|
mdemone posted:Emissions tests are done by elevating the car and running the front wheels only. The VW system detected when the drivetrain was only running the front wheels, and did…something…to reduce engine emissions drastically. Like maybe the diesel part was temporarily disconnected, I dunno. But anyway that's how the car was able to detect that it was being tested. I imagine this was an 'open secret' among the German manufacturers and I really won't be surprised if it turns out the German gov't was in on it too.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised either, Germany is rotten to the bone and when they're not producing Nazis they're getting their debts forgiven (while not forgiving the debts of others) or cheating on emissions tests (while sanctimoniously declaring to the world that Germany is a carbon emissions reduction leader). Seriously, gently caress Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I wouldn't be surprised either, Germany is rotten to the bone and when they're not producing Nazis they're getting their debts forgiven (while not forgiving the debts of others) or cheating on emissions tests (while sanctimoniously declaring to the world that Germany is a carbon emissions reduction leader). Seriously, gently caress Germany. Not to mention acting really green and ecologically conscious while replacing nuclear power with fossil fuels and having a seriously hosed up agricultural sector that gets subsidised into excessive emissions, runoff and land use more than in neighbouring countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Luckily the VW scandal didn't impact CO2 emissions really, just NOx. mdemone posted:Emissions tests are done by elevating the car and running the front wheels only. The VW system detected when the drivetrain was only running the front wheels, and did…something…to reduce engine emissions drastically. Like maybe the diesel part was temporarily disconnected, I dunno. But anyway that's how the car was able to detect that it was being tested. Diesel engines generally have lower emissions, power and fuel economy when run at a lower combustion temp. The VW ECU detected the ODBII/dynamo was being used and dramatically turned down the combustion temp. This made them pass emissions, but also would trash fuel economy, engine power and the engine itself to do for long periods of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Luckily the VW scandal didn't impact CO2 emissions really, just NOx. NOx is arguably worse than CO2, as it directly and definitely kills people today, whereas CO2 might be killing people today and could kill people in the future, and the negative effects can hypothetically be prevented. While loss of glaciers, extinctions, loss of agricultural production and rising sea levels are Bad Things, if human deaths can be prevented, they are less bad than NOx poisoning. I'm not suggesting that human deaths and degradation of living standards will be avoided, just that they could be, unlike the effects of NOx.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:NOx is arguably worse than CO2, as it directly and definitely kills people today, whereas CO2 might be killing people today and could kill people in the future, and the negative effects can hypothetically be prevented. While loss of glaciers, extinctions, loss of agricultural production and rising sea levels are Bad Things, if human deaths can be prevented, they are less bad than NOx poisoning. I'm not suggesting that human deaths and degradation of living standards will be avoided, just that they could be, unlike the effects of NOx. True, but at least there is a regulatory framework to handle NOx, unlike CO2. The marginal difference of these VW vehicles emitting 30-40x what a compliant vehicle will use is a drop in the bucket compared to the positive effect of NOx regulations. The fact that the regulations in the US are stricter is a large part of the reason VW cheated in the first place. In some ways its proof the regulations work, as VW chose to emit 30-40x more pollution as soon as they thought they could get around the regulation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-climate-change-pope_56047a10e4b08820d91c57bc?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics Jeb Bush: The Pope Shouldn't Discuss Climate Change Because 'He's Not A Scientist' "Put aside Pope Francis on the subject of any political conversation."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-climate-change-pope_56047a10e4b08820d91c57bc?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics That's what he said about the Scientists too 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-climate-change-pope_56047a10e4b08820d91c57bc?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics neither is jeb
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:True, but at least there is a regulatory framework to handle NOx, unlike CO2. The marginal difference of these VW vehicles emitting 30-40x what a compliant vehicle will use is a drop in the bucket compared to the positive effect of NOx regulations. There's not much point having a regulatory framework if it is not adhered to (see: many cities in Europe), and if the vehicles that are expected to reduce the levels of NOx (by replacing more polluting vehicles) actually increase it - indeed, cheating on emissions tests could be a reason why so many European cities still have excess levels of NOx. When the UK ends up having to pay the fine for excess NOx pollution that they've been trying to avoid, are they going to charge it to VW?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:There's not much point having a regulatory framework if it is not adhered to (see: many cities in Europe), and if the vehicles that are expected to reduce the levels of NOx (by replacing more polluting vehicles) actually increase it - indeed, cheating on emissions tests could be a reason why so many European cities still have excess levels of NOx. When the UK ends up having to pay the fine for excess NOx pollution that they've been trying to avoid, are they going to charge it to VW? But that's the whole point, we are adhering to our regulatory framework, by beating VW over the head with a big stick. I'm not sure what the standards are like in Europe (I know its not as strict as California), but my napkin math makes it seem that a single evil-VW would be emitting NOx at the level of a pre-2003 model year medium duty diesel truck. So very bad, but unlikely to dramatically change overall NOx levels considering the number of evil-VWs on the road. Besides, NOx causes localized cooling, so VW was just trying to help combat climate change
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
The new VW Golf, with inbuilt geoengineering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The new VW Golf, with inbuilt geoengineering. Mission to Mars is go!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-climate-change-pope_56047a10e4b08820d91c57bc?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics Inhofe denies the pope even said anything about climate change: quote:“To me, my interpretation of that it had nothing to do with climate change,” said Sen. Inhofe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-climate-change-pope_56047a10e4b08820d91c57bc?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics Pope Francis has training as a chemistry lab tech. Also he worked as a bouncer before flipping his collar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Oh yeah, there was a joint U.S.-China statement on Climate Change today: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change My choice highlights - quote:6. The two sides recognize that Parties’ mitigation efforts are crucial steps in a longer-range effort needed to transition to green and low-carbon economies and they should move in the direction of greater ambition over time. Further, the United States and China underscore the importance of formulating and making available mid-century strategies for the transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the below 2 degree C global temperature goal. Both sides also emphasize the need for global low-carbon transformation during the course of this century. This is certainly setting an aggressive tone going into Paris. Cap & Trade by 2017 & 60-65% decrease in CO2 per unit of GDP by 2030 are both huge. quote:China followed up its promise Friday to create the world's largest cap-and-trade program with yet another significant climate policy announcement: It will commit to spending $3.1 billion to help developing countries slash their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. China's financial commitment, along with its new carbon market, are part of a comprehensive package of climate measures to be announced at a joint press conference featuring US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday in Washington, DC. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
The AP will now be calling climate change "skeptics" climate change "doubters" I dunno, I guess the jury's still out, and it's not like they're rejecting the Holocaust, so we still can't call them "deniers"! 
ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
there is a difference between someone like judith curry, who probably ought to be called a skeptic, since she is published in the field, and someone like rush limbaugh who just dismisses things out of hand. I wouldn't lump both those together under the category 'denier' so even this change goes too far imo. skeptic is the right term in some cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Curry doesn't actually doubt climate change, though. She just thinks climate scientists don't coddle the deniers enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
How do you distinguish between people who deny anthropogenic climate change vs. those who deny climate change altogether?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The AP will now be calling climate change "skeptics" climate change "doubters" The AP of course prefers the long form "those who reject mainstream climate science" but that's a mouthful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How do you distinguish between people who deny anthropogenic climate change vs. those who deny climate change altogether? How often they use the term "natural".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How do you distinguish between people who deny anthropogenic climate change vs. those who deny climate change altogether? the former was once the latter, but overwhelming data has made that position untenable outside of far right circles
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
On the Media has a very good segment with the AP editor and the host arguing about this change. I have to admit, the AP editor makes a compelling argument that "doubter" covers the full range of "climate science is a hoax" to "we can't do anything about it/it's not that bad". Their long form, that I think I quoted above, is better, but too long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-climate-change-pope_56047a10e4b08820d91c57bc?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics There he goes again, talking about climate change as though it's a political discussion. Climate change denial, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Here's something I don't get: why are individuals so invested in denying climate change? I get it coming from corporations and from there, politicians, but why are random members of the public such strong deniers? Is it as simple as getting cast as a "liberal" cause despite everybody doing effectively jack-poo poo about it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Motto posted:Here's something I don't get: why are individuals so invested in denying climate change? I get it coming from corporations and from there, politicians, but why are random members of the public such strong deniers? Is it as simple as getting cast as a "liberal" cause despite everybody doing effectively jack-poo poo about it? I dunno how much you read the Freep thread, but people are incredibly invested into their political affiliation, to the point to where some of them literally wish for the pope to get assassinated for pushing to help the poor, in spite of being, well, the pope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
I don't want to make any changes to my lifestyle therefore it must not be necessary and anyone who says different is lying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
I guess it's like that one "but what if we make a better world for nothing?" cartoon. There's this widespread suspicion that evil scientists are trying to con the world--into developing better sources of energy and a more hospitable habitat for us and our children. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Motto posted:I guess it's like that one "but what if we make a better world for nothing?" cartoon. There's this widespread suspicion that evil scientists are trying to con the world--into developing better sources of energy and a more hospitable habitat for us and our children.  http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2013-4-july-august/green-life/pollution-porn-now-thing There's a big culture of contrarianism in the south and among republicans
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Any goons seen Cowspiracy? Notwithstanding the terrible title the documentary seemed to make a decent case that there should be a primary focus on reducing rearing of livestock to combat climate change. There was a statistic thrown around that it was 51% the cause, or something like that. Is that all bullshit or should there be a serious effort to promote veganism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
I'd heard about coal rolling, but not the bit where they stick their faces in it. That's some pretty extreme nose cutting. Either that or fatalists gearing up early for a Mad Max world.
Motto fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Motto posted:I guess it's like that one "but what if we make a better world for nothing?" cartoon. There's this widespread suspicion that evil scientists are trying to con the world--into developing better sources of energy and a more hospitable habitat for us and our children. You're forgetting the mindset they're in. What you call "make a better world for nothing" they call "limit growth, development and economic freedom". They see high carbon fuels as the lifeblood of modern everything and to say we should cut back is to either say the browns don't get it or that no one does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Motto posted:I'd heard about coal rolling, but not the bit where they stick their faces in it. Yeah but if you have decided for convenience or ideological my-team reasons that environmentalism is 100% lies then inhaling sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, etc is perfectly fine. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:Any goons seen Cowspiracy? Notwithstanding the terrible title the documentary seemed to make a decent case that there should be a primary focus on reducing rearing of livestock to combat climate change. There was a statistic thrown around that it was 51% the cause, or something like that. Is that all bullshit or should there be a serious effort to promote veganism? 51% seems unrealistically high, but cows are actually a major problem. Producing beef results in emissions of between 20 and 60kg CO2 per kg beef (ironically, organic/extensive farming of cows is the upper end while industrial feedlots are the lower end), while pork and chicken are below 10kg CO2 per kg meat. VitalSigns posted:Yeah but if you have decided for convenience or ideological my-team reasons that environmentalism is 100% lies then inhaling sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, etc is perfectly fine. lung cancer: just a ~theory~
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta TLDR: 97-98% of climate scientists conclude that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. 92-93% of all biophysical scientists conclude that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Consensus? What consensus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:
Its illegal also, but the EPA has been held back by legislation that prevents them from enforcing regulations at the State level. Motto posted:I'd heard about coal rolling, but not the bit where they stick their faces in it. As someone who builds diesels for a hobby: Half these idiots are morons who destroy their own engines and then pour $3k-$4k rebuilding said engine because of their mind numbing idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Motto posted:Here's something I don't get: why are individuals so invested in denying climate change? I get it coming from corporations and from there, politicians, but why are random members of the public such strong deniers? Is it as simple as getting cast as a "liberal" cause despite everybody doing effectively jack-poo poo about it? I think that for some its a type of existential threat. Global warming is a sign that the perpetual growth of energy consumption cannot continue unchecked. It's a sign that there are global consequences for the expansion of the human race, and that manifest destiny does not exist. Humans have a historically appropriate philosophy of growing as quickly as possible and it's a major project to get traditionally minded individuals to understand sustainability. Even worse, we need collective action which is also running counter to the tribal thinking that is the foundation of conservationism. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Pretty much. Admitting climate change is real is admitting that God doesn't determine climate, that the pie is mostly a fixed size, infinite growth (the underlying principle of capitalism) isn't real, that there are other people who matter besides you and your family, and that there are consequences to your actions. Is it really a surprise America rejects climate change? Most Americans just really are that selfish, hateful, and shortsighted, it's not that they're excessively stupid per se.
Radbot fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Pretty much. Admitting climate change is real is admitting that God doesn't determine climate, that the pie is mostly a fixed size, infinite growth (the underlying principle of capitalism) isn't real, that there are other people who matter besides you and your family, and that there are consequences to your actions. Is it really a surprise America rejects climate change? Most Americans just really are that selfish, hateful, and shortsighted, it's not that they're excessively stupid per se. Which is why its hilarious and sad to see Inhoffe huff and puff and write really bad books about God and Climate Change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:44
|
|