Dakota Beacon

"California is taking another step to make car buyers more aware of how their car affects the planet this year. All new car models will bear an Environmental Performance sticker that rates the car based on smog and global warming emissions. With both ratings, the higher the score on a scale of 1 to 10, the more eco-friendly the car.The global warming rating is based on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per mile. A score of 1 equals 520 CO2 grams per mile while a score of 10 equals less than 200 CO2 grams per mile. The emission calculations include production and distribution of the fuel used in the car. "


http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/sustainable-transportation/global-warming-rating-stickers-on-new-cars/

Sounds like California is leading the way towards a future world that takes more aggressive actions towards cutting back
on CO2 emissions.  Here's a massive ironic twist regarding vehicles having a "global warming" rating.

http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/stats.php

According to this source:
"Motor vehicles are the single biggest source of atmospheric pollution,contributing an estimated 14% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, a proportion than is steadily rising. Add the emissions from exploration, transportation, refining and distribution of fuel, and this figure is 15 to 20 percent of world emissions. The average American car releases 300 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from a full, 15 gallon tank of gasoline"

So CO2 emissions from cars today are actually higher than CO2 emissions of cars made prior to 1975. How can this be? Look at the huge drop in CO (carbon monoxide) the last 30 years.


http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=det...

Note the drop of dangerous CO(carbon monoxide) from 10 ppm(parts per million) to 2 ppm in this study looking at years 1980 to 2009.

Why would CO drop by 80% while CO2 went up at the same time?
Answer: The invention of the catalytic converter, first introduced in 1975, then a much improved version in 1981.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter


What does the catalytic converter do?
"A three-way catalytic converter has three simultaneous tasks:
1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
2. Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
3. Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O"



Thanks to the biggest pollution cutting device (by a mile) ever invented and in widespread use, 20 of today's cars emit as much pollution as just 1 car did before catalytic converters.

Errrrr, that was until 2009, when the EPA was forced by the Supreme Court to rule that CO2 is pollution. The 2007 Supreme court split decision that forced this on the EPA came from the 5 liberal judges, while the 4 conservative ones voted against it. OK, everyone already  knows the dominant forces driving this topic are political. I'm a scientist that detests it when politics are more important than truthful science. Let's look closer at the science.


Take note of the product(s) of #2 and #3 above. Keep in mind, until recently (and some of us still know it's true) we always thought catalytic converters were  the biggest pollution cutting device in history.

For #2, we are making CO2(carbon dioxide) and for #3, more CO2 and  H2O.

So this presents quite a conundrum if you're the EPA or actually anybody that says CO2 is pollution and is suggesting actions to cut emissions of it.

For years, we were convinced of the tremendous benefits from catalytic converters, cutting pollution to just a fraction of the prior levels, turning  the harmful emissions into harmless, even beneficial gases.

Now, if you believe that CO2 is pollution, you must also believe that catalytic converters are just converting a couple of forms of pollution into a different more dangerous form of pollution.

If you believe in the man made global warming, cataclysmic predictions, then these devices are producing the most harmful pollution of all, carbon dioxide.

So, if CO2 will cause catastrophic warming and is the only target for most alarmists .....we should disable all current catalytic converters ASAP and put new ones in that only use #1 above.

What other way is there?

The CO2 pollution coming from these catalytic converters can be easily stopped, even though it brings back some REALLY bad pollution that nobody seems to care about anymore since we found out the planet was doomed from increasing CO2.

What other way is there? The other and only way is to stop all the many and big lies.

The truth about car exhaust, includes telling people which chemicals adversely effect the health of humans.

Note, CO2 is not on the list:

A short list of the likely pathogens in car exhaust:

• Carbon Monoxide
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Sulphur dioxide
• Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
• Benzene
• Formaldehyde
• Polycyclic hydrocarbons

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

More truth, this time about CO2. It's a gas proven irrefutably to increase plant growth and crop yields by many hundreds of studies and not proven by 1 scientist to have caused the global warming that took place from 1976-1998 (after cooling from 1945-1976 and remaining steady since then).

What we do know is that this atmospheric plant food, in going from ~280 to ~390 parts per million the past 100+ years, is contributing a minimum of of an 11% increase in world food production. The empirical data shows this:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGa...

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

The truth is that anthropogenic global warming remains an unproven theory with much of it resting on climate computer models programmed with the equations and assumptions the builder thinks causes global warming. The resulting 50-100 year forecasts reflect his opinion and 100% of the time provide the result he programmed in.

Why anyone would think a chaotic system can be accurately represented this way, when there is nothing for natural cycles, changes in the sun, magnetic fields, geothermal heat. It lacks key deep ocean data as well as information regarding interactions involving water vapor and feedback mechanisms/climate sensitivity.

The farther out the projection, the more time for initial errors to grow and new elements to enter.

For those that want the latest monthly global temperature data, through January 2011, here it is.
The recent 7 month plunge has take us to -.01 below the 30 year average. The drop, as predicted, came from the cooling effect of a natural La Nina.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/uah-update-for...

Notice this 30 year average is from 1981-2010, the most recent 30 years. The most important 30 years. Many alarmists continue to use 1951-1980 for their 30 year climatic temperature average. Those were global cooling years. Why would someone be using a global climatic average from 30 to 60 year ago to compare the temperatures of the last decade with? No, they haven't just forgotten to update for 30 years straight.

Yes, this is how scientists manipulate data so it says what they want it to.

Not convinced that scientists would do this? Read this profound and eye opening paper.
This isn't the exception, it's the rule.

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

The corollaries that apply big time to most global warming research and studies are #s 4-5-6.

"Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true"



Mike Maguire
Evansville Indiana Meteorologist