They are diesel and they are allowed as long as they remove the particulates from their exhaust. Corning makes a filter for such use.

The car companies have had plans on the drawing board for years where cars can get better mileage ?? Being on the payroll of the Oil Companies and them
telling you what to do so more gasoline can be consumed in cars,
because of the mighty dollar, then all ethics are expelled out of the "exhaust"
(PUN)

Big oil owns this country.

NotSoAwesomeTown wrote: Big oil owns this country.

Indy: It’s sad that our leaders are being given so much lobbyist dollars by the big oil companies who as you note, pretty much call the shots regarding our nation’s energy policy.

I still remember Reagan ‘ripping off the White House’ the solar panels that Carter put on it in defiance of our nation’s long term energy needs.

From that date, we’ve wasted the better part of 30 years in trying to find sources of renewable energy that can account from the tremendous energy found in oil.

Just one barrel has the equivalent of about 25,000 man-hours of energy.

For a good view on the topic, try this DVD: A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash (2007) (warning: not for the weak hearted . . . )

In any event, I don’t blame the oil companies per se since they didn’t know back in the day that burning their product would create issues with climate change.

And they did provide the nation with the energy during a critical growth period of our nation’s history.

The problem today, however, is that they are more interested in protecting ‘market share’ that seeing the bigger issues created by burning oil.

In any event, check out this site: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

The EIA has updated their site and the web pages are easy to read and garner the information contained in same.

Like it or not, the US only has about 25 billion barrels proven reserves while the US uses some 7 billion per year . . . yet our leaders say we can become energy independent? Not possible with oil.

In any event raising the CAFE standards helps us in the short run but we need a much bigger discussion about what ‘sustainable growth’ means including the reality that population stabilization is part of the effort.

Until that happens, we’re in jeopardy . . .

"I still remember Reagan ‘ripping off the White House’ the solar panels that Carter put on it in defiance of our nation’s long term energy needs."

With his bare hands! Defiance! An Indy idée fixe, no doubt. An outrage recalled and inserted into posts at least weekly!

FYI, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and NRDC have $310 million, $100 million, and $95 million annual budgets respectively. Hardly underdogs in the lobbying circus.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby00/issueareas.php

Rentseekers and carnival barker politicians control political discourse for low information voters.

Oh no, Big Oil! Thank God for oil as it fuled America's Industrial Revolution bringing major benefits to our quality of life. If you don't like oil don't buy it and don't buy gasoline either. Hello...

OldReliable: We kill thousands of people a week with our energy system. We fight and die for fossil fuel. The smoke shortens millions of lives. The long term carbon pollution is altering the coastline as the sea reclaims barrier islands on the Atlantic; the wetlands between New Orleans and the Gulf; The financial district in Manhattan; the Embarcadero in SF, and thousands of other coastal features, being "overtopped" as we speak.

Thank God for oil...indeed. --edited.

All smoke and light aside the reason is the DOT. These cars are small and light and can't pass the DOT's arcane crash safety standards. It's not that the cars are not safe, it's that the things that DOT measures are not doing a good job of measuring safety. So Ford can't sell the Ka here, BMW can't sell the 1 series here, the Japanese can't sell their Kei cars here.

It has little to do with "big oil" and everything to do with a disfunctional DOT.

And where would America be without oil, Ricketzzz? I hope you're not buying oil or gasoline... if so, does the word hypocrite mean anything to you?

Of course we all need gasoline, but I cannot figure out how anybody on here can DEFEND the oil companies. With all the price fixing, manufactured shortages, suspicious refinery shutdowns for "maintenance" and the rest of the manipulation, why would anybody think they are being honest businesspeople?

@Bdeezine:

I'd be interested in the sources for your assertions.

If recollection serves, the FTC conducted an extensive investigation post-Katrina about "price fixing/gouging", etc. and found zero instances by energy firms. I believe this has been the case in all regulatory reviews.

Do you have authoritative information to the contrary?

http://www.ftc.gov/os/testimony/070522FTC_%20Initiatives_to_Protect_Competitive_Petroleum_Markets.pdf

Personally, I don't trust the "integrity" of the FTC so this doesn't have much pull for me. I do remember watching the last round of senate hearings a couple of years ago when the oil companies trotted out all the same reasons again... and all sat there with visible smirks on their faces.

Your rigorous and substantive burden of proof is so noted.

And OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder by a US criminal court. Personally, I think he is still guilty... how about you?

And which oil company do you work for?

@Bdeezine:

Your poison the well* accusation is of a piece with your unsubstantiated assertions. How would anything I did for remuneration remediate your flawed logic?

"Smirks" indeed.

Considering this discussion, it's a relief that the republic is protected by the rule of law and our Constitution. Otherwise, there's little else to separate us from a Reign of Terror.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

You never answered my question, so I'll say Chevron. Go ahead, defend the oil companies, have at it... just smile while they bend you over.

OR, I'd demand an apology if I thought you were capable of it. I didn't tell YOU to stop using oil. I said big oil has an illegal grip on illegitimate government. Think of Big Oil as a "John" and our lawmakers as "service providers". Our govt is supposed to protect us from big business, but all it does is rubber stamp proposed legislation, as long as said legislation is stapled to a big fat check.

There is no technical reason we can't be powered 100% by renewable energy sources. The sooner we start the less it will cost over the long run. The smoke is killing us. Think of Climate Change as an insidious plan by the Venusians to turn the Earth into a Venus-like planet so they can invade. Renewable energy is our only chance to defeat the slimy hordes.

@Bdeezine:

Your inability to defend your assertions is made all the more evident by your desperation to demonize me as the enemy, completely ignoring that you have no basis for your argument other than your feelings and ideological certainty of what you "know".

Thanks for making my point about mindless mob rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

The fact that you're completely wrong is risible. Please make my amusement complete by next insisting that I demonstrate my loyalty to the Earth by proving I'm not a petroleum industry shill. Perhaps hearings and show trials are in order? :-D

@ricketzz:

Style points for introducing Venusians into your argument. It provides absolute clarity to the remaining context.

There's historical precedent for closing all your future posts with this statement: Venus must be destroyed!

Meanwhile, here's how regulated commodity cost plus business models protect the consumer:

"At the end of 2012, Valencia Water Company actual
revenues fell below projected revenues. However,
Valencia Water Company must still pay the costs to
operate and maintain its water delivery
system. Therefore, we have placed a "Revenue
Adjustment" surcharge rate on customer bills. This
surcharge is in accordance with the terms of our
rate case approved in 2010 by the California Public
Utilities Commission. This itemized surcharge is
expected to remain in effect for about 12 months
until the revenue imbalance is corrected. If you
have any questions about this surcharge, please
call our Customer Service Department at 661-294-
0828. Customers are encouraged to continue to use
water efficiently, which can help reduce your water
bill."

technologist: Well, thanks for completing MY amusement with your undaunted defense of the good folks at these well-intentioned oil companies. NOW THAT'S FUNNY!! And.. thanks for the "apples and oranges" analogy above, really hit the mark. Who's next on your "Hero" list, Haliburton? Enron?

@Bdeezine:

Never leave out the Koch Brothers when constructing straw men. Negligent! Perhaps a checklist is in order.

Note to self: Water isn't a commodity because Bdeezine says so. Perhaps it's apples…or oranges. I must await further received wisdom.

Technologist: Sorry about that. You're right. How could I possibly have left out those good sumaritan Koch Brothers? I should have assumed they were heroes of yours too. Anybody else on your list... Boss Tweed maybe? LOL.

@Bdezinne:

Godwin's Law for emergency non sequiturs is in your playbook as well, right?

technooologist: You're a regular Dennis Miller, you are. Care to make any other oblique references, maybe quote some Sartre during Monday Night Football??

@Bdeezine:

I'll consider it. In the interim, here's Albert Camus to sate your existentialist palate:

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

Technologist: LOL. I'm starting to like you.... that's pretty funny.

Bdeezine wrote: Of course we all need gasoline, but I cannot figure out how anybody on here can DEFEND the oil companies. With all the price fixing, manufactured shortages, suspicious refinery shutdowns for "maintenance" and the rest of the manipulation, why would anybody think they are being honest businesspeople?


Indy: Some things to keep in mind . . .

Refineries do shut down for maintenance especially when switching to fuel mixtures for summer versus winter.

The oil companies aren’t going to build more refineries since they ‘know’ that US oil reserves are low (about 25 billion barrels http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/ ) and building more refineries just doesn’t have the ‘payback’ if you will.

Now that could change if the tar sands oil from Canada is refined here but even that is going to be sold on the world market.

And that’s another point, the price of gas is now being figured on demand worldwide.

As far as price fixing, the reason the oil companies are so profitable is that the price of gas is no longer based on extraction or refining, it’s based on ‘demand’.

In other words, if it cost $1/gallon to produce (sample numbers) and the industry profit is say 10%, then the cost to you would be $1.10/gallon.

But if the ‘demand’ is high and to keep the market stable, the price of gas might be say $2/gallon. Thus, the oil industry makes excess profits of $.90.

This was addressed years ago with the ‘wind fall profits’ tax but that has gone away due to the lobbyist effect that is not so much ‘price fixing’ but just successful lobbying to many politicians that are economically illiterate.

Additionally, as I noted above, the early oil industry didn’t have the knowledge of the current issue of climate change. So I don’t blame them for that.

Likewise, however, they do have a lot of investment and don’t want to ‘strand it’ so in the immediate short run, their interest is to protect ‘market share’ of the energy business while waiting for our ‘leaders’ to become knowledgeable about the economic externality cost of climate change.

Sadly, there is no ‘cheap’ substitute for oil so our ‘leaders’ are in a precarious position in that they promise the public ‘unlimited’ growth while avoiding the reality that the age of oil is ending.

And politicians knows that whatever party is in office when renewables are ‘forced’ to be used, that the other party will crucify them if the economy slows which it will . . .

There’s no easy way out of this . . . we need to be discussing ‘sustainable growth’ including the inevitable issue of population stabilization (which is happening in the developed world . . . ) for the public to really understand what’s at stake.

Short of that, we’re left in this partisan contest where everybody loses . . .

"excess profits" & "‘wind fall profits’ tax"

A world view in a nutshell.

It’s understandable that many Americans don’t understand things like ‘demand profits’.

Market fundamentalism teaches these folks that ‘markets’ will determine fair prices.

This is one of the fundamental flaws with current neoclassical economic models in that they assume ‘limitless’ resources.

Thus if the price to market is too high, then other competitors jump in and drive the price and thus the profits down . . .

And that’s the case with oil . . . it’s limited and the competitors out there understand that.

Thus, when the ‘demand’ for oil continue to rise but it’s limited, the price rises above what would normally be a ‘competitive profit’ thus the lucky companies in this business can get ‘excess profits’ through the ‘demand’ for the product.

In any event the corollary that is appropriate is that other competing technologies seeing the ‘excess profits’ will jump in to the fray . . .

And that is happening but the other reality that is related to the ‘limited’ resources of oil is that current demand can’t be made easily by the competing technologies thus in the short run, oil companies will continue to make ‘excess profits’.

The only question is whether the transition to a renewable energy future will not be one based on catastrophe since there little debate today regarding what a sustainable future entails and whether the transaction will be made gracefully or with consequences not predicted by current neoclassical economic models (think why didn’t those model predict the 2007 crash).

@Indy:

Condescension aside, it's not a question of "understanding" or ideology. It's simply what has proven to work as the foundation of advanced Western-style economies.

Sotto voce in your multitudinous posts is the denigration of free markets ("market fundamentalism") and advocacy for managed, i.e. government directed economies.

The record is clear on which model is functional. In fact, you pointed out how regulatory intervention disrupts supply via boutique fuel mixtures, ethanol mandates, etc.

Contrary to your assertion, there's vigorous debate on energy policy. Those with ideological rigidity exhibit closed minds and absolutism.

technologist wrote: Condescension aside, it's not a question of "understanding" or ideology. It's simply what has proven to work as the foundation of advanced Western-style economies.

Indy: Interestingly, many of the advanced European nations don’t follow the ‘market fundamentalist’ model and their societies are more equal and fair than ours.

As far as the issue of ‘market fundamentalism’, we can see that failing us in America over the last 100 years.

While some folks have done well what’s happened from the mid-70s to present is the middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate.

The solution from market fundamentalist is more unconstrained growth that often ignores environmental degradation and produces jobs that barely pay enough to live on.

Your comment about a ‘government directed economy’ is the type of extremist comment that comes from a market fundamentalist that can’t understand that sound regulations produce a ‘level playing field’ for both businesses and workers alike.

But please, give us some examples of the regulations that you feel are hurting economic development.

I ask this often but get no response from conservatives here. Why is that?

If conservative politicians are advocating fewer regulations, which ones are they talking about?

What have you found on McKeon, Knight, or Wilk’s websites?

Finally, making nonsensical statements like “Those with ideological rigidity exhibit closed minds and absolutism.” just ignores the reality and comments I make like I’m making up the oil proven reserves numbers since they don’t make to your ‘unlimited’ expectations of same.

Please, provide the links that support your statement or stop trying to hide behind clever verbiage that has little or no value.

@Indy:

Please advise how the "advanced European nation" economies are performing these days.

Also:

• Are "green" subsidies in Europe growing or waning?
• What are the European demographic model projections for continued support of social welfare programs?
• Can you advise what the level of structural unemployment is in the EU, especially for the under 25 cohort?

The ad hominem labels of "extremist" and "market fundamentalist" and extolling the soi-disant superiority of the European model indicates I struck a nerve about managed economies. You really are a fan, aren't you? Do you imagine yourself as part of the cognoscenti that would direct the activities of those who "don't understand"?

"The solution from market fundamentalist is more unconstrained growth that often ignores environmental degradation and produces jobs that barely pay enough to live on."

Like…China? Aren't they the model of a managed capitalist economy? Thomas Friedman seems to think so.

As a regulatory example, I offer this:

"Indy: Some things to keep in mind . . .

Refineries do shut down for maintenance especially when switching to fuel mixtures for summer versus winter."

From the Congressional Research Service:

"For oil and natural gas, a major distinction in measuring quantities of energy commodities is made between proved reserves and undiscovered resources. Understanding these terms will help avoid confusion about statistical energy data.

Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined at a significant level of certainty, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because those reserves are considered capital assets. Because proved reserves are defined by strict rules, they do not include all of the oil or gas in a region, but only those amounts that have been carefully confirmed.1 Because proved reserves are, by definition, economically recoverable, the proportion of the oil in the ground that qualifies as proved reserves grows when prices are high, and shrinks when prices are low. That is, even without new discoveries, oil that may be sub-economic at $50 per barrel might become economic at $80 per barrel and so the total proved reserves increase simply because price increases."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.view&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

Note the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Validates the power of market forces, doesn't it?

Your accusation of sophistry is a risible bit of projection. You are matchless in these forums at your level of "verbiage".

technologist wrote: "The solution from market fundamentalist is more unconstrained growth that often ignores environmental degradation and produces jobs that barely pay enough to live on."

Like…China? Aren't they the model of a managed capitalist economy? Thomas Friedman seems to think so.

Indy: And so does Mitt Romney and most large multinational corporations that are out sourcing their manufacturing to China to take advantage of the ‘wage differential’ before selling the products back in the US.

This is one of the reasons the stock market, norinf that just 10 to 20% of the public owns 80 to 90% of all stocks, has completely recovered yet unemployment stays high in ‘America’.

Where are the republicans that are clamoring for ‘more jobs’ not speaking to this issue?

technologist wrote: The ad hominem labels of "extremist" and "market fundamentalist" and extolling the soi-disant superiority of the European model indicates I struck a nerve about managed economies. You really are a fan, aren't you? Do you imagine yourself as part of the cognoscenti that would direct the activities of those who "don't understand"?

Indy: I just love it when conservatives pat themselves on the back here again telling me ‘what I really wrote’! Priceless . . . pun intended.

Go back again and read what I said before commenting: “Your comment about a ‘government directed economy’ is the type of extremist comment that comes from a market fundamentalist that can’t understand that sound regulations produce a ‘level playing field’ for both businesses and workers alike.”

Regulations in and of themselves are not ‘managed economies’. That merely set the ‘ground rules’ for businesses to make their own internal decisions.

But they do protect the public from various forms of malfeasance including:

- pollution (Clean Air and Water Acts)

- unfair labor practices(OSHA, Child Labor Laws)

- and try to prevent the ‘moral hazard’ when the profiting is asynchronous as when a company stands to gain everything while losing is left to taxpayers (TARP).

So why distort that? For what purpose?

And again, please, give us some examples of the regulations that you feel are hurting economic development.

I keep asking this often but get no response from conservatives here. Why is that?

technologist cited: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.view&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

Indy: Yes, I’ve seen this report, it’s cited often by conservatives here at this site.

But let’s refer everyone as well to this link: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

It too cites the actual current measurements of proven reserves.

But what’s interesting in your comments is that you fail to tell the public that oil products are going up in price if there is any hope to extract the last remaining remnants of oil in a field.

The link I noted notes that horizontal drilling is revering the remaining oil in field creating more proven reserves. But that isn’t creating any oil . . .

And I also find that many conservatives are telling Americans that we’re not the ‘leading oil producer’ in the world that is substantiated from here: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US&trk=m#pet but they fail to tell the public that this current increase is not sustainable.

Nor to they tell the public that US current production of about 10 mbd is substantially less than our current usage of about 18 mbd.

So is the ‘power of the market’ based on how well you can selectively give people the facts?

Was that the point you’re making?

technologist wrote: Your accusation of sophistry is a risible bit of projection. You are matchless in these forums at your level of "verbiage".

Indy: It great to try to convince the readers including your fellow conservatives that you can declare the ‘debating victory’ by acknowledging same by yourself.

That’s the kind of circular logic that is failing the public.

And of course, how dare any citizen try to explain the principles behind the ‘focus group tested’ slogans being put forth by politicians as a proxy for real leadership, how dare I!

@Indy:

What I quoted categorized proven reserves, uneconomic and undiscovered resources (see pyramid). If you believe facts from the Congressional Research Service are conservative, I'm cool with that. You select only proven reserves as it suits your scarcity ideology. My point is it's a moving target due to technology and market dynamics.

"Slogans, conservative, market fundamentalism, focus group tested, ripping solar panels off the White House", multiple straw man arguments, etc.

Speaking of circular, are you operating from a script? Do you find yourself unable to cope if individuals don't match your little check boxes?

"Debating victory"? With you, that would be Sisyphean task. Quite the contrary. I realized early on that you're the forum Energizer Bunny that goes on and on and on…

You take yourself so seriously I've found poking holes in your myriad assertions a virtual sport.

Carry on. You know you want to.

Here’s some interesting stats on wealth in America from:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Percent of all stock owned:
Wealth class----2001----2004-----2007------2010
Top ----- 1%---33.5%---36.7%---38.3%--- 35.0%
Next----19%---55.8%---53.9%---52.8%----56.6%
Bottom -80%---10.7%----9.4%----8.9%-----8.4%

Those that assert ‘market fundamentalism’ is working for most Americans are saying that in defiance of the actual data.

We see from this data that the top 1% has more than four times the stock owned by the bottom ‘80%’!

And as we might expect, this results from:
- paying low capital gains rates on dividends from lobbyist who advocate for the top 1%
- discretionary income is unknown for the bottom 80% so they can’t invest

This also demonstrates why we need ‘progressive taxation’ to allow for the ‘wealth advantage’.

But what’s most interesting is the top 1% who control congress fight against the minimum wage increases even if to keep up with inflation . . .

technologist wrote: What I quoted categorized proven reserves, uneconomic and undiscovered resources (see pyramid). If you believe facts from the Congressional Research Service are conservative, I'm cool with that. You select only proven reserves as it suits your scarcity ideology. My point is it's a moving target due to technology and market dynamics.

Indy: What you ignore is perhaps more telling . . .

You ignore the reality that the US is using more than 80% of what it produces.

You ignore that the US peaked production of crude oil in 1970.

You ignore that the world population that all wants cheap energy is still expanding by some 70 million net people per year.

You ignore the reality that the rise in oil prices from extraction cost is not going to help the majority of Americans.

This type of approach is really putting America is danger and sadly, our leaders won’t disclose this type of information to the public.

The proven reserves numbers I cited have been in play for 40+ years . . . and yet you’re suggesting ‘market dynamics and technology’ are going to make the difference?

The data from this site doesn’t support you: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

In any event, the world stopped finding more oil that is uses decades ago yet ‘market fundamentalist’ keep asserting that they know better . . . and simply refuse and ‘ignore’ scarcity while putting the public in line for more energy based crises.

We need a discussion as to what ‘sustainable growth’ entails rather than reciting folklore that simply doesn’t map to the reality.

technologist wrote:"Slogans, conservative, market fundamentalism, focus group tested, ripping solar panels off the White House", multiple straw man arguments, etc.

Speaking of circular, are you operating from a script? Do you find yourself unable to cope if individuals don't match your little check boxes?

Indy: You should be addressing the political parties that create the illusion that they are actually planning our future . . . versus using the slogans you’ve noted.

And indeed, the RNC/DNC do you ‘focus groups’ to test their messages to insure they get maximum votes from putting forth information that is at best dubious, and as worse, totally misleading.

I’m really surprised you can’t see that . . . but it makes sense and that’s why they use ‘focus groups’ to get people to ‘believe’ things more in line with folklore than reality.

And yes, as we see from conservatives in congress, they pretty much use the same ‘phases’ top to bottom! It’s funny when you see news that clips together the ‘message’ whatever it may be for the issue of the day . . . the current one ‘over spending’ is one of my favorites followed by ‘we’re already dealt with revenue’.

Again, you’re putting forth your disgust to the ‘bringer of the bad news’ but it’s not me . . . in fact, I’m the one criticizing these folks for speaking down to the public by pandering to their ignorance.

And I’m at fault? Unbelievable . . .

In any event, that’s why these forums are great place to get past the nonsense and find actual solutions that will work . . .

Stay tuned more stats to come . . .

Technologist, please be aware of how quickly Warming Feedbacks can turn this planet into essentially Hell. Climate can change in months from hospitable to hostile and we are screaming "I dare you!". Your mockery of the Venus analogy may come back to bite you on the south side.

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining."

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

From the article noted above, the last paragraph states:

“Since CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.”

And the article didn’t get into the other issues we’re seeing in terms of ‘visible’ consequences like the increased power of hurricanes and tornados, driven by the higher mean thermal temperature of the earth nor the consequences of ocean acidification as it absorbs more and more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Finally, the data plots from NASA are most revealing:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

So there’s nothing wrong with the practice of adjusting them models but we can ‘see’ the changes in the climate as well as the changes to the ocean, none of which are ‘helping us’ or the planet.