No, these people are serious and seriously unhinged. Meanwhile, the feds are seizing vehicles to save the world from climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
|
No, these people are serious and seriously unhinged. Meanwhile, the feds are seizing vehicles to save the world from climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That's not why they are seizing vehicles - nice spin.
If they are seizing vehicles to stop climate change they are going to need a big car park
Bet it turns up in the Driveway of some EPA official...
I would expect any 1985 car still on the road would not comply with today's standards and the article said 40 vehicles were seized, so smoothy it is unlikely it will turn up on someone's driveway, but this looks like a fishing expedition or maybe the vehicle was reported for blowing smoke
as far as emission s goes ;if it doesn't comply it fails inspection. But then the article goes on to talk of imports with altered VIN . That's a different subject unrelated to emissions . Do they mean that cars with altered VIN that pass emissions tests are acceptable ? Altered VIN usually means there was a car theft.
Yes Tom it might be a rebirthed vehicle imported and given a new engine
Thank you.Quote:
nice spin.
Vehicles over 25 years old can be imported into the USA, WITHOUT having to comply with either emmissions or safety standards applicable for that year. They are legally antiques.
In fact a 25 year old vehicle at least in the state of Virginia, which has one of the tougher emissions testing programs, being run on a dynamometer duing the testing.. becomes exempt... as one of my vehicles a 1989 became with this year.
Meaning you can import that 1989 or older right had drive Nissan Skyline LEGALLY without expensive conversions....assuming you can find one..
You want one we can probably find one for you I saw one the other day
Been lusting after them for many years... must cost a fortune to ship a car from Australia to the USA or vice versa.
Don't know but they do import classic cars here from the US of course we do have the problem of conversion
The war is hotting up ahead of the UN meeting as it always does, this time Australians are being told of the aweful cost of inaction in dollar terms, $200 billion, and the whole story is completely dishonest because no matter what we do it won't make one iota of difference, we are already on target to achieve a 20% reduction in emissions and more, and yet the rabid dogs of the climate debate say we are not doing enough as if anything we do matters, mean while the antarctic sea ice is as large as it has ever been and growing. What I say is go tell it to the northern hemishere we have heard enough and our Prime Minister can't even be bothered to attend the meeting, he knows the truth and has more important things to do than listen to rubbish, such as engage in a real war and pacify the natives
there have been fewer warming years than cooling years in the time that it has been measured by satellite . No one's chief minister is going to attend this joke of a meeting because the climate scare mongers have been discredited .
Obama's Lonely Climate Summit – world leaders are staying home | Watts Up With That?
Hello tom:
I dunno... 125 heads of state ain't chopped liver.
UN climate summit to host 125 heads of state | TheHill
excon
Welcome back :-)
Just like his eventual executive fiat on immigration laws ;the emperor plans on delaying his war on energy until after the November elections. This news came from a conference call with reporters and the EPA ;extending the public comment period about new rules cutting carbon emissions from power plants until December.
I guess after the elections he'll have more "flexibility "to impose his dictates .
He also wants to impose a UN climate treaty on the nation while by-passing the Constitutional requirments of a Senate approval.
Obama looks to skip Senate on new UN climate change deal | TheHill
About time you guys came on board
it's bs and your carbon control regulations are bs too.
Yes Tom there Is a lot of it going around these days, but don't forget we have wound back a lot of regulation recently
btw nice of the emperor to go to Queensland lecturing the Aussies on climate change . wtg bogus Potus !
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
He now is officially the US rep to the Aussie Greens
Thanks Tom if Julie Bishop hadn't raised it we would have considered his remarks as irrelevant and rabble rousing among University students, but I expect he was bolstering his case for his "initiatives" against a recalcicant Tony Abbott who has no intention of stepping up and contributing to an international fund when Australia already has over 20% renewable energy generation, is meeting its targets and is closing coal fire power stations that's 500 MW gone.
Lights out at Wallerawang Power Station | Western Advocate
We have yet to commit to long term targets but I expect that when we do they will be significant, but we understand that what ever we do it has little impact just maybe 0.2% of world emissions. We may have high per capita emissions but in real terms we represent very little. It is China who has commiteed to nothing except peaking in 2030 by which time they will be 50% of world emissions that he needs to take on, not us
I expect he was deflecting attention from his corporate pals who we were insisting on targeting in multinational tax avoidance in the G20 it is interesting that he thinks climate change is important when it rates 17 in a survey of current issues
he has all but announced that he is taking the cloak off and going full kook fringe for the next 2 years
Yes no doubt he has some reforms he sees as his "legacy". This is the sort of thing that becomes pecular to those who are "king for a year or two" and that is the result of the personality cult that surrounds your presidency. His immigration inititatives may be a ploy to get congress to act but I doubt his ability to get them to adopt his policy on emissions, so I expect we can look forward to more edicts
it is absolutely a ploy. He is making suckers of everyone left and right. His edict holds no weight . If it did ,he'd have it enforceable on Jan 1. Instead his own White House memo mentions enrollment some time in the Spring. It's a big bluff to get Congress to pass an immigration bill he wants .Quote:
His immigration inititatives may be a ploy to get congress to act but I doubt his ability to get them to adopt his policy on emissions, so I expect we can look forward to more edicts
If he does go through with this then I just hope President Walker in 2017 tell the country " I don't like the capital gains tax and I'm directing the IRS to not collect it " .
.Quote:
" I don't like the capital gains tax and I'm directing the IRS to not collect it "
Very droll Tom, a refreshing commentary on the tax debate, I wonder if it possible for him to change tax rates by decree, has it every been tested? But he could direct the EPA to close under preforming power stations or decree that 50% of energy distributed must come from renewable sources
Just a little commentary of the subjest of climate change down under where the balmy trade (cyclonic) winds blow
It took only two days for Abbott's 'conversion' to climate change to be exposed
To draw an analogy Florida has the same unfortunate location in relation to violent storms as does the Great Barrier Reef. It would be rediculaous to suggest that the people of Florida unilaterally act to reduce emissions to reduce the incidence and severity of those storms and equally ridiculous to suggest than any action to reduce emissions by Australia has any impact on the Great Barrier Reef. This is bleeding heart politics at its worst. Yes, we must take action to protect the reef but that action is reduction in agricultural runoff, sedimentation, shipping transit, pollution. The crown of thorns star fish, which was a problem long before climate change became popular, is the major reason for reef degradation. This is a natural process, coral grows, they eat it, now if we found a way to harvest and use the star fish that would be a sustainable solution and right up there with harvesing and using that other pest, the cane toad, a far more important problem for Australia's animals than climate change
Pipe that in your smoke and stick it, Obama, it will make a change from that slow working dope in use
Droll indeed ,but it does illustrate the Pandora's box he is opening . He is not taking executive action here to support existing law ....he is taking it to change existing law.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
One recent example here in NY is the Sandanista Mayor Di Blasio has announced that NY cops will no longer bust pot heads that are carrying less than 25 gm . This is ;whether I like it or not , legitimate 'prosecutorial digression' .He is not saying that it is now legal to carry . He's just prioritizing the police work .
If he was doing it like the emperor ,then not only would having 25 gm of pot be legal . But the government would subsidize your purchase . He'd change the law .
This is what the emperor is doing and it definitely exceeds his constitutional authority .
The emperor and the EPA are acting stupidly on the coal industry . They have grandfathered in exemptions to old inefficient coal plants and have stopped permits for new modern designed ones. This is exactly the opposite from what they should be doing . They should fast track the closing of old plants and allowing the construction of modern plants with scrubbers and carbon capture devices .
Renewables have their niche but they alone cannot replace carbon based energy . It's funny .... this European probe Philae is now dead in a gully on the comet 67P because it is solar powered and has landed in a shady area . New Horizons in contrast is nuke powered ,and is about the be waken from hibernation to explore Pluto and it's environs.
I'm not saying that Rosetta's mission was a failure . It was in fact a remarkable achievement landing on a comet . However ,had Philae the ability to tap into more traditional power systems ,perhaps as a back up ,then the mission would've had a longer life span.
Plus solar and wind are no where's near the panacea that people think they are . Mining the minerals for those leaves their own foot print on the planet .
Geez Tom they launched that probe 10 years ago!
no they launched Rosetta 10 years ago . Philae had a very short flight . It lasted as long as it's battery pack
.
Tom you and I know nuclear energy has its place and yes Rosetta could have been given more thought, but it was first and who knew there were shadows on comets? Well just about anyone who stands in the shade, but I digress. They just didn't think much beyond existing satellite technology but they also envisaged a scenario where they were getting closer to the sun. Pluto is so far away solar energy was impractiable from the start.
Back here on terra firma there are serious issues to be addressed and executive orders to place emphasis on what's important, because bureaucrats are such dullards, might be needed. You see often legislation is written or enacted by dullards and you get these catch all situations that don't always address reality, like deporting eleven million illegals and leaving children with rights destitute.
None of this addresses the serious issue of climate change and the practicalities of living with the outcomes. Building codes may need to be changed because of the probability of more violent and frequent weather events, greater emphasis might be needed on flood mitigation, undergrounding power lines to avoid storm damage. We have a lobby which focuses attention only in one area and ignores the rest and the fact remains remove all coal fired power stations immediately and the planet will still continue to warm for a century. I believe we are actually beyond the tipping point but not building more coal fired power stations is a strategy and we have to build fast breeder reactors for base load power. hey why are we not burning the methane that is being released from the perma frost?
now you sound like an alarmist . there has been NO warming of the planet in the last 18 years . That means you can trash 73 UN climate models . That pretty much equals the last 20 year warming period . Before that, there was 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age.
No Tom I'm being practical, what I observe is we are seeing more extremes and that was predicted. Yes it is difficult to definitatively say that any particular event is the result of AGW or climate change but things are different. Where I live there has not been snow on the ground in a long time in places where we know snow existed a century ago. No one builds a house with snow roof here anymore. We are seeing temperatures in the high 30's and 40's, celsius that is, in November. During the G20 in Brisbane temperatures were excessive followed a few days later by a serious weather event. Somewhat unusual and various places are experiencing extreme weather events. Maybe our news services are better but the perception is there is a lot more of it. I don't trust the records of temperature either way because the readings are compromised. Didn't you experience a severe weather event in North America last week, I thought that was blamed on hot air from the Pacific destabilising the jet stream
where I live we are entering the second drought in a decade and lakes which survived the earlier drought are drying up so while overall global temperatures may statiscally be static in certain parts of the world they are higher. this graph refutes your claim
Attachment 46858
However there are signs of change and while I don't think we can change anything, we should adapt
"Now you sound like an alarmist. There has been no warming of the planet in the last 18 years. That means you can trash the 73 UN climate models. That pretty much pretty much equals the last 20 year warming period."
Tom, you obviously don't live in Australia. And yes, I know what is happening weather wise in the US.
Hi Tut, no Tom lives in NY and is no doubt right in the middle of last weeks weather event, I wonder if he has dug himself out yet and I'm very glad we don't get that much snow. Fact is many people, including myself remain skeptical about climate change, particularly the panic to reverse the effect. I don't think we have that much influence, and remember I didn't say no influence. The last two years where I live have been mild summers and I think that has been the influence of volcanic activity and now we are out in the open once again and it is hot. We have just seen the impact on family budgets of the panic to do something in the form of a trading scheme and I know many people don't appreciate the escalation in costs. We live in the now and many of us from week to week and it is government that should bear the cost of change not the consumer and I endorse Abbott's view in this regard
cause and effect; power generators have benefited from a least cost model and they and their stakeholders and corporate customers should bear the cost of cleaning up the mess not the consumer
what happened in Buffalo is called a lake effect storm. That happened because the path Typhoon Nuri took brought it up to the Arctic where it pushed an Arctic Cold front down to the US sooner than normal . That cold air moved across the Great Lakes (specifically Lake Erie ) .The waters of the Great Lakes are still relatively warm. A lake effect storm is when cold air moves over a large lake of warm water . It picks up moisture along the way and freezes it . It deposits the snow /ice etc leeward. There have always been lake effect storms and always will be.
Yes Tom and that is pretty much the view on many of the other supposed AGW effects, there have always been storms, droughts, floods, hot weather, cold weather, need I go on? But there has also been much more ice in the Arctic and much larger glaciers. Which takes me back to my original statement; if there is going to be change we should be working on adapting now, moving buildings back from low shorelines, adapting building codes, undergrounding power, flood control and mitigating impacts through alternative energy where practicable. After cyclone Tracy in 1975 Australia moved to change building codes to cyclone proof new buildings, that's the sort of adaptation needed, forward thinking. I have no doubt cave man thought there would always be seas at the level they were and vast ice fields
I hear now that the brits have a problem with wind generators, apparently they mess up air traffic control radar, I expect a solution will be to fit transponders to every tower but we will see.
they also kill sea birds in Britain and endangered bald eagles here . It's a conundrum for the enviro-wackos.
There are always tradeoffs in environmental issues, Tom, otherwise we would be a complete standstill, So I expect those are blind eagles, not bald eagles. We haven't experienced a big bird kill here but there are noice complaints about windmills and long term psychological effects of living nearby. To paraphase an old saying "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs" you can't cleanup the environment without disturbing someone
personally I think the towers are a nuisance, there are long impacts on roads and highways from transporting components, a certain amount of rural land becomes unproductive. There are additional high tension power lines and unexpected impacts on communities and their operation is limited to available wind
the blind animal killed by wind turbines are bats ....yes even in Australia.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM. |