Warmest in 400 Years

I guess it was all the fossil fuels and what not that made the glaciers of North America receed some 15-20,000 years ago as well? Global warming is a natural trend. Sure we should make sure that we are not speeding it up, but imo it’s not as detrimental as “they” make it out to be.

Electric cars and fuel cells are great and I am sure that they will help reduce toxic emissions. When they produce an electric car that matches the performance of my 9 MPG Mustang I am sure I’ll be right in line to buy one! Until then, just keep putting fill stations every few blocks and I am happy!

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Very good knewsom, you can cherry pick quasi-relevant analogies and pass them off as supporting your hypothesis.

Good thing you chose smoking and the big C and not steroids the dead bodies they generate or ephedrine. Or listen to the experts suggest drugs like thalidomide or stacking Crestor with Baycol or Phen/fen or Bextra or Vioxx.

Better to not think for yourself, not listen objectively to both sides, and not promote a general level of awareness. Rather, spew mania about the impending doom and its homology to cancer.[/quote]

Lucasa,

I DID do the research, I HAVE listened to what both sides have to say on this, and I’m NOT spewing mania and doom and gloom. What I AM saying is that I’ve done the math, and it looks likeley that we’re exasorbating an existing situation such that it could become a MAJOR problem. It also looks likely that drastic climate change could affect humanity as well as many extant species of plant and animal in extraordinarily negative ways. This is why I’ve adopted a stance of “better safe than sorry”. Not because I believe the world’s gonna end in 20 years, but because I believe that’s a worst-case scenario and what’s REALLY going to happen is somewhere inbetween, but also probably not exactly good, the best case scenario being that us enviros are totally wrong… in any case, implimenting more lower-emmision technologies will help wean our dependence on foreign energy sources, lower the cost of production here, and give us another new technology to export and make gobs of money on, while helping developing nations take control of the situation as well. We need to be a world LEADER on this issue, not the big country that the rest of the world ends up dragging along kicking and screaming. (not to mention polluting less is just generally a GOOD idea.)

donno 'bout contrails, but trains are far more efficient than aeroplanes, and until we find a good biofuel for planes, I think we need to conserve what fossil fuels we CAN so that we can maintain international travel and freight via air. this is pretty important, because when petrol becomes cost-prohibitive, we’ll all be on extremely modern sailing ships bound for europe or china instead of on comfy airplanes being served free booze and nuts by flight attendants.
[/quote]

[quote]
Diesel for reasons other than the environment. However, I find it funny the people who drive a prius to ‘save the planet’. If everyone else is strangling and punching the planet the prius owners are merely choking and slapping it. If there’s a problem and a solution, commuting is only a small part of it. [/quote]

Sadly, in our society, the Prius is primarily the only widely available vehicle that is efficient and semi-eco friendly. (that’s new - for a used vehicle see the geo metro, which gets about the same mileage.) You’d be surprised how much CO2 comes from vehicle emmisions, and could be prevented by walking or riding a bycicle to work, where feasable. And as for your diesel, may I ask why, if not for enviro reasons, and what model? Are we talking a mercedes diesel? or a Ford 7.5L Turbodiesel F250?

TELL me about it… that’s why I pay $2.00 for an avocado whereas you can get them for HALF that at Safeway. I’m also planning on PLANTING an avocado tree once I own my own property (or rather a BUNCH of avocado trees, because they fucking ROOL - I love avocados… :slight_smile:

[quote]
I agree in that everybody should at least have some understanding of where their food comes from, what it takes to grow it, what is/isn’t gained by organic growing, why outsourcing is so prevalent, and to get people off their asses in general. I understand that not everyone ‘has the time’ but a majority do and should. But now we’re getting really off topic.[/quote]

awesome… we have some common ground here. it may be off topic, but I think that this is a small part of the overall puzzle, and I think it applies to more than FOOD. If we could localize the production of more consumer products and provide incentives to purchase from local producers (and make it equitable for EVERYONE), IMAGINE the efficiency we could gain by not shipping everything everywhere. I like to make stuff myself, and/or fix stuff myself, and LOVE handmade goods - if there were a good local cobbler, I’d TOTALLY pay 200 bux for a good pair of boots from him. If there were a good local knifemaker, I’d TOTALLY pay 150 bux for a good knife when my buck knife finally bites it (although that will indubitably never happen because after all it’s a BUCK knife). Sadly, artisans and traditional craftspeople are very difficult to find, and almost ALWAYS far more expensive than just buying something made in pakistan and shipped via fedex. However, as developing nations DEVELOP, as the dollar continues to decline, and as the cost of fuel increases, making shipping more costly, I suspect that we will begin producing more products locally again. That is my prediction, anyhow.

I hope you see where I’m coming from on this - it’s not that I want to “punish” anyone… it’s not that I want to toss around guilt and make people feel bad for their lifestyle choices - I drive a Bronco for chrissakes! What I want is our government (and private sector, where we can encourage it to do so) to invest in renewable technologies, and provide tax incentives to corporations that impliment them, along with a detailed public education campaign on the subject. Shit, I don’t even care if we sign the kyoto protocol. I just want us to do something about this, instead of arguing about “proof” until its too late.

-K

[quote]knewsom wrote:

in any case, implimenting more lower-emmision technologies will help wean our dependence on foreign energy sources, lower the cost of production here, and give us another new technology to export and make gobs of money on, while helping developing nations take control of the situation as well.[/quote]

It’s already under way, no Kyoto needed. Cars that run on water have been sought since the energy crisis. Nuclear and solar were practically invented to replace petroleum.

You’re talking choking less whereas I’m talking not choking and maybe administering oxygen.

World wide, transportation accounts for 19.2% of CO2 emissions and 14.0% of total greenhouse gas emissions (In 2000, probably lower now w/rising prices). Power generation is where the real money’s at emissions-wise.

Since it’s over the internet, I’ll admit to owning both. The Mercedes is for tooling to and from work and the F250 is for hauling my '67 GTO Judge to the strip on weekends or the Murcielago back and forth from the summer house.

Seriously, Passat 2.0L TDI, better mileage ($) and durability ($?), lower taxes across state lines ($), where I’ve got a connection on cheaper fuel ($).

[quote]I just want us to do something about this, instead of arguing about “proof” until its too late.

-K[/quote]

Things are being done, based solely on supply/demand. Command, IMO, isn’t the way to go, especially when the way is not yet clear and dissent/free thought should be welcome.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Seriously, Passat 2.0L TDI, better mileage ($) and durability ($?), lower taxes across state lines ($), where I’ve got a connection on cheaper fuel ($).[/quote]

Just as a side note, no current VW TDI (or Mercedes CDI) engine is able to pass current California emissions standards, so those cars are not only not sold here, they cannot be registered here.

Yes, the CO2 emissions of TDI/CDI engines are (much) lower than gas engines, but, especially with US diesel fuel, the carbon (soot – PM10), aldehydes, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions are much higher – and, by all measures, high soot, NO2 and SO2 emissions are even worse for the environment than high CO2 emissions.

The World Health Organization blames PM10 for tens of thousands of deaths in Europe annually from bronchitis, asthma, cancer and heart disease. A German study said the risk of suffering a heart attack triples in heavy traffic. (No, drivers’ stress is not the culprit, because bus passengers displayed the same susceptibility as drivers.)

An American study said the same six years ago. As a result half a dozen American states now ban the diesel altogether for passenger cars, the great state of California included.

The fact is that the tiny particles of diesel soot - the PM10 - have the ability to penetrate the arteries, where they break up the fatty plaque on the walls, allowing the lethal fragments to be swept in the bloodstream into narrower arteries near the heart. And, as you probably know, if those narrow arteries are blocked, a heart attack occurs…

[quote]hspder wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Seriously, Passat 2.0L TDI, better mileage ($) and durability ($?), lower taxes across state lines ($), where I’ve got a connection on cheaper fuel ($).

Just as a side note, no current VW TDI (or Mercedes CDI) engine is able to pass current California emissions standards, so those cars are not only not sold here, they cannot be registered here.

Yes, the CO2 emissions of TDI/CDI engines are (much) lower than gas engines, but, especially with US diesel fuel, the carbon (soot – PM10), aldehydes, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions are much higher – and, by all measures, high soot, NO2 and SO2 emissions are even worse for the environment than high CO2 emissions.

The World Health Organization blames PM10 for tens of thousands of deaths in Europe annually from bronchitis, asthma, cancer and heart disease. A German study said the risk of suffering a heart attack triples in heavy traffic. (No, drivers’ stress is not the culprit, because bus passengers displayed the same susceptibility as drivers.)

An American study said the same six years ago. As a result half a dozen American states now ban the diesel altogether for passenger cars, the great state of California included.

The fact is that the tiny particles of diesel soot - the PM10 - have the ability to penetrate the arteries, where they break up the fatty plaque on the walls, allowing the lethal fragments to be swept in the bloodstream into narrower arteries near the heart. And, as you probably know, if those narrow arteries are blocked, a heart attack occurs…
[/quote]

Good God - Please find another organization to cite besides the WHO.

Can anyone say fear mongering?

[quote]knewsom wrote:
…Compliance with they kyoto accord really wouldnt’ cost us much - it’s not like it’d hinder our competetive edge economically, especially since EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS AGREED TO DO IT EXCEPT US. …[/quote]

Canada has backed out. I read it was to cost every person in the country an estimated $ 600 a year to comply.

China, India and other countries are on track to produce massive amounts of CO2 and are not part of the treaty.

Hspder went on a little rant about how uneen the societies on earth are.

This seems like a scam to try to even things out. Bring down the rich countries to the level of poor countries. That is why the UN has been manipulating the IPCC reports.

In is no wonder this is so popular among the left wingers. It is an insidious form of socialism.

If it the real deal China should not be allowed to produce a coal fired powerplant a week for the next 5 plush years are they are doing now.

Where is the outcry about this?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

If it the real deal China should not be allowed to produce a coal fired powerplant a week for the next 5 plush years are they are doing now.

Where is the outcry about this?[/quote]

I forgot to mention that Al Gores biggest scandal in office has been to take illegal money from the Chinese.

It is any wonder he is pushing an agenda that greatly helps Chinese industry at the expense of ours?

Kyoto was his baby. He lied to us. Argghhhh.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Hspder went on a little rant about how uneen the societies on earth are. [/quote]

Uh? Is that how you interpreted what I wrote? That’s amazing.

My point was not that we live in an uneven world. That’s a given and I have no problem with it. I?ve said multiple times I am not a Bolshevik nor I play one on TV. My point is that the reason PCs cost under $1,000 these days is predicated on our complacent (ab)use of cheap, $50/month, labor, and if we really want to take the moral ground, we should start buying just Made in USA / Made in EU stuff AND be willing to pay the premium that comes with that.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If it the real deal China should not be allowed to produce a coal fired powerplant a week for the next 5 plush years are they are doing now.

Where is the outcry about this?[/quote]

Here. From me, for a long time.

I have criticized China and our dependency on them extensively in this board. The answer from most every conservative over here has been either total silence or “well, if we help their economy to flourish they will see the light and become more Democratic!”

So which one is it? Is China an Evil Empire that must be stopped immediately or are they a great investment that will flourish into a beautiful democracy if we give them the chance?

Make up your mind.

I have made mine: as I stated before, we should stop giving them a break. I am in full agreement that they should NOT be allowed any slack, including in emission standards. HOWEVER, that was not the reason that this Administration presented most vocally for refusing to sign Kyoto; and even if they had, it would be a completely dumb reason, because if we do want to convince the rest of the World that they need to reduce emissions, the first thing we need to do is to TAKE THE LEAD.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Canada has backed out. I read it was to cost every person in the country an estimated $ 600 a year to comply.[/quote]

Boo hoo. The poor Canadians. $600 a year. Oh, the outrage; the pain, the suffering that was causing them.

Most people in Canada pay more than that for Cable TV. And they definitely pay more than that in Gas.

Yet another fine TSB by a conservative government.