Gas at $3.25,will affect attendance

::bows::

Oh, King of the Safari Vans, do not dare bow, let alone be in my presence.

Funny. Its a shame that something so socially relevant is taken so lightly by what I consider to be otherwise intelligent people.

The American way, I guess.

I don't take it lightly. It just seems that's the way it goes lately.

I drive an extremely fuel efficient car with an outstanding track record for reliability - in fact, this is my 2nd Civic - And the only question I'm ever asked is "Why didn't you get the hybrid?".

My answer: The extra 6-10 MPG just doesn't justify it at all. How is that so hard to accept?

When Honda comes out with their fuel cell technology, or they bring out a hybrid that gets significantly greater gas mileage than the current standard engines, then maybe I'll justify the price difference. For now, it's just not feasible.

-Josh

I wasn't necessarily calling you out on your choice of vehicle, as I consider that to be a very responsible choice. Rather, I was calling into question the lighthearted dismissal of how irresponsible it is to defend driving something completely unnecessary, based primarily on the concept that it is legal to do so. I mean, its also legal to light your hair on fire, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

The point is, people don't seem to give a damn about their choices, unless they impact them right now. Such is the case with Loopy - he's saying he needs to buy a huge SUV to tow a trailer he doesn't even own (and really won't ever need), in order to save money. Ignoring for a moment the absurdity of that plan, he's more concerned about having a big camper than he is about his children's' future.

EDITED for paragraphizationalism.
*** Edited 5/24/2007 5:18:55 PM UTC by djDaemon***

What I get out of Loopy's response is that he's looking for something that will tow what he needs to, while staying within his budget.

The other concern of his is seating for up to 8 people. If you can pack 8 people into one vehicle, regardless of it's emissions (barring it being a smoke-billowing dump truck), you're taking anywhere from 2 to 7 extra vehicles out of the mix. Kind of like the whole "carpooling to work" trend that tried to come about before everyone stopped trusting each other so much.

-Josh

8 people? Is Loopy Apostolic? ;)

djDaemon said:
The government can't afford incentives right now, silly. We have to spend all our money on defense, else the terrorists will win, gas prices will rise even further and American Idol will be canceled.

Yeah, and today the funding bill headed to W's desk has $100 billion for the war and $6 billion snuck in by the Dems for hurricane relief. Makes perfect sense since New Orleans looks like Baghdad without the terrorists.

There are no peer reviewed large scale studies that indicate global warming is our imagination, and that not we're causing it. The CO2 to average temperature link is clear. The CO2 levels are not climbing by some unknown force, not when we have been measuring what we're emitting for decades.

This is not an emotional debate. It's not about Al Gore. If there is compelling science that can attribute climate change to something else, then by all means, show it to me. There is no unwillingness to hear the other side. There simply isn't another side.

The emotional issue I have is that too few people give a damn, and that eventually comes at the expense of everyone, whether we like it or not.

djDaemon said:
8 people? Is Loopy Apostolic? ;)

Well, he doesn't go camping by himself :)

^^ C'mon, Jeff... that's $6 billion worth of politicized, democratic "pork".

An aside... it should be pointed out that the only reason this funding bill exists is because GW failed to include the war in his budget, for obvious reasons. So, every time he blames the dems for not giving him a clean bill, remember that he missed his chance to make his own, "pork free" bill.

/aside

OK. I asked a colleague about the research. In the meantime, here is a snippet he emailed me which he said could "get the pot stirring". I'll see what I can dig up.

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976."

Interesting. To myself, anyway.
*** Edited 5/24/2007 6:26:19 PM UTC by Kevinj***

That's very well written, and indeed passionate, but I've yet to see that "science" stuff to back up said view.

^I didn't see this in any of your earlier posts, but, I'll ask anyways, do you not believe in global warming?

I do believe in global warming, and I also believe that we are responsible for having a measurable impact on it as well.

It's not well written, it's asinine drivel. Science is, by definition, the pursuit of truth without passion. Scientists stand nothing to gain by making things up.

Like I said, show me the science. Responding with "it's indefensible science," when it has been peer reviewed, journaled, published and spread throughout the world, is just plain insulting to my intelligence.

Well you guys enjoy your little toy cars with their fuel efficiency. It'll leave me and Loopy more gas to burn and more air to pollute.

And if you're serious, you illustrate exactly the points I made about not looking beyond the end of your nose.

I'm half serious. Although I believe global warming is happening and we are the sole or biggest cause as much as you believe in god.

There are practical reasons to drive something more fuel efficient. We've outlined them in this thread. Forcing everyone else to be like you sounds a lot like facism, especially for something you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. People shouldn't be told they can't drive what they want to drive or what is practical to them.

One of my friends likes to drive old 4 wheel drive ford trucks. Are you going to tell him all of a sudden he can't keep driving those? (I guarantee the one to deliver the news will be met with 16 rounds). In his lifetime he'll more than likely never drive anything thats new enough to make a difference - he still hates Fuel Injection.

I won't argue with you that climate is changing. It's always been changing since the first day this earth was formed. I just find it very hard to believe that its all our fault. Maybe it's because im not a self-hating 'progressive' who thinks everything is his fault and must blame himself. Give me a break.

I just can't see any reason to spend trillions of dollars on 'fixing' a problem that may or may not even exist. It seems as foolish to me as religion seems to you. For some people, extreme environmentalism IS their religion (I worked with a bunch of kooks that were like that too).

Besides, whatever happened to that Ozone hole? I never hear about that anymore. It makes me sad. That was going to be the next biggest crisis!!!1111oneoneone OMG!!1111

That's because, through progressive legislation, the o-zone situation has been improved.

Imagine that.

Really? Doom and Gloom pointed to at least 50-60 years before all the CFC's got up there.

By my calculations, we used CFC's less than 20 years ago.

I remember watching videos in environmental/liberal indoctrination (also known as public schools) that said OMG by 1999 we're going to be out of landfill space!!1111111

That didn't happen either.

I'm also waiting on my awesome flying car. That would be lots of awesome.

"Science" (and media) isn't always right.