Living Car Free - Finally watched "An Inconvenient Truth"

What is really annoying is narrow minded people that attack you just because you choose to drive a big SUV, in fact H3 Hummer owners got it bad as their vehicles are vandalised on a regular biases. The thinking is if I vandalize his vehicle enough, I can sway the owner to give up the the SUV and buy a smaller car as they are tired of their vehicle getting vandalized. The SUV is not the contribute to global warming! The global warming crowd is miss informed and science has proven that global warming is a natural cycle and the short time humans have been in existence on the grand scale of things we have had no effect. I agree that we need to stop using foreign oil, but singling out SUV's as destroying the earth is absolute BS!

while I agree with you re SUVs...
sure. and it's a vast conspiracy amoung 98% of the world's scientists. :rolleyes:

The SUV damages the environment in many ways.... (possibly) including global warming.

Part of what's destroying our environment is the thinking (especially here in the US, but we've done a pretty damn good job of exporting the thought world wide) that if you don't have a car (or 2, 3, or even more) you're not an upstanding citizen.

With the exception of New York City, people without cars are poor, unreliable, or otherwise not fine, upstanding citizens.

My wife got turned down for a hostess position because she doesn't have 'reliable transportation' ..... never mind that the restaurant is less than 1/4 mile from our house.... and there's a bus line that runs along the road from our house to the restaurant.... she obviously couldn't get to work reliably, right?

The SUV damages the environment in many ways.... (possibly) including global warming.

Part of what's destroying our environment is the thinking (especially here in the US, but we've done a pretty damn good job of exporting the thought world wide) that if you don't have a car (or 2, 3, or even more) you're not an upstanding citizen.

With the exception of New York City, people without cars are poor, unreliable, or otherwise not fine, upstanding citizens.

My wife got turned down for a hostess position because she doesn't have 'reliable transportation' ..... never mind that the restaurant is less than 1/4 mile from our house.... and there's a bus line that runs along the road from our house to the restaurant.... she obviously couldn't get to work reliably, right?



Here again SUV's those evil SUV's, what about pick up trucks, too? the current Tahoe that I own is a 2007 that runs on Ethanol and shares the same platform as the Chevy and GMC truck line. I never hear that trucks should be banned. I know, we are all supposed to ride bikes and live in tents, right? I love bike riding, but for today's transportation needs it is impractical in most cases and you are not really saving the planet. To help save the planet you would have to latterly live in a tent and not use electricity, sorry not my style. I live very well and I am not giving it up just because some idiot says we need to cut our carbon foot print and give up SUV's not happening in my house! Living simple when you don't need to is stupid to deprive you're self when it is not accomplishing nothing! I lived simple for many years, not by choice. I rode a bike for transportation and it sucked every time I had to go to the store having to lock up my bike and pull the saddle bags off. I have 2 kids now and a big safe SUV is very necessary for my family's safety, that and it so comfy too, oh yeah bikes don't have Onstar ether.

Here again SUV's those evil SUV's, what about pick up trucks, too? the current Tahoe that I own is a 2007 that runs on Ethanol and shares the same platform as the Chevy and GMC truck line. I never hear that trucks should be banned. I know, we are all supposed to ride bikes and live in tents, right? I love bike riding, but for today's transportation needs it is impractical in most cases and you are not really saving the planet. To help save the planet you would have to latterly live in a tent and not use electricity, sorry not my style. I live very well and I am not giving it up just because some idiot says we need to cut our carbon foot print and give up SUV's not happening in my house! Living simple when you don't need to is stupid to deprive you're self when it is not accomplishing nothing! I lived simple for many years, not by choice. I rode a bike for transportation and it sucked every time I had to go to the store having to lock up my bike and pull the saddle bags off. I have 2 kids now and a big safe SUV is very necessary for my family's safety, that and it so comfy too, oh yeah bikes don't have Onstar ether.
That's not true at all. If ppl cut out around town close to home trips and rode, walked or used mass transit 1 day per week, we could easilly reduce fuel consumption by 10-20%. That my friend will save the planet.

You have proven one point, though. The problem isn't the SUVs. It's the ppl that have attitudes like yours. It doesn't matter what ppl like you drive.

while I agree with you re SUVs...
sure. and it's a vast conspiracy amoung 98% of the world's scientists. :rolleyes:

It's not so far fetched, really. Ever hear of eugenics? Most of the world's scientists were behind that too. Doesn't mean it was right. Or that one time that George Washington died because the best doctors in America were sure that they could cure most diseases by bleeding the patient. Or remember Y2K? That was a fiasco, wasn't it? Good thing we all bought those power-generators. Oh, and 100% of a jury found OJ innocent, but they were wrong all the same (and they probably knew it). Don't forget the Salem witch trials. And didn't we start the Spanish-American War after we blew up one of our own ships in Cuba? (Yeah, we did) Should I mention the entire history of European and American presence in Africa? Lots of people thought that was completely moral thanks to the "science" of Social Darwinism. Or what about that one time that the CIA was 100% certain that Iraq had WMDs, and the majority of congress voted for war? You remember, because there was such excellent evidence and all, but we just didn't need to see it, right? Yeah, that's going pretty well.

Good thing we can always reach these great decisions through blind faith and majority rule.

Screw majority rule. In the future, scientists will prove we never even existed, because they can be bought out just like anyone else. Besides, the majority of Americans drive cars...are you saying that that many people must be right? Because it certainly seems like that's what you're saying about "climatologists."

I'm not saying some good can't come of all of you being wrong about this; after all, Columbus wouldn't have found America had he not been lost on the way to India. Then again, he did kill quite a few people once he got here. That was nice for us the mighty nations of Europe, but the relatively virgin new world kinda got raped. Funny how that happens.

I think that global warming, just like the examples I gave above, is an excellent scare-tactic for political drama-queens, but it's simply not going to pan out. And when that happens, you and everyone like you will cry out that you were duped by frauds, while some of us will only be able to sit back and know that the evidence was all circumstantial at best, and the urgency was all media-induced.

Seeya in 20 years. :p

Here again SUV's those evil SUV's, what about pick up trucks, too? the current Tahoe that I own is a 2007 that runs on Ethanol...

Yeah, it's really great that your kids can get fat as **** watching Shrek on DVD in the back seat while you cart your family around as if they're all cripples unable to move more than a block under their own power. You sound like you have the greatest lifestyle in the world. I bet you must have a really fun job that also miraculously pays you incredible amounts of money, so it's not even hard for you to pay for your precious Tahoe. All hail the Leave-it-to-Beaver family of the new millennium, America's very own special royalty! (and they've earned it, by god!) I bet life is so great for you, you don't even grit your teeth with stress while you wait for your vacation to some ****ing colony. I bet you don't even have to cherish every beer you drink just to calm your corporately-frazzled nerves.

I'm also jealous that you enjoy the added benefit of starving poor Central- and South- Americans every time you burn their crops so that you can drive your tank to K-mart. I wish I could get a bike that burns corn.

Maybe we could meet up for dinner and Denny's, just so I can shake your hand (with an overly firm grip, of course. We've got **** to prove, right?). I bet I'll recognize you immediately, because you'll be wearing a luau shirt (with a pattern like a cheap hotel bedspread) that you bought at the golf-store, right? Of course you will, because that's how you transmit the message that you have tons of leisure time, when you aren't at your job that takes up the majority of your day even without the commute. After we have the buffet (don't worry, everyone's kids go back for a fourth desert), we can go complain about the proletariats and conservationists, and how they are undermining all your god-given privileges with their sustainable lifestyles.

I just don't buy the global warming hype, and I ride my bike a lot and my kids are active as well. Living a comfortable lifestyle doesnt mean I like the dependence on foreign oil, I hate it. I think there is a balance. My off roding is done on the mountain bike. The SUV is for safety as people drive like idiots here. I don't think we need to live like a 3rd world nation to save the planet. I don't shop at Wall Mart or K Mart as most of their crap is made in China, which by the way is not our friend by the way. I don't think my choice of vehicles makes a difference in saving the planet, what if I drove a full size van? That gets far worse mileage than my Tahoe does, but no one would say a thing would they, if I drove a Cadillac, no one would say anything, yet it is a heavy car and gets the same mileage as the Tahoe.I have noticed that if you drive an SUV, people just hate you as you are pure evil and are killing the planet.

It's not so far fetched, really. Ever hear of eugenics? Most of the world's scientists were behind that too. Doesn't mean it was right. Or that one time that George Washington died because the best doctors in America were sure that they could cure most diseases by bleeding the patient. Or remember Y2K? That was a fiasco, wasn't it? Good thing we all bought those power-generators. Oh, and 100% of a jury found OJ innocent, but they were wrong all the same (and they probably knew it). Don't forget the Salem witch trials. And didn't we start the Spanish-American War after we blew up one of our own ships in Cuba? (Yeah, we did) Should I mention the entire history of European and American presence in Africa? Lots of people thought that was completely moral thanks to the "science" of Social Darwinism. Or what about that one time that the CIA was 100% certain that Iraq had WMDs, and the majority of congress voted for war? You remember, because there was such excellent evidence and all, but we just didn't need to see it, right? Yeah, that's going pretty well.

What is this, the WorldNetDaily version of world history? This post is so ignorant and all over the place I don't know where to begin.

Eugenics was popular in America in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and of course in Nazi Germany, but to claim it had the worldwide appeal that you imply is ridiculous. The rest of your post is politics, religious idiocy and media hype that is absolutely non-analogous to peer-reviewed scientific research. There are very few dissenters among scientists in relevant fields about whether or not global warming is caused by man, fewer when you follow the dollars to the denier's "thinktanks," funded by Exxon, BP and the usual gang of idiots.

If the above post is a good summary of all the research you claim to have done on this issue, you need to turn off Sean Hannity and maybe pick up a reputable publication and actually read it. Or at least think of some other examples from modern science that are even remotely analogous.

I have 2 kids now and a big safe SUV is very necessary for my family's safety, that and it so comfy too, oh yeah bikes don't have Onstar ether.

Just wondering.... what the f*** are you doing trolling 'Living Car Free' anyway??? Don't you have an intense urge to get in your big SUV and go brave that urban jungle to grab a latte or something?

And by the way.... Jettas, Camry's, Accords, Avalons, Cherokees, minivans, all luxury imports, etc... are ALL safer than your Tahoe in a crash. Have a nice day. ;)

"Jettas, Camry's, Accords, Avalons, Cherokees, minivans, all luxury imports, etc... are ALL safer than your Tahoe in a crash. Have a nice day." I would rather take a hit in my Tahoe than a smaller car, in fact I was rear ended in my Tahoe by a small car and hardly felt it, he on the other hand had major damage, sorry big vehicle wins!
My point is for the sake of debate. I have done the car free thing and it isn't all that great, try getting a date, try picking some one up at the airport on short notice, try taking you're kid to a doctor appointment 25 miles away.I think riding a bike in traffic you are taking you're life in you're hands, you get hit car wins! This is all great if you work a block from where you live.

Specialized Fan: I would probably not like you any better if you sold your SUV to buy a mini-van, or even a station wagon. Take that as you will. Also, I'm kinda amused that you assume I live a third-world lifestyle. What doesn't amuse me is that you refer to killing a cyclist or ruining a smaller car with your truck "winning." That's ****ed up as hell.

Kris Pistofferson: I realize that none of the issues I compared to global warming, from eugenics to Y2K, were based in science or reason. That's my point: they're all terrible bull****, just like global warming. And of course, you're swallowing global warming the same way all of those other swindles were swallowed in the past. Oh sure, everyone likes to sit in the back of history 101 and marvel at how people must have been so ignorant, but most people today would make the same mistakes that were made 100 years ago if you gave them half the chance.

Also, I'm curious: where do you think I stand politically, Kris?

Specialized Fan: I would probably not like you any better if you sold your SUV to buy a mini-van, or even a station wagon. Take that as you will. Also, I'm kinda amused that you assume I live a third-world lifestyle. What doesn't amuse me is that you refer to killing a cyclist or ruining a smaller car with your truck "winning." That's ****ed up as hell.

Kris Pistofferson: I realize that none of the issues I compared to global warming, from eugenics to Y2K, were based in science or reason. That's my point: they're all terrible bull****, just like global warming. And of course, you're swallowing global warming the same way all of those other swindles were swallowed in the past. Oh sure, everyone likes to sit in the back of history 101 and marvel at how people must have been so ignorant, but most people today would make the same mistakes that were made 100 years ago if you gave them half the chance.

Also, I'm curious: where do you think I stand politically, Kris?


I never said anything about killing a cyclist, I am one! I feel safe in a big SUV so if I get hit I survive, and yes I ride my mountain bike on sidewalks, why? because people do drive like morons! I didn't mean to imply that you live like a third world country as I meant this would work great if you lived and worked at home but today's society is set up for cars.
I said that I got rear ended at a stop light, thus justifying the purpose of a large vehicle as people do drive like idiots and you have have to protect you're self.

I never said anything about killing a cyclist, I am one! I feel safe in a big SUV so if I get hit I survive, and yes I ride my mountain bike on sidewalks, why? because people do drive like morons! I didn't mean to imply that you live like a third world country as I meant this would work great if you lived and worked at home but today's society is set up for cars.
I said that I got rear ended at a stop light, thus justifying the purpose of a large vehicle as people do drive like idiots and you have have to protect you're self.

If you're that concerned with safety, I'd suggest riding buses. Here's some statistics for comparing: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/. Enjoy.

AnthonyPaige[/left];5340989]If you're that concerned with safety, I'd suggest riding buses. Here's some statistics for comparing: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/. Enjoy.

Riding buses would be totally incompatible with my life style as it takes for ever to get anywhere and they don't deliver you door to door. I don't have the time nor do I want to stand in 100* heat or freezing cold waiting for a bus, when I can ride in air conditioned comfort and not ride with the riffraff.

Riding buses would be totally incompatible with my life style as it takes for ever to get anywhere and they don't deliver you door to door. I don't have the time nor do I want to stand in 100* heat or freezing cold waiting for a bus, when I can ride in air conditioned comfort and not ride with the riffraff.

Well, enjoy your lifestyle while you can, then.
Also, just curious, what exactly brings you to the car-free forum?

Well, enjoy your lifestyle while you can, then.
Also, just curious, what exactly brings you to the car-free forum?

Smells like a T-R-O-L-L to me...I am always impressed by people that list their worldly goods on internet forums. I could care less if he drives a Tahoe with Flex fuel capabilities. It is still part of the problem, not the solution.

Aaron:)

I'm inclined to let Specialized fan have his say. As the fictional detective Hercule Poirot used to explain, all you have to do is listen to someone long enough. Eventually they will tell you everything you want to know about them.

I'm inclined to let Specialized fan have his say. As the fictional detective Hercule Poirot used to explain, all you have to do is listen to someone long enough. Eventually they will tell you everything you want to know about them.

...I have heard enough to form my opinion...amazing that a person would sign up, make 26 posts in roughly 24 hours most of them advocating riding on sidewalks and pushing the wonders of an SUV in the LCF;)

Aaron:)

...I have heard enough to form my opinion...amazing that a person would sign up, make 26 posts in roughly 24 hours most of them advocating riding on sidewalks and pushing the wonders of an SUV in the LCF;)

Aaron:)
Well, it's a rare opportunity to learn about the special advantages of General Motors flex-fuel, StabiliTrac equipped vehicles. We should take note.

Well, it's a rare opportunity to learn about the special advantages of General Motors flex-fuel, StabiliTrac equipped vehicles. We should take note.

Yep...and I can't wait to get the trickle down technology for my bicycle:D... It maybe a bit OT...but then again maybe not. But as I have stated before the current ethanol from corn program is nothing but the goverment blowing smoke up our collective posteriors at taxpayers expense. And it shows the strength of the special interest lobbies in Washington.

Aaron:)

The problem isn't the SUV. All motor vehicles stink. The Prius almost as bad as the Excursion, because large SUVs have a great deal more potential utilitarian use. Econo-boxes have practically none. The problem is that, in part, the way our infrastructure is set up. Anyone with a family that wants to lead a normal life must own a car. It's simply not an option. Especially if kids are involved. A family might be able to get away with being car free in an inner-city, but that's the only type of place it would work.

The other part of the problem is the way we use cars.

Another one is that our supposedly economy cars have too much fuel sucking power. This is a problem in that not only would nobody accept a real ecomony car, such as those used in Japan, but such a car wouldn't even be street legal over here.

Smells like a T-R-O-L-L to me...I am always impressed by people that list their worldly goods on internet forums. I could care less if he drives a Tahoe with Flex fuel capabilities. It is still part of the problem, not the solution.

Aaron:)

This dude trolls in every forum he goes to. He goes into the A&S forums railing against people for riding in the road. Another fine specimen for bikeforums.net . I particularly don't understand why he comes to the carfree forum, but I guess it makes him feel....

meh, I don't know why he comes here.

What is this, the WorldNetDaily version of world history? This post is so ignorant and all over the place I don't know where to begin.

Eugenics was popular in America in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and of course in Nazi Germany, but to claim it had the worldwide appeal that you imply is ridiculous. The rest of your post is politics, religious idiocy and media hype that is absolutely non-analogous to peer-reviewed scientific research. There are very few dissenters among scientists in relevant fields about whether or not global warming is caused by man, fewer when you follow the dollars to the denier's "thinktanks," funded by Exxon, BP and the usual gang of idiots.

If the above post is a good summary of all the research you claim to have done on this issue, you need to turn off Sean Hannity and maybe pick up a reputable publication and actually read it. Or at least think of some other examples from modern science that are even remotely analogous.


I'm in total agreement.
I await return fire, but rather suspect there won;t be any, not to the specific points anyway, just more of the same rambling invective.

You're right. The really tiny cars wouldnt pass the safety requirements.
Example the VW POLO with the small (1.4 i think) diesel gets 72 milesd
per gallon. It will not pass the emissions or the safety requirements here
in NY. But we need this car!
It might be good for a single person or a no kids couple.
It is impractical for folks like me with
2 near Teenage kids. They would have to be smashed in the back seat
No room for groceries. So Ill stick to my Mercedes Benz Veggie mobile.
In Germany a vw golf (rabbit now) is a big car!

George

You're right. The really tiny cars wouldnt pass the safety requirements.
Example the VW POLO with the small (1.4 i think) diesel gets 72 milesd
per gallon. It will not pass the emissions or the safety requirements here
in NY. But we need this car!
It might be good for a single person or a no kids couple.
It is impractical for folks like me with
2 near Teenage kids. They would have to be smashed in the back seat
No room for groceries. So Ill stick to my Mercedes Benz Veggie mobile.
In Germany a vw golf (rabbit now) is a big car!

George

If we had decent mass transit it would be a major step in the right direction. Build it where it makes sense, then as fuel prices continue to rise people will move to where it is available. Small cars make a lot of sense, but instead of improving driver abilities we build over weight cars with a multitude of "safety" features to compensate for incompetent drivers. If they would mandate a maximum allowable weight for a vehicle instead of bumper heights etc, I bet some interesting and usable vehicles would appear. As far as carrying people efficiently the SUV ain't it. Mini van makes more sense. We used to own a Fiat Multipla IRIC it was a mid 60's model. It would carry 6 people, got 40 mpg and had the foot print of the then current VW bug. I will be the first to admit that it would not be all that comfortable for a coast to coast trip, but something like 90% of all car trips are under 25 miles on average...Something will be done...sooner or later.

Aaron:)

The problem isn't the SUV. All motor vehicles stink. The Prius almost as bad as the Excursion, because large SUVs have a great deal more potential utilitarian use.

I own both a Prius and an Explorer(granted smaller than an Expedition). I most often use the Prius for utility - with the rear seat down it has nearly as much room as the Explorer. I make runs to hardware store and load up on heavy/bulky stuff I can't (or don't choose to) carry by bike. If I wanted to I can put my fully assembled bike in the rear.

The handling (steering, braking) is much better in the Prius - I feel unsafe in the Explorer due to handling.
In the several years I've owned the Prius I have a lifeteme mpg of 49.8mpg. The Explorer lifetime mpg is 18.1mph (I drive it more conservatively than the Prius) The Prius also has a much better airbag system.

Both are nasty, I agree, both are somewhat selfish wants. I want to get rid of one, but I can not decide. The only reason I want to hang on to the Explorer is it takes me to backpacking/hiking trailheads all around the state. That is a passion of mine - with the added side effect of supporting my photography and providing data for local environmental groups. Yes the hypocrisy that many self described enviromentalists own high clearance and/or 4WD motor vehicles.

At least I put more miles on my bicycle in the last year than both vehicles combined, with a good bullk of those tranportational/utility miles.

Al

I get 100 miles to the gallon on my scooter. I pay between 3-6 dollars a week for gas.

I own both a Prius and an Explorer(granted smaller than an Expedition). I most often use the Prius for utility - with the rear seat down it has nearly as much room as the Explorer. I make runs to hardware store and load up on heavy/bulky stuff I can't (or don't choose to) carry by bike. If I wanted to I can put my fully assembled bike in the rear.

The handling (steering, braking) is much better in the Prius - I feel unsafe in the Explorer due to handling.
In the several years I've owned the Prius I have a lifeteme mpg of 49.8mpg. The Explorer lifetime mpg is 18.1mph (I drive it more conservatively than the Prius) The Prius also has a much better airbag system.

Both are nasty, I agree, both are somewhat selfish wants. I want to get rid of one, but I can not decide. The only reason I want to hang on to the Explorer is it takes me to backpacking/hiking trailheads all around the state. That is a passion of mine - with the added side effect of supporting my photography and providing data for local environmental groups. Yes the hypocrisy that many self described enviromentalists own high clearance and/or 4WD motor vehicles.

At least I put more miles on my bicycle in the last year than both vehicles combined, with a good bullk of those tranportational/utility miles.

Al

This post demonstrates that you don't have to be carfree to make responsible choices about the environment. (although it sure helps!) I'm sure that bmcglaughlin and kjonnytarr are similar cases--people who are conscientious car owners. I have no beef with any of you folks! :) (although I will never understand how anybody who dispassionately reads the science can have more than a 5 or 10 per cent doubt that global warming is real.)

Al, How come you couldn't use the Prius to take you to trailheads? After all, if you're backpacking you don't need a lot of space to carry your luggage. Of course, you might get more money if you sold the Prius, and that has to be a consideration. :)

What do you deniers make of the fact that even the Bush administration is conceding that global warming is human-caused and a real and serious problem. These are the most anti-scientific Flat Earthers, totally bought by the oil industry, and they now believe in global warming. In fact, BP and other oil companies have run many ads admitting the seriousness of global warming. I know this doesn't prove anything, but doesn't it make you wonder?

The deniers must be starting to feel pretty lonely. I do know how they feel. I felt the same way in 1971 when I was telling people about this new problem scientists were starting to talk about, then called the "greenhouse effect."

The really inconvenient truth is that even if we cut our rate of fossil fuel use by an unimaginable 90%, all the carbon that's now safely buried will still find its way back into the atmosphere in a short period of geological time. We may run out of fossil fuels before we reach a climatological tipping point, but that's not a comforting thought, either.

The really inconvenient truth is that even if we cut our rate of fossil fuel use by an unimaginable 90%, all the carbon that's now safely buried will still find its way back into the atmosphere in a short period of geological time. We may run out of fossil fuels before we reach a climatological tipping point, but that's not a comforting thought, either.

The inconvenient conclusion is that we might have to come up with some way to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. I don't think anybody has any good plans for doing this yet. One idea is to plant lots of fast growing plants (poplar trees, bamboo or whatever), burn them into charcoal--which is almost pure carbon--and bury the charcoal in the old coal mines, which we won't be using anymore. This would presumably reverse the whole process that got us into this mess in the first place.

This post demonstrates that you don't have to be carfree to make responsible choices about the environment. (although it sure helps!) I'm sure that bmcglaughlin and kjonnytarr are similar cases--people who are conscientious car owners.

I don't have a car. I had a truck. The last year I owned the truck I put 200 miles on the truck, and over 10,000 miles on my bike. The last time I put gas in my truck was February, 2006. Since then I've bought $15 of gas to refill the tank on the U-haul truck I rented when I moved.

Figure it like this... I was spending $50-$80 a week on gas... plus insurance, maintenance, tags, etc...

At about $30,000 a year income, I gave myself about a 20% raise, tax free!

Makes pretty good sense to me... even BEFORE you start thinking about the environment.

The inconvenient conclusion is that we might have to come up with some way to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. I don't think anybody has any good plans for doing this yet. One idea is to plant lots of fast growing plants (poplar trees, bamboo or whatever), burn them into charcoal--which is almost pure carbon--and bury the charcoal in the old coal mines, which we won't be using anymore. This would presumably reverse the whole process that got us into this mess in the first place.Huh?

Huh?

Just saying....It might be too late to merely quit emitting greenhouse gases. We might have to actually remove them permanently from the atmosphere if we want to avert things like mass extinctions and enormous loss of human life.

Uh. you do realize that without some greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere we would all die, right?

What do you deniers make of the fact that even the Bush administration is conceding that global warming is human-caused and a real and serious problem. These are the most anti-scientific Flat Earthers, totally bought by the oil industry, and they now believe in global warming. In fact, BP and other oil companies have run many ads admitting the seriousness of global warming. I know this doesn't prove anything, but doesn't it make you wonder?

The deniers must be starting to feel pretty lonely. I do know how they feel. I felt the same way in 1971 when I was telling people about this new problem scientists were starting to talk about, then called the "greenhouse effect."

You're using advertising and politics as material supporting global warming? That's pretty smart, because politics and advertising can always be taken at face value. :rolleyes:

The Bush administration probably supports global warming as a defense mechanism, a way of attracting loyalty, and to take the pressure off of them from all their other botches. Don't deny that, you know it's true. And of course, it's just good business for an oil company like BP to want to seem "green" to you, and the first step to that image is jumping on the bandwagon. To put it another way, which do you think is more likely: that BP had some scientists decide that BP as a company should be green for environmental reasons, or that they had some marketing gurus decide that giving a green image would be better for their bottom line? At a time when everyone's rabid about a made-up crisis, BP would be stupid not to act the way they are.

Also, as a matter of politeness, please stop trying to associate my viewpoint with anti-science. I've made it clear that my reasons for rejecting global-warming theory are based in it lacking scientific evidence that I find convincing. I am still granted the right to make up my own mind on an issue, based on my own interpretation of the data or lack thereof, aren't I? At the other end of the spectrum, you often seem to use political and economical circumstances to make your case for global warming, plus you have based your opinion on other peoples' interpretation of the data. I've tried to point this out for a while now.

I've made it clear that my reasons for rejecting global-warming theory are based in it lacking scientific evidence that I find convincing.

Please tell me what credible source is stating that GW is a myth these days? Almost everyone (even the Bush admin!) admits that GW is real and is happening now.

I guess the real question is .... what would it take to prove this to you? Why do I get the feeling that if you were 10 feet under water, you'd still have the same opinion? :eek:

... Brad

Please tell me what credible source is stating that GW is a myth these days? Almost everyone (even the Bush admin!) admits that GW is real and is happening now.
... Brad

That's my ****ing point, you thick-head: I'm not simply repeating other peoples' interpretations on data, the way you are. I've formed MY OWN CONCLUSIONS from raw data.

If you truly want to speak with a shred of authority on this, do your own ****ing research, because you'll never convince me that scientists/politicians can't be bought.

The inconvenient conclusion is that we might have to come up with some way to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. I don't think anybody has any good plans for doing this yet.

Actually, the rainforests are pretty good for that. Unfortunately, they're being cut down to make way for sugar cane crops, neccessary for environmentally friendly biofuel. One of those "unintended consequence" thingies that all the big, bad "Hold on, let's think this through" enemies of the planet were warning us about.

Somebody mentioned NASA as a source for irrefutable proof of climate change. Presumably that poster was not familiar with the recent stories concerning some of that data.

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt), and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II." http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

Now, as for the fellow who claims that no respectable scientist disagrees with the popular global warming theories:

"500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: List with Study Citations"

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977

Now, I personally don't know whether global warming is worth worrying about, whether it's caused by man or not, and what, if anything, we should do about it. I wish very much that it was not a political issue, as the hysterics have made it essentially impossible to ascertain what is truth and what is not.

One thing I am certain of, however, is that the "If you don't believe, you must be a Nazi!!!" type tactics indicate, to me, a weakness of argument.

10 feet underwater maybe for you.... I own a sailboat! We'll all be like those people in that crappy
Kevin Costner movie Waterworld.......

10 feet underwater maybe for you.... I own a sailboat! We'll all be like those people in that crappy
Kevin Costner movie Waterworld.......

That would be worth global-warming being real. I ****ing LOVE that movie! (I'm a sailor too)

Now, as for the fellow who claims that no respectable scientist disagrees with the popular global warming theories:

"500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: List with Study Citations"

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977
Yeah, thanks. "The Heartland Institute" doesn't seem like a baldly partisan front group in the least bit. How does Exxon feel about it, while we're on the subject?

That's my ****ing point, you thick-head: I'm not simply repeating other peoples' interpretations on data, the way you are. I've formed MY OWN CONCLUSIONS from raw data.

If you truly want to speak with a shred of authority on this, do your own ****ing research, because you'll never convince me that scientists/politicians can't be bought.

I can't read your post. Too many *******. :eek:

Seriously, you don't have to attack at me - I'm not the enemy. Of course 100% of politicians can be bought - that's a given. 100% of REAL scientists? Not so sure. Anywho, my position is as follows:

Only a few people on this earth are smart enough to fully understand how global warming will impact the earth. They, and not you or me, have a good idea on what is going to happen. I just try to follow the view of those with the least vested interest. I don't try to understand the complex science, as it would be a waste for you or I to do so. I just follow the dollar. It usually points me in the right direction.

Again, there is no REAL debate on glabal warming. There is, however, much propaganda produced by those with a HUGE vested interest in fosil fuels.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5792

... Brad

Yeah, thanks. "The Heartland Institute" doesn't seem like a baldly partisan front group in the least bit.

The ad hominem technique of "poisoning the well" is often used as a substitue for debate. This is a mistake, IMO. Do you have any factual criticisms of the findings of any of the 500 scientists?

<edit> FWIW, Heartland was merely linking to the work of another man, who in this case works for the non-partisan Hudson Institute.

I can't read your post. Too many *******. :eek:

Seriously, you don't have to attack at me - I'm not the enemy. Of course 100% of politicians can be bought - that's a given. 100% of REAL scientists? Not so sure. Anywho, my position is as follows:

Only a few people on this earth are smart enough to fully understand how global warming will impact the earth. They, and not you or me, have a good idea on what is going to happen. I just try to follow the view of those with the least vested interest. I don't try to understand the complex science, as it would be a waste for you or I to do so. I just follow the dollar. It usually points me in the right direction.

Again, there is no REAL debate on glabal warming. There is, however, much propaganda produced by those with a HUGE vested interest in fosil fuels.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5792

... Brad

Three questions:

1. What do you mean by "REAL scientists?" Seeing as how according to you, 100% of them believe in global warming, I'm thinking you must count any scientist who doesn't believe in global warming as "fake." That's unfair.

2. What makes you think that someone who pleads ignorance, the way you do in your second paragraph above, won't be taken advantage of? You treat climatologists like prophets from above. They're only people. I don't plead ignorance. You are pleading ignorance on the one hand, then insisting that you must be right on the other.

3. How do you define "REAL debate?" I'm debating you right now, and I invite you to point out any propaganda I wrote (http://m-w.com/dictionary/propaganda). Come to think of it, no-one, including me, stands anything to gain by me winning this debate (with the possible exception of my self-satisfaction). If anything, everyone would be better off if GW-proponents won the debate, even if they're wrong. Especially if they're wrong, actually. You really shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning propaganda, because your camp has way more ulterior motives than I do.

Please keep in mind that I don't necessarily share common interest with any other deniers. As I said, I have formed my opinions independently.

[edit: also, please don't attack my language. That's ad hominem, as Six jours put it. Attack my message, by all means]

You really shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning propaganda, because you're camp has way more ulterior motives than I do.

Hey, I didn't even know I had a camp! :D

Seriously, who is stating (other than you) that global warming is not real? Please let me know.

... Brad

I own both a Prius and an Explorer(granted smaller than an Expedition). I most often use the Prius for utility - with the rear seat down it has nearly as much room as the Explorer. I make runs to hardware store and load up on heavy/bulky stuff I can't (or don't choose to) carry by bike. If I wanted to I can put my fully assembled bike in the rear.

The handling (steering, braking) is much better in the Prius - I feel unsafe in the Explorer due to handling.
In the several years I've owned the Prius I have a lifeteme mpg of 49.8mpg. The Explorer lifetime mpg is 18.1mph (I drive it more conservatively than the Prius) The Prius also has a much better airbag system.

Both are nasty, I agree, both are somewhat selfish wants. I want to get rid of one, but I can not decide. The only reason I want to hang on to the Explorer is it takes me to backpacking/hiking trailheads all around the state. That is a passion of mine - with the added side effect of supporting my photography and providing data for local environmental groups. Yes the hypocrisy that many self described enviromentalists own high clearance and/or 4WD motor vehicles.

At least I put more miles on my bicycle in the last year than both vehicles combined, with a good bullk of those tranportational/utility miles.

Al

Good comparison between the two vehicles.

I don't see people who enjoy nature owning a 4x4 as hypocrisy at all. Although, it may seem contradictory to the self styled evironmentalists who never leave the pavement. We all choose to drive what we think suits our purposes. If you use the Prius for what you use the Explorer for, the life of the vehicle will be much shorter. Necessitating disposal of the old vehicle and manufacture of a new one for replacement. Seems pretty wasteful to me.

Not speaking of you here, Al. Actually, no one in particular.
I strongly believe that it's better, less polluting and less wasteful, for a person to own one vehicle that will fulfill 100% of that person's needs. Than to own the one that will do that and a smaller econo-box to try and fulfill a "greener" image.