I understand you're pain Chrismc. I've been in a number of discussions on there and yes, it's like talking to a brick wall in most cases.
Personally, I feel the role of government is to defend it's people and look after their welfare...which can be defined in many ways, but by this I mean well-being. I'm not always a fan of all regulations, but I try to have an understanding of why they were put in place. As as Chrismc indicated, the regulations are made without specifying to the manufacturers how to meet them. The smartest ones determine the "best way" to do it and then patent it. In some cases, this will be a bit of a hinderance to others to overcome that until the figure out the "next best thing" or just license it from the first company.
The world would be a very different place without the EPA. It is an organization that is needed. Some of there efforts or regulations may fall on the extreme side, but I'm glad they're around. Regulations and requirements can always be changed. I don't necessarily like all of the ones they have either. However, it is has been proven time and again, corporations don't undertake an effort on their own volition unless there is significant money to be made. The aspect of moral responsible avoiding activities that harm the health and welfare of environment and organisms that live within it aren't even a second thought it seems. EPA haters should at the very least, take it upon themselves to read "Silent Spring" by (I think) Rachael Carson. If they still hate the EPA after that, then so be it.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for a scientist or engineer is the being able to disseminate complicated information to the public in a manner it can be understood. When I was in graduate school, I could explain my project to my parents. I could tell them about the hoped-for application, but things didn't work out and my research morphed into a project about physical organic chemistry studying the mechanisms of formation of diradicals through experimentation and through modeling to help guide our thoughts about the possible and most plausible mechanisms. For them to understand or even appreciate what I was doing, it would have required me to teach them at least a semester's worth of chemistry.
Chrismc, I feel you again in terms of our matriculation. My parents were around and involved in terms of encouragement, but getting a higher education was a personal and individual experience for me. My mom didn't finish her freshman year of high school and Dad was a high school graduate. They had the minimal in terms of science and math classes. I was the one who helped me with my homework. They were there for encouragement to require my brother and I to do the best we could in school. So, I completely understand how insulting it is when some jerk whips the "ivory tower crap" when it comes to someone obtaining an education and earning...yes it is earning, this stuff isn't given...a PhD. I grew up in rural KY and worked hard to get to where I am now. ...by the way, I went to Rolla...kinda miss Missouri at times. More power to you bro'.
Science isn't easy. The job of research is to gather data and try to make sense of it. Very few things are yes or no. We strive to design experiments in such a way that we get "yes" and "no" answers. However, depending on the thing being studied, it's not usually that simple. We oftentimes end up gathering a lot of data, deciphering it, and then finding that the results are shades of gray. Making sense of it is a major challenge. What causes problems and many of the arguments is how one handles the data. Some take out certain parts or refine it some way. Removing outlier or just failed measurements is justifiable. The biggest problem is when someone has an agenda and slants the data to promote their agenda. Someone that is true to the science, and we're in the majority and is why we're in the field for the first place, does not do this. As a matter of fact, it is an efficient way to damage ones reputation or lose their credentials. A very blatant case is Jan Hendrik Schon (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal). Science is junk when it is made up. Disagreeing with the plausible conclusions of the science does not make it junk. One can show some people data that clearly indicates a result, and then only to have those individuals choose
not to believe that data because it is not a result they wish to occur.
The topic of Climate change is one of areas that's not black and white. There is a much gray and causation of the change could be a combination of factors. Personally, I subscribe to the anthroprogenic side. I think we should be doing things in a "cleaner" manner so as not ot make the situation worse. Climate is a slippery slope. Once, and if, sufficiently altered, getting things back to the way they "should be" will require orders of magnitude more effort than the preventative measures.
In terms of soot and nitrogen oxides...and no Warp, the problem isn't nitrous oxide. It's nitrogen oxides in general. Nitrous oxide refers to a particular oxidation state and compound. It is laughing gas or the stuff people put in high performance engines. The regulations are geared toward reducing nitrogen oxides in general, not just that one particular compound. When one continually gets the terminology wrong rants and raves that they are an expert on the subject, they lose credibility. The issue with soot is that it has components of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These compounds are known carcinogens. The smaller the particle, the worse because the more deeply it can go into the lung and become permanently trapped.
George Burns lived to ~100 becauses of genetics, not because smoking in general isn't bad for you. When one smokes, they imbibe polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The issue with these structures is that they can form very stable (long-lived) free radicals because they can delocalize the unpaired electrons throughout their structure by resonance. The issue is when they enter the body, that compound will evenutally do chemistry with something in the body. That free radical, or unpaired electron, on the PAH desires to be paired with another electron. It will eventually abstract a hydrogen atom from a strand of DNA which results in chain-scission of that strand. This may get repaired or the cell simply is not longer viable and dies. The cell death is preferable. In the cases where the cell survives, the immune system may notice that cell is different from what it should be and will cull it from the healthy ones...or it could live to reproduce. This process could ultimately result in cancer. It becomes about the laws of probability and averages and how well one's body addresses free radicals. George Burns' body apparently handled them and mutant cells well. My uncle who died at 59 and grandmother before him who died in her early sixties from lung cancer from 30-40 years of smoking demonstrate to me that my family line lacks the genetics to allow us to live for 100 years while smoking for the majority of them. If one goes with the average, they should conclude that smoking is bad for you. However, the population fits a bell curve...some people seemingly get by with it while others die at a relatively young age.
Citing data to support ones views in a scientific discussion is customary. Warp, you are probably the biggest offender when it comes to making statements of great certainty while bashing other's thoughts/opinions/facts with great certainty without presenting a shred of evidence for doing so. The cop out, "I don't have to post it because it is up to everyone else to find where I get my information because it's not my job to back up what I say and the burden of proof lies on those who disagree with me and if they aren't willing to do it they must be certainly be lazy" argument detracts from any shred of credibility you have. I am so shocked at times by some of the things you and others present that I wouldn't even know where to begin trying to find the stuff to validate it. It's so far out there on the fringe of anything having a semblance of reality that it's a waste of my time to even bother looking. If you want people to give any credance to what you have to say, at the very least, you should cite your sources. Otherwise, you're just making it up...for all I know, you could be a "smoking acid using hippie" yourself and you could be just conjuring all of this up.
Chrismc...I admire your fortitude on this one. I would have given up way before now. I think there are more who agree with you than you're being given credit for. I bought the CRD because of the mileage the diesel engine would provide. I refused to buy a vehical that got under 20 mpg per gallon. I've never actually driven a gas Liberty. I considered a hybrid Escape, but early on, people where having many problems with the electronics. I wanted something 4-wheel or all-wheel drive for the snows in MI. If it wasn't wasn't for the CRD, I would have considered a Subaru or Audi A4 more seriously...can't tow much with those though.
Differences of opinion are fine and actually welcome, but continually presenting half-baked theories and explanations without some supporting evidence leads to threads like this.