On Earth Day – Video Says It All!


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

43 Responses to On Earth Day – Video Says It All!

  1. D. King says:

    Well, the jig’s up!

  2. stevefrisch says:

    D. KIng, do you actually think that the vast majority of Americans will not see this for exactly what it is, propaganda pure and simple, in the best tradition of the Nuremberg rallies?

  3. RL Crabb says:

    Yahoo! Bring back leaded gas and V8’s with fins! I remember driving through LA twenty-five years ago and you couldn’t see the Hollywood sign for the smog. With a little effort we can get back to those days and show those elitists we mean bizniz! Like the Firesign Theatre said back in 1975, “Where there’s smoke, there’s work!”

    But seriously, do I think the environmentalists go too far? Yeah, but the world you all seem intent on bringing back is makes me gag, literally.

    • D. King says:

      I grew up in L.A. Bob. I remember the smog. Who wants to go back to that?

      • RL Crabb says:

        The bitching from the right has been consistent from the time lead was banned… Catalytic converters will make cars too expensive…Gas mileage requirements are too stringent…Public tranportation is socialism…BART was a waste of money…You make it sound like anything that improves air quality, encourages conservation, or costs you a dime is an evil plot. I don’t mind paying a little more for these things, as long as the money is being used for those purposes. What I object to is using it as a slush fund to balance a bloated budget. That’s where the debate should be, not linking Earth Day to Lenin’s birthday or some of the other conspiracies that break wind around here.

    • Why is the debate always throwing the baby out with the bathwater by the left? No one wants to have crappy air or water. Hell a Republican started the environmental laws. The problem is as it always is with government that it doesn;t stop there. If anyone thinks that “carbon” money trading didn’t morph out of the good intentions of clean air, they must be stoned. Thousands of laws every year to control all aspects of your lives started out with good intentions regariding LA smog. No, we just laugh at the standard response of the eco nuts with any attempt to bring sanity to the laws.

  4. D. King says:

    Here is Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Center for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Institute.

    This video is 31 minutes long.

    • ggoodknight says:

      Steven Frisch, I’ll guess you’ve not managed to read that Shaviv & Veizer paper that you promised to get to (yes, I know, insulting people here is more fun than reading some boring science paper) but this Svensmark video is as good. Completely congruous, and it was a Svensmark paper in 2007 that turned me on to SV2003 in the first place.

      • stevefrisch says:

        I have read the paper, conferred with a good friend who is a physicist, and am reading a few other papers related to the analysis of the Shaviv paper early this week. As I said, I’m not playing your game, I’m playing my game, and you don’t set the rules. Besides, I was also focused on enjoying a piece of this unseasonably warm and pleasant weekend.

      • Greg, surprised?

      • ggoodknight says:

        You can always just search over at the misnamed “RealClimate” and see how they summarily dismiss it, it’s how the local climate stalker does her ‘research’. You might also read Shaviv’s site, where he discusses the challenges to the paper and the defenses.

        I’m not playing your game, either, Steve. Why not have your physicist friend join in on an appropriate thread? I’m sure Russ (or George R) would be happy to host.

  5. stevefrisch says:

    You guys know who fixed that right? The California Air Resources Board….created by then GOvernor Ronald Reagan in 1967….California is the only state that is permitted to have such a regulatory agency, since it is the only state that had one before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act. Other states are permitted to follow CARB standards, or use the federal ones, but not set their own.


    • D. King says:

      You guys know who fixed that right?

      Yes, engineers!

      • ggoodknight says:

        Shoes for industry!

        I completely support the CARB of 1967. If we held the CARB of 2012 to the same budget, inflation adjusted, I suspect no one here would mind them.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Why yes, of course, it was not the regulatory driver requiring air quality improvement, passed by Reagan, that led to improved air quality! It was engineers, who suddenly discovered the technology under a rock to do so. What nonsense. The engineers had the ability to improve the technology all long, what they lacked was incentive.

      • ggoodknight says:

        How’s the science reading going, Steve?

    • DKing, yep, as Frisch said, no incentives were available, you know, those taxpayer “grants” Frisch is so familiar with. Hell, his SBC is 98-99% funded by you and me through taxes. And look how they have cleaned up our air. Thanks SteveF.

      • David King says:

        His faith in the state is total. I don’t know what you call that.

      • ggoodknight says:


      • stevefrisch says:

        No, I kind of meant incentives like a regulatory incentive. If industry was so concerned with air quality before CARB why didn’t they do anything about it? Pure and simple, their companies would not make as much money if they had to mitigate the trash they dump in our skies.

      • ggoodknight says:

        In the case of Frisch, both Authoritarian and Majoritarian fits. Think populist tyrant.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Greg I am wondering if I could have your address? I would like to start dumping my waste products in your yard. You see, the cost of my lifestyle would be so much cheaper if I could dump my trash in your yard and not have to pay for it. You don’t mind do you? I know there might be a few health problems, you may not be able to see the mountains from your porch, or hear the birds singing in the morning, and perhaps there will be an unpleasant odor, but I really don’t think I should have to pay for the impacts of my waste….it is somebody else’s problem….just like air pollution is not the responsibility of companies that sell fossil fuels….their waste product goes into my air and water every day, and the taxpayers are the ones who pay for it.

        No problem right?

      • ggoodknight says:

        Populist tyrant really is a good fit, isn’t it?

        Frisch, I’m not the straw man you’re looking for. Move along. CO2 ‘dumping’ isn’t an act of pollution, and the additional efforts of the CARB along those lines aren’t improving air quality.

      • stevefrisch says:

        No other industry on earth gets a free pass for dumping their trash in the public domain. I really think that would be a great protest, just dumping our trash in the lobby of Exxon and Valero one day. It could be international “pay back the polluters” day. Unfortunately what I have to dump could not be one tenth as toxic as the NOx, SOx, CO, PM 10, PM 2.5, and CO2 they dump for free, while being the most profitable industry on earth.

      • I thought CO2 was exhaled by living creatures? Well, hey if it is a pollutant and SteveF wants people to stop dumping on his space, OK. So, from now now on SteveF, stop breathing, your exhaling CO2 is polluting my space. Your arguments are specious Frisch.

      • ggoodknight says:

        “No other industry on earth gets a free pass for dumping their trash in the public domain.”

        The OSHA limit for CO2 exposure is an average of 5,000ppm over an 8 hour day. Heachaches start at about 20,000ppm.

        5000ppm isn’t great for people, but your houseplants would love it, and there’s no chance we could ever burn enough fossil fuels to get back to the global CO2 levels of the early phanerozoic from the current ~400ppm. Not enough ‘fuelified’ fossils will ever be available to do that.

        So, Steve, how’s the science book report going? Don’t forget to factor in the latest revelations from Lovelock, and there’s also the new paper from Henrik Svensmark tieing GCR not only to climate but also evolution. Great stuff.

      • stevefrisch says:

        Gee Greg, how convenient to ignore the NOx, SOx, CO and PM—-doesn’t fit your narrative does it?

      • ggoodknight says:

        “Gee Greg, how convenient to ignore the NOx, SOx, CO and PM—-doesn’t fit your narrative does it?”

        I can’t remember ever disputing those are pollutants, Steve.

        How’s that science report you were working on? You were so hot to get started, if you’re bogged down, putting your draft on the table might help. The latest Svensmark paper (Russ has a nice report on it) and the latest Lovelock revelations might also be of value to you.

  6. David King says:

    stevefrisch says:
    04/23/2012 at 06:40
    Why yes, of course, it was not the regulatory driver requiring air quality improvement, passed by Reagan, that led to improved air quality! It was engineers, who suddenly discovered the technology under a rock to do so. What nonsense. The engineers had the ability to improve the technology all long, what they lacked was incentive.

    No Steve, It was not ordered King Canute style by a flat assed bureaucrat.

    No Steve, the technology was not found under a rock. It was created by oil industry engineer.


    The catalytic converter was invented by Eugene Houdry, a French mechanical engineer and expert in catalytic oil refining[7] who lived in the U.S. around 1950. When the results of early studies of smog in Los Angeles were published, Houdry became concerned about the role of smoke stack exhaust and automobile exhaust in air pollution and founded a company, Oxy-Catalyst. Houdry first developed catalytic converts for smoke stacks called cats for short. Then started research in the mid 1950s to develop catalytic converters for gasoline engines. He was awarded United States Patent 2742437 for his work.[8]


    • DKing, your facts will not discourage the liberals quest.

      • D. King says:

        No it won’t, but as they are exposed, there are fewer places for their lies to hide.

    • stevefrisch says:

      Of course auto makers and factories did not install catalytic converters until the EPA, the Clean Air Act and CARB began demanding they do so or pay for their waste. Private industry may have created the technical solution, but the monetary driver that speeded its adoption was provided by government. And thank goodness for that or we would not be able to breathe.

      • D. King says:

        So, the villain is NOT Big Oil ( energy ), it’s Big Car, Big Union Car!
        I’m glad for catalytic converters, the engineer that invented them, and the inevitable decision to use them.

      • Of course a liberals always want and use “big government” to enforce their fascism.

      • ggoodknight says:

        DK, the important part of the timeline is that the technology existed first, and was then promoted.

        The new energy revolution underway is to first make carbon fuel costs skyrocket, then watch for an appropriate technology to be invented in time to save us from ruin.

      • D. King says:


        LOL! It reminds me of Lysenkoism.

        “Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias…”


        I’m sure it will work out this time! 🙂

      • ggoodknight says:

        I think there are weak parallels to Lysenko in climate science, but not alternative power generation. Everyone knows it’s too expensive in current forms but there’s a lot of faith the price will come down faster than carbon energy prices are forced up. At least in the USA.

        Our main creditor, China, is continuing to dig coal as fast as they can, and are happy to buy every pound of coal we dig up but won’t burn. Unlike US coal fired plants, there are no Chinese restrictions on emissions of NOx, SOx, CO and PM.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: