The beginning of the end?

[BillyGman]

This doesn't sound good for the automakers HP wars....and just look at what it says for the year 2009......the tiral starts in Jan,2007 and if the automakers lose, you can kiss your 2009 600+HP Camaro option as well as your 2008 Hemi Challenger goodbye......

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=13315408&ps=1014&lang=en&_LT=HOME_BUNWC01L1_UNEWS

[RCSignals]

Yes, I stated before that this was happening and would greatly effect what we will be able to buy in the way of cars, especially performance cars, in the future.

Funny thing is, just 30 years ago or so we were warned of "global cooling" and an impending new ice age. Whatever happened to that?

[BillyGman]

Yes, I stated before that this was happening and would greatly effect what we will be able to buy in the way of cars, especially performance cars, in the future.

Funny thing is, just 30 years ago or so we were warned of "global cooling" and an impending new ice age. Whatever happened to that?That's a very interesting observation you just made, because I was thinking how it's also been aproximately 30 years since the last time that they found a way to stop the HP wars. I don't think that's coincidental. I think that whenever the HP wars get as intense as they are now getting, the big government of ours will find some way to put a stop to it.

If this succeeds this time around, then next in line will be restrictions on modifying old 60's and 70's muscle cars, as well as any other used Hi-perf cars for that matter. If I owned a N/A Marauder now, I'd be thinking of supercharging it while I still can. In fact, I had better get this 70 Chevelle up and running while I still can!!!!

[djbruce26]

I think all of these Automakers should step up and halt all future sales to California (together) until the lawsuit is dropped.

[BillyGman]

Sometimes I wish that California would just break off and fall into the ocean. :mad:

[RCSignals]

I do like Disneyland though

[BillyGman]

I do like Disneyland thoughYes! Must relocate that first. :D Just be sure to move all of the equipment with hydrogen powered and horse drawn vehicles, lest the California D.O.T. or the Governor fines you for excessive pollution. :rolleyes:

[Bigdogjim]

Well first off why does Ca. not start working on cheap, safe, working public transit? I love to see what these people behind these laws drive:lol:

More HP not less build it and people will by it. Now that said will you guys at Ford get off your azz and start working on the a new Lightning:) :up:

[RCSignals]

I know there are big stinky, black smoke, diesel powered public transit buses on the roads in SCal

[BillyGman]

It's nothing but pure hypocrisey, and big Lib politics combined with a corrupted legislative body in general, and it always seems to stem from California. :shake:

[Joe Walsh]

Well first off why does Ca. not start working on cheap, safe, working public transit? I love to see what these people behind these laws drive:lol:



Bunch of friggin' JACKA$$ES!

In a few years those idiots will legislate that ALL vehicles in California must be Electric...it all started with C.A.R.B.

[PhastPhil]

Hey Billy, you need to do one of your famous burnouts along the border of California until you slice it off and send it on it's way into the ocean!

On another note, I heard on the news recently how a group of scientists in Europe say that all the reduction in pollution is what is really causing global warming. They even suggested building giant cannons to shoot pollution into the atmosphere to protect us from global warming.
I kid you not !

[DEFYANT]

I think all of these Automakers should step up and halt all future sales to California (together) until the lawsuit is dropped.

+1

If they stop sales for 6 months the people who control the politicians will make the changes!

[duhtroll]

Not to cast a wrench into this whole theory, but . . .

Since when does cutting emissions mean we have to have slow cars? Personally I give folks a bit more credit than that. Every time we have a new restriction, they find a way around it and we have newer, faster cars.

If we could make an electric car work, it'd be the fastest thing out there.

Cutting emissions is not a bad thing in and of itself. So we have to find a new way to do things.

It'll give them something to do.

[BillyGman]

Hmmmm, somehow I don't think it will pan out like that...but only time will provide an answer....

[RR|Suki]

there is no such thing as global warming anyway, nothing we do changes the weather patterns of the earth anyway, heck in the middle ages it was alot hotter on average, you can tell by the crops they grew. The whole thing is so silly :lol:

[sailsmen]

I was in HS when anote scientest came to speak to the entire school in the auditorium about how we were running out of oil in 10 or so years.

He had charts and all this fancy information. Well he was wrong.

I also remember the cover of "Time" magazine showing an ice age.

As much as we would like to believe it we cannot control the Earth and the Earth is not a constant.

[Redster]

go to Alaska, they can show you how the glaciers have melted. One way or the other, global warming is real. The politics is real too.

[Redster]

I wouldn't be surprised at a retreat on HP. In the current situation with increasing oil prices it isn't exactly unexpected. Besides, do they sell enough to make big bucks? That's the bottom line.
By the way, I plan to buy a hybrid. I find the technology interesting and the Ford hybrids have the CV transmission which is interesting as well. But whatever happens, I'm keeping the MM.

[RCSignals]

go to Alaska, they can show you how the glaciers have melted. One way or the other, global warming is real. The politics is real too.


Go to the antarctic, where icefields are growing.

Global warming is no more real now than global cooling was 30 years ago.
Global cooling was also blamed on pollution.

[RR|Suki]

go to Alaska, they can show you how the glaciers have melted. One way or the other, global warming is real. The politics is real too.

I dunno what you are smoking, the glaciers are surrounded by... WATER, they must melt, that's the way it goes, this whole continent was a glacier once... I suppose pollution cause all this to melt too??? please, seudo science at best, in 10 years It'll be back to global cooling again :bs:

[MarauderMark]

The wars will be over for about 10/15 yrs.then the wars will be begin.I just hope they don't make the new Marauder with either 200 hp or better yet they will come in 6 cylinder.just amagine the viper with 300 hp:shake:

[Blackmobile]

My suggestion that we stop burning oil for fuel and use moonshine. It will probably have a better octane level and it's clear like Amoco use to be.

[LILALLEYKATT]

I think all of these Automakers should step up and halt all future sales to California (together) until the lawsuit is dropped.
Take the 06 VW diesels they are not sold in Cali because of emmissions. They get better economy than a hybrid with no batteries and go 300K between overhauls....In order to purchase one and import it into the state and properly registered it has to have a minimum of 7500 miles on the odometer....And now the price of used diesel Jettas and Beetles is more than a new one in surrounding states...Theres always an angle if you have the money...

[duhtroll]

The consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is real and we are most definitely having an effect on the climate. There's no more argument, unless people choose to ignore the evidence that basically proves it. The question is whether or not the effects we are causing are catastrophic or not.

I've said this before, but look at who is funding the studies that say global warming is fake.

I don't know of any multi-billionaire environmentalists out there who have built an empire on hybrids or "green" tech as of yet. There's your difference.

Follow the money . . .


I dunno what you are smoking, the glaciers are surrounded by... WATER, they must melt, that's the way it goes, this whole continent was a glacier once... I suppose pollution cause all this to melt too??? please, seudo science at best, in 10 years It'll be back to global cooling again :bs:

[silver_2000]

The consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is real and we are most definitely having an effect on the climate. There's no more argument, unless people choose to ignore the evidence that basically proves it. The question is whether or not the effects we are causing are catastrophic or not.

I've said this before, but look at who is funding the studies that say global warming is fake.

I don't know of any multi-billionaire environmentalists out there who have built an empire on hybrids or "green" tech as of yet. There's your difference.

Follow the money . . .

Consenus among which scientists ? I dont doubt that the earth is changing - I just am not arrogant enough to take credit for it.

Its incredibly arrogant to take credit or blame for every change.
We only have records that go back a couple hundred years at best. Prior to that is conjecture that is subject to interpretation.

The climate changes - it has changed many times before and will change again. The earth has warmed and cooled MANY MANY times - we have no way of knowing if the changes we THINK we are seeing are within normal ranges or not because the records dont go back far enough.

Were the animals that were around as we entered the last ice age "responsible" for the cooling then ? Were the ones that were here when the planet was warming after the ice age responsible as well ?

In Texas the biggest polluters are big business - specifically TXU that wants to build 11 more coal fired Electric plants, they have good enough lobbyists to make sure they get approved with no additional spending on pollution prevention required. So TXU makes all the electricity and charges 2x the rates of the surrounding states and spends that money on lobbyists rather than pollution controls. Its far to easy to stop BIG single source polluters but they have too much lobbyist money to spend. The folks with no lobby - US are the ones that get screwed by all this.

[RR|Suki]

The consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is real and we are most definitely having an effect on the climate. There's no more argument, unless people choose to ignore the evidence that basically proves it. The question is whether or not the effects we are causing are catastrophic or not.

I've said this before, but look at who is funding the studies that say global warming is fake.

I don't know of any multi-billionaire environmentalists out there who have built an empire on hybrids or "green" tech as of yet. There's your difference.

Follow the money . . .

There's no consensus of that, there are alot of scientist that do not go along with global warming, who aren't being paid by oil companies. It is one thing to blame acid rain, and local environment problems on polution. But the whole global weather pattern will not change. Look at el nino... when was the last time you heard that phrase... those were the same stupid global warming "experts" who claimed that people caused that too... yet poof it no longer exists... man I guess we changed our ways in time :lol: . Gimmie a break, these quacks change their tune every ten years, where the same school of scientists have been saying all along that humans don't change global patterns, we don't have the records to know if there is even a pattern. Heck how about a recent example, all those global warming caused hurricanes? where did they go? did global warming just stop this year?? come off it, all they are doing is guessing about stuff they don't know anything about :down:

[BillyGman]

Consenus among which scientists ? I dont doubt that the earth is changing - I just am not arrogant enough to take credit for it.

Its incredibly arrogant to take credit or blame for every change.
We only have records that go back a couple hundred years at best. Prior to that is conjecture that is subject to interpretation.

The climate changes - it has changed many times before and will change again. The earth has warmed and cooled MANY MANY times - we have no way of knowing if the changes we THINK we are seeing are within normal ranges or not because the records dont go back far enough.

Were the animals that were around as we entered the last ice age "responsible" for the cooling then ? Were the ones that were here when the planet was warming after the ice age responsible as well ?

In Texas the biggest polluters are big business - specifically TXU that wants to build 11 more coal fired Electric plants, they have good enough lobbyists to make sure they get approved with no additional spending on pollution prevention required. So TXU makes all the electricity and charges 2x the rates of the surrounding states and spends that money on lobbyists rather than pollution controls. Its far to easy to stop BIG single source polluters but they have too much lobbyist money to spend. The folks with no lobby - US are the ones that get screwed by all this.Ditto...........

[Mike Poore]

I know there are big stinky, black smoke, diesel powered public transit buses on the roads in SCal

You forgot to add, that those busses are publicly subsidized, and filled with illegally immigrated guest workers.

It is interesting, though, that California, struggling with it's transportation and pollution issues, hasn't funded alternative non -fossil fuel research and mandated statewide fuel economy standards. I've noticed with chagrin, that they've gotten into the stem cell arena with tax funded research initiatives. Why not use the computer brain trust in silicon valley to propose and research alternative fuels? Why aren't we doing that nationally? Also, perhaps California may want to start thinking about ways to tap into the huge oil reserves lying just offshore. Same old thing .....NIMBY :nono:

[AstroVic]

That suit will never make it to trial.

I've got ten bucks that says, "Summary judgment for the defendants."

[sailsmen]

The greatest polluter is the Earth itself.

1 volcano erruption emits more pollution than all of mankind since the beginning of time.

If we want to change the climate just get a volcano to errupt.

[silver_2000]

The greatest polluter is the Earth itself.

1 volcano erruption emits more pollution than all of mankind since the beginning of time.

If we want to change the climate just get a volcano to errupt.

oh geeesh - Dont start that crap about Volcanoes impacting the envionment.... Next thing you know you will bring weather, and things like solar flares into it, then where would we be ?
;):nono:
[sarcasm off]
Doug

[duhtroll]

Consenus among which scientists ?

Most of them. Look it up. Find INDEPENDENT research groups when you do, please, as they show far less bias.



Its incredibly arrogant to take credit or blame for every change. We only have records that go back a couple hundred years at best. Prior to that is conjecture that is subject to interpretation.

It's not arrogance, and it's not 'every.' We're speaking of one issue here, not EVERY climate change known to mankind. I find it difficult to see how someone would take pride in being responsible for something negative . . ..


The climate changes - it has changed many times before and will change again. The earth has warmed and cooled MANY MANY times - we have no way of knowing if the changes we THINK we are seeing are within normal ranges or not because the records dont go back far enough.

Never said this wasn't true. I'm saying we are impacting global climate, and not in a positive way. It's been proven many times.


Were the animals that were around as we entered the last ice age "responsible" for the cooling then ? Were the ones that were here when the planet was warming after the ice age responsible as well ?

No, a meteorite was.

The volcano argument, while true, has no bearing on the situation. It doesn't change the fact that we are impacting global climate.

That's like saying "well, I get secondhand smoke everywhere I go, so I might as well learn to smoke too. It's not going to hurt anything."

Look, this argument comes up about every year or two and those of us that do research on things instead of spouting falsehoods post studies and links, only to have them ignored. So I won't be doing that again. Instead, I'll just ask you one question.

The obvious agenda for big oil saying that global warming is a myth is that they will continue their record profits.

What, then, is the agenda for environmental scientists who say we had better cut the pollution? Where do they profit from this? Where are the billions of dollars that back their so-called agenda?

The facts speak enough by themselves. If you choose to ignore the facts, follow the money. Either conclusion will do.

[sailsmen]

Thats exactly my point, the Earth is subject to forces far greater than what we are putting on her.

[duhtroll]

Uh, so we should be totally ignorant and just roll the dice?

Good luck with that . . .


Thats exactly my point, the Earth is subject to forces far greater than what we are putting on her.

[silver_2000]

No, a meteorite was.

The volcano argument, while true, has no bearing on the situation. It doesn't change the fact that we are impacting global climate.



The point the volcano argument makes is that there are natural occurances that have MUCH greater impact than human impact.

The ozone hole has been studied for years and the changes in it are still being debated.

My point here is this ...

We are looking at an infinitesimally small data set and trying to extrapolate HUGE wide ranging conclusions. Interpreting the scall of changes that you see that when your nose is in contact with the paper looks very large, but when you backup and look at a larger data set and a larger range of data ( that doesnt exist ) the changes we are seeing are much less dramatic.

Any College level earth science course will help explain the concept of geologic time and the changes that have occurred and continue to occur. It also would explain that we arent capable of killing the earth, just impacting our existence on it.

I dont disagree that Big Oil is in business for big oil..

A far bigger issue is over population. Far more people, living far too long, for the earth to support it for long. In the past war, pestilence and things like global climate change have been the NATURAL processes that have kept things in check. It can be easily argued that medical advances have done more to negatively impact the earth than humans pollution. Wihout the medical advances there would be FAR FAR fewer people, and therefore far less pollution, and far slower resource usage.

Doug

[Master]

Well, I'm not going to share my opinion on Global Warming with any of you. I'm just going to wait till the Polar Bears, devoid of solid ice on which to breed and feed, begin their migration to the other pole where, allegedly, the ice is plentiful, feasting on Californians and the like for energy over the course of their long trek south.

In the meantime, though, I'd like to point to the January, 1998 issue of Motor Trend, page 40. This demonstrate's Ford's interest in doing just what DuhTroll suggests "Since when does cutting emissions mean we have to have slow cars? Personally I give folks a bit more credit than that. Every time we have a new restriction, they find a way around it and we have newer, faster cars." In this instance, a 590 hp dual fuel Mustang. Honestly, I wouldn't care what technology was used so long as I had my KickA$$ MM and could, in all good conscience, drive to my Green Party Meeting feeling all smug and cozy about my 590hp environmentally friendly ride.

And by the way: May I rant? I really, really hate people who judge me based upon my ride. I had friends (who left about the time my wife did) who used to make dumb comments about my MM and my ex's Explorer Sport. Everything they determined about us was based upon the cars we drove. Forget the fact that: I mow my lawn with a push mower, powered only by your's truly. I had the energy hog dishwasher removed and have always done dishes in about 2 gallons of hot water by hand. I use a clothesline, not a dryer. At the cost of about $200 I replaced almost every bulb in my house with flourescent. I wear a sweater instead of turning the heat up and I don't have A/C. My house has a water source heat pump - 1KW in, 4KW out. But, they drove a Subaru and a VW, so I guess that they were the reall champions of the environment. Makes me sick!

There. Rant done. Who say's Canadians can't rant! Carry on....

[sailsmen]

"I'm just going to wait till the Polar Bears, devoid of solid ice on which to breed and feed, begin their migration to the other pole where, allegedly, the ice is plentiful, feasting on Californians and the like for energy over the course of their long trek south."

They won't eat many humans in my state. I have never eaten Polar Bear or had a Polar Bear rug.

My great grand mother had a Black Bear rug, I miss it. When the Polar Bears come I am looking forward to a Polar Bear rug and good Polar Bear stew.;)

With the fat I will make some soap. This will save me from buying the "grandmaws soap" that I currently use.

My business is reducing and transferring risk for the Energy and Recycling business. To make them more efficent, keeping cost down and having capitol for expansion.

[Leadfoot281]

Isn't a "concensus" a score/vote of 51-49? Doesn't sound very scientific to me. Doesn't science require that theory be able to be proved repeatably?

In 1988 my high school science teacher told us that the Earth had 10 years of natural gas left. If he was right, we must be importing it from other planets.

Over population is also a myth. The entire population of the Earth could be placed in Texas with the same population density of a suburb. I'm not going into the math here but it should be easy enough to figure if you divide 6 billion into the total square miles of Texas.

But the "general consensus" is that;

A. Tom Cruise is smart and interesting.
B. J-Lo is hot.
C. Sending millions of old cars to the landfills is good for the environment.
D. Manufacturing millions of new cars to replace "old" ones, is good for the environment.
E. Nuclear energy is bad. Coal mines are good.
F. Volcanos don't affect the world. Two stoke weed wackers do.

[Master]

I love it! Just installed an EPA woodstove, too. Send me your first bearskin rug so I can enjoy the ambiance and maybe start helping to overpoppulate the world! ;)

[duhtroll]

Nope. A 51-49 *can* be a C-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s, but it doesn't have to work the other way around.

And, I'm not sure any of your examples are agreed upon - quite the opposite or so I've heard.

As far as repeatability, global warming has been shown. Repeatedly.

I'm not saying it's a catastrophe, nor am I saying I'm going to give up my car until there's something better. All I'm saying is that GW exists, and we are part of it. Cutting emissions doesn't have to be the end of fast cars. I think science types and engineers can figure out a way to have out cake and eat it, too, so to speak.


Isn't a "concensus" a score/vote of 51-49? Doesn't sound very scientific to me. Doesn't science require that theory be able to be proved repeatably?

In 1988 my high school science teacher told us that the Earth had 10 years of natural gas left. If he was right, we must be importing it from other planets.

Over population is also a myth. The entire population of the Earth could be placed in Texas with the same population density of a suburb. I'm not going into the math here but it should be easy enough to figure if you divide 6 billion into the total square miles of Texas.

But the "general consensus" is that;

A. Tom Cruise is smart and interesting.
B. J-Lo is hot.
C. Sending millions of old cars to the landfills is good for the environment.
D. Manufacturing millions of new cars to replace "old" ones, is good for the environment.
E. Nuclear energy is bad. Coal mines are good.
F. Volcanos don't affect the world. Two stoke weed wackers do.

[RCSignals]

Global cooling was 'real' too. There was a definite consensus of the Scientific community that it was very real.

No one has yet answered my question of what happened to Global cooling.

[duhtroll]

And I'm probably not going to, as that's not what this discussion is about.

It's a diversion from the point being made, that being all the evidence that global WARMING exists.

They are not unrelated, but it's not really relevant here.


Global cooling was 'real' too. There was a definite consensus of the Scientific community that it was very real.

No one has yet answered my question of what happened to Global cooling.

[RCSignals]

No, it isn't a diversion. We are still waiting for the predicted ice age.

Global warming does not exist.

[Leadfoot281]

Nope. A 51-49 *can* be a C-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s, but it doesn't have to work the other way around.

And, I'm not sure any of your examples are agreed upon - quite the opposite or so I've heard.



As far as repeatability, global warming has been shown. Repeatedly.

I'm not saying it's a catastrophe, nor am I saying I'm going to give up my car until there's something better. All I'm saying is that GW exists, and we are part of it. Cutting emissions doesn't have to be the end of fast cars. I think science types and engineers can figure out a way to have out cake and eat it, too, so to speak.

So out of 100 scientists, there are 51 that believe in man made global warming, and 49 that don't, that is some how proof or fact?

I always thought science was more ridgid in it's conclusions. Isn't 2+2 always 4 even if a slight majority believe it's really 5? If there was "hard data" on the subject, there wouldn't be any dispute. Right?

My examples; Tom Cruise being smart and interesting, is also widely disputed. But by a concensus of 51-49 he is. This can be proven too. Though accurate data seems be as elusive as it is for global warming.

Performance cars will always exist. Uncle Sam, Big Brother, OPEC, or The Trilateral Commission can just raise the CAFE standards again if they're concerned about polution. Some jerk like me will just stuff a 351w in a Fairmont wagon 'til the OEM's figure out how to do more with less. Here's two examples; Seen any new, factory built, bone stock, multi-carbed, 455's lately? Or, 40 years ago, a 289 was adequate for a Mustang, but a 427 was required for a sporty sedan. Today, our sporty sedans carry 281's.

Gas milage has tripled, and cars are still the problem? Californias current issue is more Lawyer orientated that anything else.

[silver_2000]

Over population is also a myth. The entire population of the Earth could be placed in Texas with the same population density of a suburb. I'm not going into the math here but it should be easy enough to figure if you divide 6 billion into the total square miles of Texas

To use your example its 760.5 square feet per person
That includes roads, lakes, mountains, garbage dumps etc

Its not a question of acres per person - Wish it were that easy
Its about simple stuff like food and water and energy...
Basic stuff - Steel, concrete, wood,

[Bigdogjim]

Gas milage has tripled, and cars are still the problem?

Yes how factor in how many more cars are on the roads, how many more miles we drive each year.

[Leadfoot281]

To use your example its 760.5 square feet per person
That includes roads, lakes, mountains, garbage dumps etc

Its not a question of acres per person - Wish it were that easy
Its about simple stuff like food and water and energy...
Basic stuff - Steel, concrete, wood,

760.5 square feet isn't too bad. However that number doesn't take into account the dozen or so people that are on my a$$ 24/7 though. That should free up some room.

Nice math BTW. I believe it shows how much room is left on this Earth for roads, lakes, mountains, garbage dumps, steel, concrete, power plants, and wood. Seriously, just consider that if everyone, and I mean everyone, was in Texas, that's a whole lot of room left over!

[duhtroll]

No, the proof lies in the studies that show emissions add to harmful gases in the atmosphere. The proof lies in the facts, not opinions.

The 49 scientists (which is actually more like 8 out of 100, not 49) are the ones being paid to dispute the facts. They are the ones saying 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it correct.

A survey of 100 people *still* shows that 30 or so of them believe Saddam had WMDs.

See?

But you're right about the performance cars thing - they will always be there. they just might be a bit cleaner.




So out of 100 scientists, there are 51 that believe in man made global warming, and 49 that don't, that is some how proof or fact?

I always thought science was more ridgid in it's conclusions. Isn't 2+2 always 4 even if a slight majority believe it's really 5? If there was "hard data" on the subject, there wouldn't be any dispute. Right?

My examples; Tom Cruise being smart and interesting, is also widely disputed. But by a concensus of 51-49 he is. This can be proven too. Though accurate data seems be as elusive as it is for global warming.

Performance cars will always exist. Uncle Sam, Big Brother, OPEC, or The Trilateral Commission can just raise the CAFE standards again if they're concerned about polution. Some jerk like me will just stuff a 351w in a Fairmont wagon 'til the OEM's figure out how to do more with less. Here's two examples; Seen any new, factory built, bone stock, multi-carbed, 455's lately? Or, 40 years ago, a 289 was adequate for a Mustang, but a 427 was required for a sporty sedan. Today, our sporty sedans carry 281's.

Gas milage has tripled, and cars are still the problem? Californias current issue is more Lawyer orientated that anything else.

[Leadfoot281]

Yes how factor in how many more cars are on the roads, how many more miles we drive each year.

Nice point.

I believe most people drive their wallets, and not their cars. Example; When you get 8mpg, you drive less. And vice-versa. I've owned many cars, and trucks that were in the single digits milage wise. I didn't bust out 40k mile/year though!

If I had a 40mpg car and a 7 mpg truck, I'd still spend $1,000 in fuel in either one. Most people are like that. Dealers considered 12k miles/year to be "average". Not so anymore.

The difference is, is that modern cars put out far less emissions. Does the miles driven negate that? I suspect it doesn't. Without the catylitic converter though, the LA basin would have been become unlivable 30 years ago.

[Bigdogjim]

My '70 marauder X-100 with a 429CID 390HP got 8-10 MPG pulled the 1/4 in 16.5?
My 2003 marauder with a 281CID 302HP (Rated) pulles the 1/4 in 15 flat and gets 24 MPG highway 19 city:):):)

Back then gas was .29 a gallon now 2.35? In 1970 I made about $4,000 a year,now ? Well I am OK:)

[RCSignals]

I'm happy my Marauder is rated as ULEV, while some of the Hondas, and other smaller vehicles that are cited as being so clean and efficient are only rated LEV

[Leadfoot281]

Half the reason I disagree with this whole global warming nonsense is just me being partisan.

If Al Gore came out and said "That Scarlett Johansson is one hot little number" I'd probably disagree with him.

[Mad4Macs]

In Texas the biggest polluters are big business - specifically TXU that wants to build 11 more coal fired Electric plants, they have good enough lobbyists to make sure they get approved with no additional spending on pollution prevention required. So TXU makes all the electricity and charges 2x the rates of the surrounding states and spends that money on lobbyists rather than pollution controls. Its far to easy to stop BIG single source polluters but they have too much lobbyist money to spend. The folks with no lobby - US are the ones that get screwed by all this.

Sorry, but the biggest polluters are the lib's that prevent TXU from investing in clean energy. TXU has NO CHOICE but to build coal plant, because the Dem's won't allow anything else in the USA.

[Mad4Macs]

A survey of 100 people *still* shows that 30 or so of them believe Saddam had WMDs.



Puhleeze! That was a failure of the GLOBAL intelligence community, so don't even try to infer that the current admin is responsible for Iraq (which is what bringing that topic up is trying to do).
Germany, France, Russia, the UK (and more)... all were in consensus with the CIA's reports that Iraq had WMDs.

[duhtroll]

I wasn't, actually. I was bringing up a well-known recent example of how perception can be completely incorrect. I'm talking about a survey taken only weeks ago that showed these results. That's right, fall 2006, after it has been stated officially and publically that it was a false pretense.

But since you brought it up --

That said, the current admin. is as responsible for invading Iraq as they are for the spin trying to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda, which they are still trying to do. President Bush connected the two again less that two weeks ago. In a press conference about Iraq he said, and I quote "we're trying to hunt down Al Qaeda."

I don't give a tinker's crap what the intel said. We jumped the gun. The people who you are going to say voted to go to war did NOT vote to go to war right away, and certainly not in the manner we did. They voted to grant the President the authority to use force if needed. That's it. We had not exhausted other options.

There were a group of people in charge at the time the order to invade was given. This is their mistake and it is their fault for not being more thorough. End of story. To say that it's not their decision and not their responsibility is pure cowardice.

There are a group of people still in charge currently overseeing the failure that is our current strategy. This is their fault too, and their responsibility.

And yet there are folks that try to blame people that had no decision making power (other countries, the minority party, etc.) for decisions made by the administration. The same ones that are perpetuating these myths about what really happened.

You're gonna need a plaid coat and some pomade to sell that one.



Puhleeze! That was a failure of the GLOBAL intelligence community, so don't even try to infer that the current admin is responsible for Iraq (which is what bringing that topic up is trying to do).
Germany, France, Russia, the UK (and more)... all were in consensus with the CIA's reports that Iraq had WMDs.

But they didn't pick up the phone and order the invasion, did they?

[prchrman]

I like global warming...70 degrees here in the mountains of North Carolina on the 17 th day of December in the year of our Lord 2006...nice numbers to me...also I wouldn't mind the coast being a little closer...OBTW saw a special on TV about the little ice age around 1775, 76...very interesting...climatic changes have been going on for longer than cars have been around...lets make up something else to worry about...like Y2K...this one is just to scary...

[RCSignals]

I wasn't, actually. I was bringing up a well-known recent example of how perception can be completely incorrect. I'm talking about a survey taken only weeks ago that showed these results. That's right, fall 2006, after it has been stated officially and publically that it was a false pretense.

But since you brought it up --

That said, the current admin. is as responsible for invading Iraq as they are for the spin trying to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda, which they are still trying to do. President Bush connected the two again less that two weeks ago. In a press conference about Iraq he said, and I quote "we're trying to hunt down Al Qaeda."

I don't give a tinker's crap what the intel said. We jumped the gun. The people who you are going to say voted to go to war did NOT vote to go to war right away, and certainly not in the manner we did. They voted to grant the President the authority to use force if needed. That's it. We had not exhausted other options.

There were a group of people in charge at the time the order to invade was given. This is their mistake and it is their fault for not being more thorough. End of story. To say that it's not their decision and not their responsibility is pure cowardice.

There are a group of people still in charge currently overseeing the failure that is our current strategy. This is their fault too, and their responsibility.

And yet there are folks that try to blame people that had no decision making power (other countries, the minority party, etc.) for decisions made by the administration. The same ones that are perpetuating these myths about what really happened.

You're gonna need a plaid coat and some pomade to sell that one.




But they didn't pick up the phone and order the invasion, did they?

yeah, right

[duhtroll]

I can't possibly top that argument.

Well, except with "neener." :P


yeah, right

[silver_2000]

Sorry, but the biggest polluters are the lib's that prevent TXU from investing in clean energy. TXU has NO CHOICE but to build coal plant, because the Dem's won't allow anything else in the USA.

Thats not true
The coal plants are cheaper - thats the beginning and end of the story


TXU is not building natural gas plants, which would throw off half as much in carbon emissions as coal plants. In fact, the new plants might sideline some gas plants. The company is considering building a small number of nuclear reactors, which do not produce carbon. It is not aggressively pushing energy conservation, which many see as the cheapest way to satisfy the needs of business and consumers.
Instead, company executives insist that the only technology that is proved to be reliable and economical and can be built fast enough to keep the air conditioners from going out on hot summer afternoons is old-fashioned pulverized coal.

[Master]

They are dirt cheap, in fact. The technology is so old. Even here in Nova Scotia, we're burning US coal even though we have mines in our back yards. Your coal is way cheaper, even after shipping. THe local power plant just built a million dollar wharf to offload US coal.
Sadly, our plants don't use scrubbers so the sulfer dioxide just goes out into the atmosphere. They do, however, use electrostatic precipitators to keep the brown/black out of the stack emmissions. That way, the average guy toodling past doesn't see the black belching forth, and so, doesn't think about the environmental impact the coal fired plant is having on the environment. The one plant in my home town puts out more sulfer emmissions than all the cars on the road in Nova Scotia on any given day. I really hate politicians and "follow the herd" citizens who can't see where the real problems lay.
PS
No comment on the overseas issue. I'm going to stick with the environmental concerns for the remainder of this thread.

[jerrym3]

Global warming exists........
Global warming doesn't exist........

Debate goes on and on.

But, if the "global warming is here" advocates win, and they are wrong, what's the downside? Slower cars? Cleaner air? I can live with that.

If the "there is no global warming" crew wins, and they are wrong, what's the downside?

I can't live with that. (Well, at my age, maybe I could, but I don't know if my future grandkids could.)

[Paul T. Casey]

Recent data from studies of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter also show a trend toward warming. Perhaps the sun got a little hotter? Kind of simplistic, but plausible. Anyway, who's first in line for the bus, subway, train or any other non-existent form of public transportation? Who's first in line to fund it? Anyone here mind another nickel a gallon tax? If the tax is imposed, what kind of gaurentee (sic) do we have it will actually go to public transportation? The word of a politician? I have many questions, but so few answers.

[texascorvette]

The cheapest--and cleanest--electric power is hydro. Since not everyone has a Missouri River or a Columbia River in their state, the next cheapest--and cleanest--is nuclear power. Any person who tells you otherwise is either uninformed, stupid, or lying.

The thing that killed the nuclear power industry is the fact that if a news conference were held by a hundred GE, Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering nuclear engineers, it would not be seen as newsworthy by the media. But, if you sent 2 housewives, who didn't know **** from shinola, out to picket the construction site of a nuclear power plant, every radio station, TV station, and newspaper would use that as their leading story. Ultra-liberal, left-leaning, morons are what killed the nukes. It had nothing to do with cost, safety, or waste disposal.

If my "polluting" will help cause the oceans to rise high enough to submerge California, New York City, and Washington D.C., then I hope to be able to pollute a helluva lot more before I die.

[duhtroll]

Even with wind and solar? Those are pretty clean too, but I'm sure solar panels are expensive. Windmills are cheap tho'. Even our tiny school district was thinking of making one at one point.


The cheapest--and cleanest--electric power is hydro. Since not everyone has a Missouri River or a Columbia River in their state, the next cheapest--and cleanest--is nuclear power. Any person who tells you otherwise is either uninformed, stupid, or lying.

The thing that killed the nuclear power industry is the fact that if a news conference were held by a hundred GE, Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering nuclear engineers, it would not be seen as newsworthy by the media. But, if you sent 2 housewives, who didn't know **** from shinola, out to picket the construction site of a nuclear power plant, every radio station, TV station, and newspaper would use that as their leading story. Ultra-liberal, left-leaning, morons are what killed the nukes. It had nothing to do with cost, safety, or waste disposal.

If my "polluting" will help cause the oceans to rise high enough to submerge California, New York City, and Washington D.C., then I hope to be able to pollute a helluva lot more before I die.

[texascorvette]

Even with wind and solar? Those are pretty clean too, but I'm sure solar panels are expensive. Windmills are cheap tho'. Even our tiny school district was thinking of making one at one point.
Solar panels are expensive. Wind power is cheaply generated once you've bought a pretty pricey generator and have found a place to install it. The cheap ones are toys. It must be installed where the wind consistantly blows in the design range of the "windmill". Too little breeze, no generation. Too much wind, the machine must be turned off or it can destruct. The machines make a very loud "whooshing" sound, and there are some lawsuits around the country because of the noise and because the windfarms are not very attractive to their neighbors. They are not totally maintenance free, but neither is any other generating method

[RedMerc04]

If my "polluting" will help cause the oceans to rise high enough to submerge California, New York City, and Washington D.C., then I hope to be able to pollute a helluva lot more before I die.
HAHAHAHA! Thats the spirit! (Believe me I may live in NY but Ill be the first to tell you that its F'd up)

[silver_2000]

The cheapest--and cleanest--electric power is hydro. Since not everyone has a Missouri River or a Columbia River in their state, the next cheapest--and cleanest--is nuclear power. Any person who tells you otherwise is either uninformed, stupid, or lying.

You are entitled to your opinion however all these references disagree with you

http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18534
Nuclear power is currently one of the most expensive forms of electricity: <table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="489"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%">
Source of energy
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%">
Cost per kilowatt-hour
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Energy Efficiency
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 0-5 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Hydroelectric
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 2-8 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Coal
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 5-6 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Wind
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 5-8 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Oil
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 6-8 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Solar Thermal
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 9 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Nuclear
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 10-12 cents
</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="25%"> Solar Photovoltaic
</td> <td valign="top" width="24%"> 15-20 cents
</td></tr></tbody></table>

From Stanford
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/current.html
For 1993, the following figures are from "U.S. Steam-Electric Plants: Five-Year Production Costs 1989-1993" which was published by the Utility Data Institute of Washington, DC. They are for nuclear, coal oil and natural gas fuelled plants and are "bus-bar costs"; that is, the cost at the power plant and they do not account for transmission and distribution to the ultimate customers.
<table compact="" border="1"> <caption align="top">1993 Costs of Electricity at Power Plant </caption> <tbody> <tr> <th>
</th><th>Fuel </th><th>Operating </th><th>Maintenance </th><th>Total </th></tr><tr> <td align="left">Coal </td><td align="right">1.531 </td><td align="right">.172 </td><td align="right">.262 </td><td align="right">1.967 </td></tr><tr> <td align="left">Gas </td><td align="right">2.833 </td><td align="right">.236 </td><td align="right">.332 </td><td align="right">3.402 </td></tr><tr> <td align="left">Oil </td><td align="right">2.609 </td><td align="right">.347 </td><td align="right">.451 </td><td align="right">3.408 </td></tr><tr> <td align="left">Nuclear </td><td align="right">.602 </td><td align="right">.962 </td><td align="right">.587 </td><td align="right">2.152 </td></tr><tr></tr></tbody></table>
The units on the above figures are cents per kwh of generated electricity.

[Power Surge]

Doug??????

[silver_2000]

Doug??????
hey Sal
Couldn't you tell from the avatar and the Username ?
Doug

[Power Surge]

hey Sal
Couldn't you tell from the avatar and the Username ?
Doug

That's why I asked. Never saw you here before.

[silver_2000]

That's why I asked. Never saw you here before.
Well I dont own a Marauder but Im friends with Logan that started the site and I own the server the site sits on.
Been reading the threads here to stay on top of any issues related to recent server upgrade.
I jumped into one or 2 subjects ...

Doug

[Bigdogjim]

Doug is our "handyman" :up: Keeps us running at peak.
Thanks again Doug!

[Bigdogjim]

Recent data from studies of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter also show a trend toward warming. Perhaps the sun got a little hotter? Kind of simplistic, but plausible. Anyway, who's first in line for the bus, subway, train or any other non-existent form of public transportation? Who's first in line to fund it? Anyone here mind another nickel a gallon tax? If the tax is imposed, what kind of gaurentee (sic) do we have it will actually go to public transportation? The word of a politician? I have many questions, but so few answers.
I agree with you Paul on this mass transit mess.

[RCSignals]

Public mass transit worked well in most cities before General Motors convinced cities to take down their mostly clean trains and trams to replace them with GM diesel buses.
A few places went with a mix of diesel and electric buses, but even those electrics are mostly replaced with diesel now.

[Mike Poore]

I like global warming...70 degrees here in the mountains of North Carolina on the 17 th day of December in the year of our Lord 2006...nice numbers to me...also I wouldn't mind the coast being a little closer......

Barb & I were riding home from our Monday night trap shoot, and commenting on how nice it was to shoot in shirt sleeves. We both agreed that global warming is actually fairly nice, ...for us. By the time New York City, Florida and with any luck, Philadelphia, are flooded over, we'll be long dead. Meantime we have lower heating costs, and can drive on snow-less roads most of the winter.

Now, just for the sake of argument, what are we going to do about global warming, if in fact, we are responsible? Do we shut down the industrial base of the world's producing nations, while the emerging 3rd world countries pump obscene amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, and water? The Kyoto accords want us to shut down our manufacturing base so the the third world catches up, and does what; reach our manufacturing potential while producing many times more pollutants? Never mind the world's economy would collapse.

We hear the argument that burning wood puts more CO2 into the atmosphere. If the tree rots, or gets burned, there's exactly the same amount of CO2 produced, but on the up side, there's less methane from bug farts. Another thing to wonder about: If we clear the forest and plant, say corn, is there actually more square feet of leaf area to convert CO2 to oxygen than if the trees were standing? BTW, those rotting leaves produce more CO2, while the harvested corn produces ...sugar, along with cow/pig farts.
Y'see, there are many complex questions and very few real answers, and although the Gore-ites are howling the loudest, I'm not sure they have the correct answer(s).

We see an effect and then go looking for a cause ...unfortunately, the looking, sometimes, becomes the cause.

Drive on, brothers, ......screw the grandchildren. :coolman:

[Haggis]

If you do not believe we are killing the Earth....WAKE THE ****** UP!!! Ok, I feel better now.

[Tom Doan]

We are being force fed CO2 restrictions because its the easyest way to punish our fellow man. The biggest greenhouse gas problem is WATER VAPOR worldwide, but it is too hard to tell the other guy to stop breathing, you go first.

[MarauderMark]

I've had enough of this thread.:sleepy:

[silver_2000]

If you do not believe we are killing the Earth....WAKE THE ****** UP!!! Ok, I feel better now.

We cant kill the earth. We can however make it tough for us to live here....:nono:

[prchrman]

We cant kill the earth. We can however make it tough for us to live here....:nono:

Like having to look at a Pontiac Aztec...

[texascorvette]

You are entitled to your opinion however all these references disagree with you

http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18534
Nuclear power is currently one of the most expensive forms of electricity: <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=5 width=489 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">
Source of energy





</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">Cost per kilowatt-hour



</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Energy Efficiency


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">0-5 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Hydroelectric


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">2-8 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Coal


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">5-6 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Wind


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">5-8 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Oil


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">6-8 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Solar Thermal


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">9 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Nuclear


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">10-12 cents


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="25%">Solar Photovoltaic


</TD><TD vAlign=top width="24%">15-20 cents


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

From Stanford
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/current.html
For 1993, the following figures are from "U.S. Steam-Electric Plants: Five-Year Production Costs 1989-1993" which was published by the Utility Data Institute of Washington, DC. They are for nuclear, coal oil and natural gas fuelled plants and are "bus-bar costs"; that is, the cost at the power plant and they do not account for transmission and distribution to the ultimate customers.
<TABLE border=1 compact=""><CAPTION align=top>1993 Costs of Electricity at Power Plant </CAPTION><TBODY><TR><TH>


</TH><TH>Fuel </TH><TH>Operating </TH><TH>Maintenance </TH><TH>Total </TH></TR><TR><TD align=left>Coal </TD><TD align=right>1.531 </TD><TD align=right>.172 </TD><TD align=right>.262 </TD><TD align=right>1.967 </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left>Gas </TD><TD align=right>2.833 </TD><TD align=right>.236 </TD><TD align=right>.332 </TD><TD align=right>3.402 </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left>Oil </TD><TD align=right>2.609 </TD><TD align=right>.347 </TD><TD align=right>.451 </TD><TD align=right>3.408 </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left>Nuclear </TD><TD align=right>.602 </TD><TD align=right>.962 </TD><TD align=right>.587 </TD><TD align=right>2.152 </TD></TR><TR></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The units on the above figures are cents per kwh of generated electricity.

Your table is 1993. Coal, oil, and especially natural gas, are far more expensive than they were back then--in some cases, three or four times more expensive. It was also created by a bunch of liberal crazies from America's version of the Left Bank (i.e. California) who created their own numbers to make sure it came out the way they intended.

The reasons Nuclear power seems so expensive are multiple--but none are truly honest evidence for not using nuclear generation. Firstly, the last half dozen nukes built in this country ended up costing 6 or 8 times the initial cost because of multiple regulatory changes made during the construction. The redesign and sometimes de-construction added months--and in some cases, years--to the construction time. All this added billions of dollars to the cost of every single nuclear plant--for no good reason!

Secondly, the folks, who calculate the costs for electric generation by type, seriously inflate the true cost of nuclear power by throwing in hugely expensive assumptions about "future costs". Both of these ploys were--and still are--politically motivated lies by people who have vested interests in killing nukes or by tree hugging nuts who don't have a clue what they're talking about......but, by God, they don't want nuclear power. If it were not safe, relatively cheap, and reliable, it would not be the generating method of choice in many countries of the world.

However, you are exactly right on one point: not using a kilowatt-hour through conservation is the cheapest, most cost-effective way to avoid having to build more and more power plants of whatever type.

[Breadfan]

Hope no one has posted this yet! I hadn't read the whole thread yet...but this is interesting when we all talk about Global Warming and what *our* impact has been:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Breadfan]

We are being force fed CO2 restrictions because its the easyest way to punish our fellow man. The biggest greenhouse gas problem is WATER VAPOR worldwide, but it is too hard to tell the other guy to stop breathing, you go first.

The link I posted above certainly discusses water vapor!

[duhtroll]

Put "global warming water vapor" into Google and that article is the #1 hit. Took me (and I suppose Breadfan) about 15 seconds to find it.

Unfortunately, it cites as a major source a guy who has been caught manipulating data, as stated in this article:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

That took me a couple minutes more. The first rule of research is try to eliminate as much bias as is possible. Breadfan's example already has one black mark, and that really with a lack of looking with any completeness.

The above article also explains that simply because water vapor is a significant portion of our greenhouse gas, it does not mean the human factor is insignificant. It also mentions something about water vapor not being treated the same way as other greenhouse gases in relation to global warming, i.e. they are not the same thing.

quoted text from linked article:

As the opinions in the global warming debate do not seem to be converging, it seems to me that one useful thing that can be done is to clearly delineate the fundamental differences. Then, as our scientific understanding advances over the next several years, we can achieve more convincing evaluations of the global warming issue. (Stated less generously, this is a way to pin down those who keep changing their arguments.)

Table 1 summarizes chief differences that I delineated for the sake of a discussion with Richard Lindzen, who has provided the intellectual underpinnings for the greenhouse skeptics, in October 1998. I also used this list (Table 1) as the principal fodder for my "affirmative closing argument" in the debate with Pat Michaels.

Differences 1 (reality of global warming) and 2 (climate sensitivity) are very fundamental. From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low. These issues will become even clearer over the next several years.

Difference 3 (water vapor feedback) is related to climate sensitivity, but is so fundamental that it deserves specific attention. The topic has resisted definitive empirical evaluation, because of the poor state of water vapor measurements and the fact that tropospheric temperature change has been small in the past 20 years. Ozone depletion, which affects upper tropospheric temperatures, has also complicated this problem. This situation will change if, as I would anticipate, ozone depletion flattens and global temperature continues to rise.

end of quoted text

If people *really* want to research, that's fine, but this doesn't really count.



Hope no one has posted this yet! I hadn't read the whole thread yet...but this is interesting when we all talk about Global Warming and what *our* impact has been:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[texascorvette]

Water vapor precipitates out of the atmosphere as rain.

Other "greenhouse gases" stay in the atmosphere until chemically changed, decomposed, or until dragged kicking and screaming from the atmosphere by rainstorms.

(i.e. apples versus oranges)

[Breadfan]

Put "global warming water vapor" into Google and that article is the #1 hit. Took me (and I suppose Breadfan) about 15 seconds to find it.

Unfortunately, it cites as a major source a guy who has been caught manipulating data, as stated in this article:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

That took me a couple minutes more. The first rule of research is try to eliminate as much bias as is possible. Breadfan's example already has one black mark, and that really with a lack of looking with any completeness.

The above article also explains that simply because water vapor is a significant portion of our greenhouse gas, it does not mean the human factor is insignificant. It also mentions something about water vapor not being treated the same way as other greenhouse gases in relation to global warming, i.e. they are not the same thing.

quoted text from linked article:

As the opinions in the global warming debate do not seem to be converging, it seems to me that one useful thing that can be done is to clearly delineate the fundamental differences. Then, as our scientific understanding advances over the next several years, we can achieve more convincing evaluations of the global warming issue. (Stated less generously, this is a way to pin down those who keep changing their arguments.)

Table 1 summarizes chief differences that I delineated for the sake of a discussion with Richard Lindzen, who has provided the intellectual underpinnings for the greenhouse skeptics, in October 1998. I also used this list (Table 1) as the principal fodder for my "affirmative closing argument" in the debate with Pat Michaels.

Differences 1 (reality of global warming) and 2 (climate sensitivity) are very fundamental. From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low. These issues will become even clearer over the next several years.

Difference 3 (water vapor feedback) is related to climate sensitivity, but is so fundamental that it deserves specific attention. The topic has resisted definitive empirical evaluation, because of the poor state of water vapor measurements and the fact that tropospheric temperature change has been small in the past 20 years. Ozone depletion, which affects upper tropospheric temperatures, has also complicated this problem. This situation will change if, as I would anticipate, ozone depletion flattens and global temperature continues to rise.

end of quoted text

If people *really* want to research, that's fine, but this doesn't really count.

I'm not researching, or I'd write my own paper, just posting a link. Like everything on the Internet, take it with a grain of salt. If it can be debunked then debunk it, it was given to me from another forum during a similar discussion.

I'm still not buying a Prius. :cool4:

[duhtroll]

I'm still not buying a Prius. :cool4:

Neither am I.

[Dr Caleb]

I'm still not buying a Prius. :cool4:

Good. Fun car, really hackable, not too stylish. (the rest of this rant not directed at anyone in particular)

I think people are missing two important points - causes of Global warming aside - reducing pollution is of benefit to everyone. Reducing greenhouse gasses is a side benefit.

And 2) most pollution and CO2 emissions are from industrial sources. So reduction of vehicle emissions can only affect the 10% or so of all emissions. How about a plan that targets the other 90% instead? Example: I saw on Discovery's 'China Week' a month or so ago; and China is planning approximately 14 new coal fired electricity plants there to be comissioned every day, for the next 7 years. If the UK stopped all vehicles, all industry and went back to living in grass huts tomorrow; in 9 months all that pollution will be emitted by China instead, and nothing will have changed.

I don't mind putting switchgrass based 85% alcohol in my tank. I don't mind driving a pure electric that I can recharge from the sun. But don't try to guilt me for my emissions when, here in the heart of Oil country, I see the smokestacks and cooling towers going 24/7.

There is a natural gas plant in Northern Montana, IIRC, that takes all it's CO2 emissions, liquefies them and sells the CO2 to an oil company in Saskatchewan that then pumps it back into the ground. The CO2 acts as a 'detergent' almost, forcing more oil out of the rock, and letting oil rigs to extract more oil than they would otherwise. Without the CO2 injection, the oil field would have depleted years ago.

No CO2 is emitted - and Oil production increases. Why can't there be more of those?

[texascorvette]

"We are Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated."

Is that an approximately futile division of Borg-Warner that was spun off from Intel?

[Breadfan]

Don't get me wrong, I think in the end some sort of electric vehicle is going the right way towards a solution. I wouldn't mind seeing lots of cheaper zero-emissions vehicles available for commuters.

Let's be real, drive in a commute, or atleast around here, 99% of people don't care what the car does so long as it get's them to their destination. That's not going to change, with all the Honda's and Toyota's in my neck of the woods I don't expect Corolla's to be replaced with SRT8 Chargers.

What is important though is that no one impacts my desire for pavement pounding high horsepower and cool sounding-8 plus cylinder vehicles.

We've made great strides as has been pointed out, my Marauder is a great look at that improvment. It's performance to emissions to economy ratio is lightyears beyond cars of the past.

Let's keep going that way, but I don't want to be forced to give up the sound and experience of internal combustion too soon so I can hear the whirring of a sewing machine....I don't care how fast that sewing machine is.

The problem is that going after performance cars, and classics, is an easy target. I think the point being made earlier in the thread is valid, that our impact on global warming and the environment must be taken into account.

Do classics and SRT-8 chargers really impact global warming or is it lack of good public transportation for those who would rather not drive anyway? Or how about emissions of power plants, factories, etc.

The thing I find most funny is how quick California goes after Hot Rods with CARB and proposed litigation like in the original article that spurred this thread yet they still take credit as Hot Rod mecca. :)

[Breadfan]

Good. Fun car, really hackable, not too stylish.

Not too stylish? That's for sure, down right UGLY is another way of putting it. Oddly enough, it was styled that way on purpose, to generate interest as an odd-ball design to go with the odd-ball (at the time) drivetrain. It became a selling point for people who wanted to show off their hybrid.

Around this part of the world, hybrids ARE stylish. People are buying them up as quick as they are made here to impress each other. (Not to mention up until a few months ago to cheat HOV.)

I don't think spending $28,000 on a econobox is worth it when similar cars not heavily loaded down on environmentally-unfriendly lead-acid batteries sell for around $13,000 and are relatively comparable in efficiency.

It's a good technology and I encourage the R&D departments to press-ahead but at this time the technology and price do not make it a worthwhile investment. But around here it's been a great ego booster for many...

[texascorvette]

From a purely economic point of view, you will never get your increased cost of acquisition back by lower operating costs over time.

There are folks who buy them for reasons of conscience or environmental responsibility, and that's wonderful. Bless their pea-pickin' hearts. I have nothing bad to say about them or their motives.

I just wish they would extend the rest of us the same courtesy. There are those of us who don't feel the same urgency to pay nearly as much for one of those little nothing toy cars as what you can expect to pay for a mid-size SUV. I, frankly, resent hearing environmental zealots accuse me of being "anti-earth" because I don't want to pay as much for an econobox as I pay for a real automobile.

When one of the manufacturers offers me a Toy Car for a Toy Car Price, I promise I will buy one. In the meantime, the environmental Nazis have no right to expect me to pay significantly more money for significantly less car.

[Krytin]

Sometimes I wish that California would just break off and fall into the ocean. :mad:

Someone once stated that if all the people in China jumped off of 6" high platforms at the same time - the shock wave created would cause California to do just that! Now if if we move Disneyland to China and create a new "E" ticket ride with 6" high platforms.....

[texascorvette]

Someone once stated that if all the people in China jumped off of 6" high platforms at the same time - the shock wave created would cause California to do just that! Now if if we move Disneyland to China and create a new "E" ticket ride with 6" high platforms.....
Rosie O'Donnell had all the Chinese jumping up and down the other day and, dammit, nothing happened.

[RCSignals]

Rosie O'Donnell had all the Chinese jumping up and down the other day and, dammit, nothing happened.

Jumping for joy, or in frustration that there is an ocean between them and her............?