Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to debate with people about global warming find a forum to do that. Article talk pages are not forums. They are specifically for tailoring aspects of an article IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Catalytic converters and CO2
Hi Jim! You asked "if the US government believes that CO2 is really a problem, then why hasn't it banned the use of the catalytic converter? Every car manufactured since the 80s has one, and it turns a cars exhaust into pure CO2, oxides of nitrogen and water? (I am an ASE Certified Mechanic. This is a fact that the ASE puts on their certification tests for emissions)". The catalytic converter in cars is used for three things: It reduces nitrogen oxides back to nitrogen, and it uses the available oxygen to convert CO and unburned hydrocarbons into CO2 and water. CO is acutely poisonous. So are many hydrocarbons. Both also are converted to CO2 and water in relatively short time (days) in the atmosphere. Also, while they are produced in harmful concentrations (especially for long-term exposure), most of the fuel is, of course, burned in the engine (that's what provides the power), so the overall amounts of incompletely oxidized fuel is tiny for any reasonably well-tuned engine. Use of the catalytic converter does not increase overall CO2 emissions of an engine, it only converts some of a more harmful exhaust components to CO2 and water a bit earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Far-right politics. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
the page itself is biased and opinions. "far right politics"??? its someone's opinion and you allow it only because you agree with their political ideology!