Reply from Act on Lies (TM)

[kevlar]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Act on LIES!
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:19:27 +0100
From: actonco2 (DECC) <actonco2@decc.gsi.gov.uk>
To:


Hi Paul

Thank you for your message. The Department has tried to answer your points below.

When hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) are burned, the result, as you suggest, is either complete or incomplete combustion. If we take the example of a car engine, fuel in the centre of the cylinder, away from the cylinder walls and close to the spark, will stand a high chance of combusting completely. Fuel that is away from the spark and close to the cylinder walls is less likely to combust completely. Therefore at any stroke of the engine, there will be a mixture of both complete and incomplete combustion occurring, but overall, as you indicate, the combustion process will be incomplete. The ratio of complete combustion to incomplete combustion is often referred to as the efficiency of combustion.

Within this incomplete combustion, some carbon is still fully oxidised to carbon dioxide. Some will, as you point out, only partially oxidise to form carbon monoxide. Some will also remain as elemental carbon forming soot (other gases such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide are also formed through a mixture of reactions between the fuel and the air). On leaving the exhaust pipe the carbon monoxide will eventually oxidise to carbon dioxide in the environment.

Until quite recently carbon monoxide was considered a much more significant pollutant than carbon dioxide due to its impacts on human health, and significant efforts have been made to control it, particularly from motor vehicles. These have included both ‘end-of-pipe’ treatment, such as catalytic convertors, as well as changes in engine technology to improve combustion efficiency (i.e. to increase the proportion of fuel that is burnt completely). These have been so successful that there is very little concern in the UK today about carbon monoxide in the ambient urban environment (however it is still considered a major risk in domestic properties from poorly maintained gas appliances). The only way to reduce all carbon emissions (CO, CO2 and soot) would be to remove carbon from the fuel itself.

We can measure increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by around 38% since pre-industrial times and chemical analysis of shows that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shows an increasing fingerprint that this carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil fuels.

There is strong evidence that the current period of climate change is being driven by the large additional amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse effects released into the atmosphere by human activities.

You also state that “Environmentalism should be should not be focussed just on CO2” and indeed concern regarding the causes of climate change covers a very wide range of greenhouse gases as well as atmospheric particles. Climate change is not the only environmental problem of concern, but it is expected to have a significant effect on many other important issues, such as water shortages, biodiversity, deforestation, and air pollution.

Kind regards



The ACT ON CO2 Team



From: paul
Sent: 14 December 2009 22:24
To: actonco2 (Eden)
Subject: Act on LIES!



Hi

If you look into the science around the theory that burning fossil fuels emits co2 you will find a lot of information on the internet. But if you realy look into it, you will find out that it is about complete and incomplete combustion. Now complete combustion is not an easy scientificly. What you have done is mixed up the carbons, it is carbon monoxide that you should be worried about. CO is a byproduct of the incomplete burning of fuels, including wood, heating oil, propane, kerosene, gasoline, diesel fuel, coal, charcoal, and natural gas. All fuel-burning equipment and appliances are potential sources for carbon monoxide. Complete combustion of a fuel with its stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio requires extensive mixing of the fuel and air, so that every available oxygen atom will meet up with every available carbon and hydrogen atom. Unfortunately equipment that operates this efficiently does not exist.

Here is four patents for attempts at complete combustion technology:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5243945.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4106445.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4432335.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3592577.html

If you can find anymore patents regarding complete combustion that can prove me to be completely wrong, please send them to me. At the moment i feel like the world has gone insane. So if you can prove to me that complete combustion practical application is a realization. Then i will concede that my car is actually spitting out co2. Until then i will continue to understand that burning fossil fuels might give off certain pollutants but co2 is not one of them. Although there is this ukrainian scientists claiming he has cracked the technology. http://mcelroycombustion.com/

Yes, complete and incomplete combustion. If we just for a moment forget about the 'new science' regarding the burning of fossil fuels and just think about the basics. We all know that cars give off carbon monoxide as when someone kills them self inside their car with an exhaust in the hose pipe, they die of co poisoning. Cigarettes give off carbon monoxide and other chemicals. I had found data from nasa that showed a correlation between carbon monoxide levels and forest fires, on a global scale. Not surprisingly i can no longer locate those data sets... none the less the very idea that burning fossil fuels creates carbon monoxide is elementary science. The MIT definition of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide respectively:


carbon monoxide, CO, an odorless very poisonous gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon


carbon dioxide, CO2, carbonic acid gas (a heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis)


The fake science they have created around this, is a monstrosity of science. It is not the first time that such a great lie has besieged science in such a way. But for the discussion of the other times, we will leave for another time. Let's talk about complete combustion, to ascertain complete combustion, the environment from what i understand, has to have a high oxygen content. Well the last time i checked there was no high oxygen environment inside the automobile, boat, ferry or motorbike. They might claim that the industrial refineries and power plants have engineered high oxygen environments. This leaves many questions. It is firstly difficult to believe that the refineries and power plants would spend money on technology to produce carbon dioxide. Which leaves you with the question of, why would they need to engineer high oxygen environments to produce co2 when they can just burn it normally and of course what will that produce...?

They will also say that burning certain fossil fuels will give off co2 while others won't. I am not a scientist and do not have the energy or the facilities for that matter to research what every fossil fuel emits when burned. Not to mention the science that is available on this matter is dubious at best. I will say that they do engineer the fossil fuels to give off less pollution. But by no means have they managed to engineer petrol for example to give off co2 and not any other pollutants.

Another example is carbon dioxide fire extinguishers that put out fires. It seems almost illogical to me to think that fires would emit carbon dioxide but yet go out when sprayed with it.

The basics around the science is that we have carbon © that uses oxygen (o2) to burn, now oxygen always needs something to combine with as it it can not exist by itself. So it is O on the periodic table but as a gas it is O2 when combustion occurs it uses oxygen so we are left with CO. It is scientifically difficult for it to emit co2. However i am yet to see a fossil fuel burn and release CO2 under non-corporate funded research. This i think would be a great advancement in human technology to be able to run our cars and our boats and our trucks and only emit CO2, the plants would love it.

The entire science of this climate change farce is based on the theory that there is a correlation between co2 and temperature levels. If you go past that and look at the co2 itself you will find that there is no basis for that assertion. Considering that co2 is a very very small percentage of the global atmosphere, its' impact on climate is dubious at best. Amongst other factors that we do know have an affect on climate, such as the sun. But to say that burning fossil fuels has an affect on the climate, i struggle not leave it open as a possibility, but then we are back to what is emitted from burning fossil fuels...

Although this should not put us off the mentality that man is having an impact on the environment, of course man is having an impact on the environment.Environmentalism should not be focused just on co2, it is a much broader scope than just one gas. The real environmentalist disaster are never talked about, since co2 has hit the mainstream group think reality, they have forgotten to mention the real environmental disasters. They have twisted and distorted it into a carbon credit derivitives bubble-global tax on breathing, eugenics tax.

Regards

[---]

subsequent to this exchange the ACTonCO2 team were seen to rush over to press the big red button on the wall labelled europol

[kevlar]

bhahah