legislate anything as stupid—and expensive—as the America Climate Security Act of 2007? Oh yes, I remember. Because the barons of industry can profit from it at our expense. And, because their campaign contributions have already paid for the legislation.

(2 paragraphs missing due to length)

© 2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

[PatS....]

(the 2 missing paragraphs)

And, if you will, once again, tell me why it is we are going to reelect any Congressman or Senator who votes for the America Climate Security Act of 2007, or the House version, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? Oh yes, I remember. Because we're stupid. We did, after all, reelect the Congressmen and Senators who voted to give away our jobs under NAFTA. And, of course, this isn't a whole lot different—it just doesn't destroy quite as many American jobs—even though it will quadruple our taxes and our utility bills. And, like NAFTA, maybe you'll still have your job when this global job drain is over, too. Of course, we expect to be bringing home a lot less. But, after all, if we still have a job, it's worth it...isn't it?

Wait a minute...wouldn't it be better for all of us—the nation included—if we just called, faxed or telegraphed those Congressmen and Senators and told them we are going to fire their butts if they vote for this? The nice thing is, that where you only have to fire the 14 House Republicans who have already voted "yea" on Gore's climate change puerility, you get to fire 231 Democrats for displaying an absolute lack of intelligence—and greed, since only an idiot in someone's hip pocket would actually vote on a bill that will ultimately reduce the amount of food this planet can produce—and the amount of air we can breathe.

© 2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, http://www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

[Plymouthy Adams]

you voted not because you trusted these people to do the right thing but because they were the only ones on the ballot...

[Tony_Urwin]

Pat, in my opinion, 95% of that article is hysterical horsepoop.

I do agree wholeheartely that ethanol is a porkbarrel scam propagated by the oil companies and corporate farm lobby. Ethanol is more expensive to produce, and ultimately raises the price of produce and meat for consumers, as well. Another nice feature is the additional water pollution from the run-off of pesticides and fertilizer.