Global Extremes:8-29-07 NOAA says human activity to blame for increase in gases and hottest temps on record

[dmcowen674]

Official high here today was 108

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Find me a scientific study that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. The impact they make is not large enough to make a fuss about, IMO. Until we start using a different energy source altogether, all cars that use gas are a part of the problem.

I guess, for some people, its a hard equation.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www...es/transportation_industry/003127.html

So, lets use some logic here. If there are 24.2 million SUV's in the country, 9 million more than 5 years prior, that means that there are 9 million vehicles using roughly 75% more fuel than the standard passanger car.

Thus, considering the fact that the annual miles driven is ~12k and guestimating average SUV mpg is ~15, that would mean that each SUV consumes 800 gallons of gas per year. That is equal to 19,360,000,000 gallons of gas.

Consider that the average passenger car gets ~25mpg, or 480 gallons, and equiv number of cars will consume 12,096,000,000.

Now, consider that there are roughly 28 gallons of gas in a barrel of oil. That equals 259,428,571.42 barrels of oil difference, or $20,235,428,571 dollars annually, assuming $78/barrel.

Consider that the world consumes 75 million barrels a day, we could supply the world with oil for 3.45 days just from SUV conversion to regular passanger cars, in 2002.

Or, we can fuel the entire country for an additional 13 days just on the savings.


Consider if average mpg raised to 35 mpg. 342 gallons per car and 8,618,400,000 gallons of gas, and 307,800,000 barrels of oil. We could fuel theworld for 4 days and the US for almost 15. Just on those savings.


But hell, there is no difference. Saving the economy 20 billion dollars, polluting a hell of a lot less, and dramatically reducing the amount of oil needed is pittance to rampant consumerism.

 

[Pixelated]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Official high here today was 108

There you have it folks. The proof we've all been waiting for... it was 108 where Dave lives! It must be global warming.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Find me a scientific study that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. The impact they make is not large enough to make a fuss about, IMO. Until we start using a different energy source altogether, all cars that use gas are a part of the problem.

I guess, for some people, its a hard equation.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www...es/transportation_industry/003127.html

So, lets use some logic here. If there are 24.2 million SUV's in the country, 9 million more than 5 years prior, that means that there are 9 million vehicles using roughly 75% more fuel than the standard passanger car.

Thus, considering the fact that the annual miles driven is ~12k and guestimating average SUV mpg is ~15, that would mean that each SUV consumes 800 gallons of gas per year. That is equal to 19,360,000,000 gallons of gas.

Consider that the average passenger car gets ~25mpg, or 480 gallons, and equiv number of cars will consume 12,096,000,000.

Now, consider that there are roughly 28 gallons of gas in a barrel of oil. That equals 259,428,571.42 barrels of oil difference, or $20,235,428,571 dollars annually, assuming $78/barrel.

Consider that the world consumes 75 million barrels a day, we could supply the world with oil for 3.45 days just from SUV conversion to regular passanger cars, in 2002.

Or, we can fuel the entire country for an additional 13 days just on the savings.


Consider if average mpg raised to 35 mpg. 342 gallons per car and 8,618,400,000 gallons of gas, and 307,800,000 barrels of oil. We could fuel theworld for 4 days and the US for almost 15. Just on those savings.


But hell, there is no difference. Saving the economy 20 billion dollars, polluting a hell of a lot less, and dramatically reducing the amount of oil needed is pittance to rampant consumerism.

Excellent post! *applause* I mean it, really. I love the way you worked all of that out.

However, I said "....that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. "

All you did was prove that SUVs use more gas than a standard passenger car, and that if nobody drove them, we could cut down on our total use of gas, "save money", and pollute less (still waiting for some facts concerning how SUVs really affect the total amount of pollution in this country. Something tells me it is quite small (less than 2%).

I hate to break it to you, but getting rid of SUVs isn't the answer (I don't drive one, btw). I dislike "rampant consumerism" just as much as you.

 

[Conky]

Here are some non-partison scientific thoughts for the liberals who simply swallow Al Gore's version on the theory(it is an unproven theory) on Global Warming.

Let's start simple... How does one measure the planet's temperature to start with? One thermometer?, two?, a thousand?, a million?... ok, you get the point... hopefully.

Then there is the tricky bit of measuring the past temperatures. Did they have those same thermometers in the same places to measure the ACTUAL temps? Were they modern accurate thermometers?

Of course not, the actual measurement of these temps never happened. Modern reliable thermometer technology is less than 150 years old. We are left with computer simulations of what they think temps may or may not have been back then. We all know data can be manipulated and this is a classic example.

If I am not banned for arguing a liberal theory on this forum then I can continue the lecture tomorrow and will explain more interesting political reasons for politicians who force this "Global Warming" theory down our throats.

Bottom line... I don't like politicians explaining science to me any more than I appreciate scientists explaining politics. "Global Warming" is a political ruse and very little else.

 

[JohnCU]

give it up, it's useless to argue with people who know nothing about the scientific method.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
give it up, it's useless to argue with people who know nothing about the scientific method.

especially when Republicans do not believe in science.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Find me a scientific study that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. The impact they make is not large enough to make a fuss about, IMO. Until we start using a different energy source altogether, all cars that use gas are a part of the problem.

I guess, for some people, its a hard equation.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www...es/transportation_industry/003127.html

So, lets use some logic here. If there are 24.2 million SUV's in the country, 9 million more than 5 years prior, that means that there are 9 million vehicles using roughly 75% more fuel than the standard passanger car.

Thus, considering the fact that the annual miles driven is ~12k and guestimating average SUV mpg is ~15, that would mean that each SUV consumes 800 gallons of gas per year. That is equal to 19,360,000,000 gallons of gas.

Consider that the average passenger car gets ~25mpg, or 480 gallons, and equiv number of cars will consume 12,096,000,000.

Now, consider that there are roughly 28 gallons of gas in a barrel of oil. That equals 259,428,571.42 barrels of oil difference, or $20,235,428,571 dollars annually, assuming $78/barrel.

Consider that the world consumes 75 million barrels a day, we could supply the world with oil for 3.45 days just from SUV conversion to regular passanger cars, in 2002.

Or, we can fuel the entire country for an additional 13 days just on the savings.


Consider if average mpg raised to 35 mpg. 342 gallons per car and 8,618,400,000 gallons of gas, and 307,800,000 barrels of oil. We could fuel theworld for 4 days and the US for almost 15. Just on those savings.


But hell, there is no difference. Saving the economy 20 billion dollars, polluting a hell of a lot less, and dramatically reducing the amount of oil needed is pittance to rampant consumerism.

Excellent post! *applause* I mean it, really. I love the way you worked all of that out.

However, I said "....that suggests SUVs are a large factor in our overall CO2 emissions. "

All you did was prove that SUVs use more gas than a standard passenger car, and that if nobody drove them, we could cut down on our total use of gas, "save money", and pollute less (still waiting for some facts concerning how SUVs really affect the total amount of pollution in this country. Something tells me it is quite small (less than 2%).

I hate to break it to you, but getting rid of SUVs isn't the answer (I don't drive one, btw). I dislike "rampant consumerism" just as much as you.

Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?

2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JohnCU
give it up, it's useless to argue with people who know nothing about the scientific method.

especially when Republicans do not believe in science.

i'm not a republican. but i know science and your so called global warming is based on extremely poor data.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JohnCU
give it up, it's useless to argue with people who know nothing about the scientific method.

especially when Republicans do not believe in science.

You have to be either extremely young or not very well educated. If you don't like all of the scatter plots and statistical data that we have shown you proving that in the past 100 years the place where you live has actually gotten cooler then it is up to you to post some sort of proof of global warming.

If you do come up with proof I encourage you to write a paper and win the Nobel Prize because that is what would happen. The reason you have posted nothing other than the high where you live (the record set there was 115 over 60 years ago so you have a long way to go heat wise before you say anything significant) is because there is no real proof.

One year of early blooming or 1 year of bears coming out of hibernation is a scientific anomoly but hardly a sign of global warming. I am done arguing over this issue with you or anyone here because you are not refuting any evidence we provide or providing any actual temperature based evidence of your own.

Bear in mind, a scatter plot of the average annual temperature decreasing over 100 years is actual evidence, bears coming out of hibernation, flowers blooming early in a city and increased hurricaine activity is not any sort of proof unless it becomes a permenant pattern of behavior that cannot be attributed to anything but global warming. It's like the link between cancer and smoking. As unfortunate as it is, it would be almost impossible to prove smoking causes cancer. They can prove it raises your chances but they cannot prove it causes it. Remember correlation!=causation.

I'm sorry that we came and crapped in your thread by providing actual scientific evidence to the contrary. I was under the assumption that you would be adult enough to hold an actual debate, not ignore everything that was said and then respond by saying "republicans don't know science". You are right I (though not republican) do not know your version of science. My version of science relies on the scientific metod and actual research before coming up with a theory. Please do not allow me to stand in the way of your teddy bear and pretty flower science.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
give it up, it's useless to argue with people who know nothing about the scientific method.

Yes, because it is applied so well by people. There are many scientists who cloud the process with expectations of results, which are then followed by more pre-concluded results.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?

2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.

We could do even more by eliminating personal automobiles altogether? Why not do that?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?

2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.

We could do even more by eliminating personal automobiles altogether? Why not do that?

lol, there is some good ole extremism. Instead of recognizing the problem and dealing with it, you just go to the extreme and jump the shark.

suvs are the biggest, most wasteful, and idiotic thing ever devised to lure consumers into buying.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?

2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.

We could do even more by eliminating personal automobiles altogether? Why not do that?

That's a major part of the idea of carpooling and public transportation. In Atlanta they put in a carpooling (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane and believe me, it turns a 90min ride into a 20min ride during rush hour. I never go through Atlanta without carpooling anymore, it's just not worth it. If it hadn't been for all the rich white people where I live not wanting "undesirables" in our neighborhood I would have loved the expansion of Marta up to us. Unfortunately they opted for Cobb County Transit which is ok at best, the buses come every half an hour or so which isn't very helpful but it has made a difference. Anyways, if you read on the benifits of public transportation you will see the reduction of personal automobiles at the top of the list. Personally I carpool to/from college every semester but I bike almost everywhere when I get there, including the 4 miles each way to classes at Notrh Campus. It started as a way to reduce my gas money expendatures but I keep going now because I can eat 3 bowls of ice cream a night and not gain an ounce.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?

2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.

We could do even more by eliminating personal automobiles altogether? Why not do that?

lol, there is some good ole extremism. Instead of recognizing the problem and dealing with it, you just go to the extreme and jump the shark.

suvs are the biggest, most wasteful, and idiotic thing ever devised to lure consumers into buying.

Eliminating personal automobiles is dealing with it, is it not? If the goal is to lessen fossil fuel consumption in transportation, then more is better, correct?

Oh, I get it. You have a car that get XX MPG, and therefore anybody who gets <XX mileage is wrong and should change their evil ways. I imagine there are a lot of people whose cars get >XX MPG and think you're pretty wasteful as well. Hell, I get 40 MPG on my motorcycle. You're an environmental nightmare compared to me. I think whatever car you drive ought to be banned.

The problem with people who want to ban certain objects or behaviors only want to ban things that other people do. Those that call for such bans see themselves as beyond reproach. It's only when their ox gets gored that the whining begins.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't the idea that you consume a lot less gas, which produces Co2 when burned in an ICE, enough?

2% is 2% less than what we are using today, that is significant enough to warrant their elimination.

We could do even more by eliminating personal automobiles altogether? Why not do that?

That's a major part of the idea of carpooling and public transportation. In Atlanta they put in a carpooling (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane and believe me, it turns a 90min ride into a 20min ride during rush hour. I never go through Atlanta without carpooling anymore, it's just not worth it. If it hadn't been for all the rich white people where I live not wanting "undesirables" in our neighborhood I would have loved the expansion of Marta up to us. Unfortunately they opted for Cobb County Transit which is ok at best, the buses come every half an hour or so which isn't very helpful but it has made a difference. Anyways, if you read on the benifits of public transportation you will see the reduction of personal automobiles at the top of the list. Personally I carpool to/from college every semester but I bike almost everywhere when I get there, including the 4 miles each way to classes at Notrh Campus. It started as a way to reduce my gas money expendatures but I keep going now because I can eat 3 bowls of ice cream a night and not gain an ounce.

And I say, "Good for you!" And I actually mean that, I'm not being sarcastic.

You have shaped your lifestyle in a way that's helping the environment and lessening our use of foreign oil. People like LegendKiller on the other hand think that they're doing things correctly, and it's everyone else who needs to change, not them. Typical nanny stater. They want to change the world, but they doesn't include themselves. They're already good citizens, it's everyone else that's wrong.

Those kind of people make me sick to my stomach.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

And I say, "Good for you!" And I actually mean that, I'm not being sarcastic.

You have shaped your lifestyle in a way that's helping the environment and lessening our use of foreign oil. People like LegendKiller on the other hand think that they're doing things correctly, and it's everyone else who needs to change, not them. Typical nanny stater. They want to change the world, but they doesn't include themselves. They're already good citizens, it's everyone else that's wrong.

Those kind of people make me sick to my stomach.

I figured that I'd let you keep going for a while, just to see if I could get the typical response out of you.

Personally, my wife and I own a 2000 Honda Accord (I4, tuned), which we ride together in in the morning. I drop her off, after driving 14 miles down the Dulles toll road in the HOV lane, at the West Falls Church metro station, where she rides the train down to her job in DC. I pick her up in the evening and we drive back. I rarely drive any further than that and most of the time we take the Metro anywhere we want to go, whether it's Bethesda to a favorite restaurant, or to the monuments.

We make enough, combined, to buy two massive suvs, cash. Or, two large luxury cars, but we'd rather not. At home, we have the AC set at 75, a bit high, but it conserves a lot of energy. We put in very efficient windows that block most energy losses, it has saved us a lot so far. We recycle.

So, as far as your assumptions go, they are quite incorrect, but it's amusing nonetheless to see that you, like most people, pigeonhole others to suit your needs. Great job sparky.

 

[BoberFett]

My assumptions? I assumed nothing. Regardless of how well you think you conserve, others do better. The problem with do-gooding nanny staters such as yourself is that YOU make assumptions that you're already in the right, and that it's everyone else who needs to change. Your use of a car, no matter how modest, and use of air conditioning puts you far ahead of 90% of the world in energy consumption. You're in the same league as SUV owners but you're blind to your own failings and have drawn an artificial line, on one side of that line are SUV drivers on the other is you. There could be a number of reasons you drew the line where you did, perhaps to make yourself feel better about your gluttony, or maybe you're truly that ignorant and don't know any better. But do you really think it's a coincidence that you feel that you aren't wasteful, it's only those other people? I imagine the billions of people in 3rd world and emerging economies would probably draw the line such that you and SUV owners are in the same group. But I doubt you'll be able to understand that.

Personally I don't attempt to force other people to live their lives to my liking. Maybe I should. I could start lobbying to eliminate air conditioning for anybody without a documented medical condition that couldn't handle the heat. My wife and I haven't used air conditioning at all this year, we've just left the windows open 24/7. After all, you are more wasteful than me and therefore need to change. That's your attitude toward SUV drivers, and as the saying goes, what's good for the goose...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
My assumptions? I assumed nothing. Regardless of how well you think you conserve, others do better. The problem with do-gooding nanny staters such as yourself is that YOU make assumptions that you're already in the right, and that it's everyone else who needs to change. Your use of a car, no matter how modest, and use of air conditioning puts you far ahead of 90% of the world in energy consumption. You're in the same league as SUV owners but you're blind to your own failings and have drawn an artificial line, on one side of that line are SUV drivers on the other is you. There could be a number of reasons you drew the line where you did, perhaps to make yourself feel better about your gluttony, or maybe you're truly that ignorant and don't know any better. But do you really think it's a coincidence that you feel that you aren't wasteful, it's only those other people? I imagine the billions of people in 3rd world and emerging economies would probably draw the line such that you and SUV owners are in the same group. But I doubt you'll be able to understand that.

Personally I don't attempt to force other people to live their lives to my liking. Maybe I should. I could start lobbying to eliminate air conditioning for anybody without a documented medical condition that couldn't handle the heat. My wife and I haven't used air conditioning at all this year, we've just left the windows open 24/7. After all, you are more wasteful than me and therefore need to change. That's your attitude toward SUV drivers, and as the saying goes, what's good for the goose...

So, you live like a 3rd world person then? Of course there will be a difference between modern and not, conveniences or not. However, there is a balance where you consume in an irresponsible manner when you really do not need to. I need to get to work in a timely manner, the bus schedules are not condusive to this, nor are there any reasonable places to live right next to my work. Therefore, I must commute, but I make reasonable efforts to reduce as much as possible.

You do assume that I do not do that. Furthermore, you also assume that I want a nanny state to force people to stop consuming at the rate they are. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. I would like most people to wake up and realize the impact of their decisions. SUV are a convenient target, but there are many more.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So, you live like a 3rd world person then? Of course there will be a difference between modern and not, conveniences or not. However, there is a balance where you consume in an irresponsible manner when you really do not need to. I need to get to work in a timely manner, the bus schedules are not condusive to this, nor are there any reasonable places to live right next to my work. Therefore, I must commute, but I make reasonable efforts to reduce as much as possible.

You do assume that I do not do that. Furthermore, you also assume that I want a nanny state to force people to stop consuming at the rate they are. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. I would like most people to wake up and realize the impact of their decisions. SUV are a convenient target, but there are many more.

Do I live like a 3rd world person? Absolutely not. I pick and choose where to use energy. I'm posting on this forum now, using electricity generated most likely by fossil fuels. All Americans, save for the extremely wealthy, make those choices as well. Just because some choose an SUV doesn't give you the right to demonize them. You talk about balance as though you're the fulcrum. What makes you the person who gets to decide what is wasteful and what isn't?

You state that you need to get to work, and you don't like the housing near your job, so you need to commute. Technically you need to do neither of those things. You could become a subsistence farmer. There are very few needs in modern society, almost everything we produce is wants. You can argue that such a lifestyle is not "balanced" but mostly I'm trying to figure out why you can't get it through your head that you are not the arbiter of balance. The HUMMER driver is wasteful to the minivan driver who is wasteful to the Civic driver who is wasteful to the scooter rider who is wasteful to the bus rider who is wasteful to the bicycle rider. Stop putting yourself on a pedestal.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So, you live like a 3rd world person then? Of course there will be a difference between modern and not, conveniences or not. However, there is a balance where you consume in an irresponsible manner when you really do not need to. I need to get to work in a timely manner, the bus schedules are not condusive to this, nor are there any reasonable places to live right next to my work. Therefore, I must commute, but I make reasonable efforts to reduce as much as possible.

You do assume that I do not do that. Furthermore, you also assume that I want a nanny state to force people to stop consuming at the rate they are. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. I would like most people to wake up and realize the impact of their decisions. SUV are a convenient target, but there are many more.

Do I live like a 3rd world person? Absolutely not. I pick and choose where to use energy. I'm posting on this forum now, using electricity generated most likely by fossil fuels. All Americans, save for the extremely wealthy, make those choices as well. Just because some choose an SUV doesn't give you the right to demonize them. You talk about balance as though you're the fulcrum. What makes you the person who gets to decide what is wasteful and what isn't?

You state that you need to get to work, and you don't like the housing near your job, so you need to commute. Technically you need to do neither of those things. You could become a subsistence farmer. There are very few needs in modern society, almost everything we produce is wants. You can argue that such a lifestyle is not "balanced" but mostly I'm trying to figure out why you can't get it through your head that you are not the arbiter of balance. The HUMMER driver is wasteful to the minivan driver who is wasteful to the Civic driver who is wasteful to the scooter rider who is wasteful to the bus rider who is wasteful to the bicycle rider. Stop putting yourself on a pedestal.

So, you are telling me that we shouldn't reasonably eliminate low-hanging fruit if we can? Or that nobody can say that one method or vehicle is superior to another, that free-will and no judgement should reign while others will, of course, moderate themselves appropriately without guidance?

Please, your attitude of relativity and non-judgement of stupid wastefulness is absurd. Yes, the wastefulness is on a continuum, but there are some things that are certainly outlayers and can be eliminated with a larger beneficial impact with minimal downside impact. Once your impact becomes grossly disproportionate or grossly unreasonable, then you have gone a bit too far. Personally, suvs driving by largely single drivers with no passangers are unreasonable. You can disagree to disagree if you want.

I know you want to play some kind of devils advocate, arguing for the sake of arguing, since you so obviously entered into this thread to do that. Go ahead, keep on your tact of doing so.

 

[BoberFett]

You obviously don't get it. You're a self righteous pig of a human being, and feel that you are the standard by which all others should model their lives. Nothing will convince you otherwise. Sorry to have wasted your time.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You obviously don't get it. You're a self righteous pig of a human being, and feel that you are the standard by which all others should model their lives. Nothing will convince you otherwise. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Hello mirror...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You obviously don't get it. You're a self righteous pig of a human being, and feel that you are the standard by which all others should model their lives. Nothing will convince you otherwise. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Hello mirror...

Not at all, and still further proof that you don't get it.

I try to save energy. I try not to drive more than I have to, use public transportation when possible, ride my motorcycle when weather permits. I buy products that use minimal packaging, and recycle everything that local recycling will allow. They still don't take polypropylenes for some reason. *shrug* I don't use A/C if at all possible, and in the winter keep my house quite a bit colder than most people would consider normal. All of these things and I don't even really consider myself an environmentalist. I just try to do what I think is right. If other people do the same, I commend them. What I don't do is demonize people who live differently than me. That's where we differ.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You obviously don't get it. You're a self righteous pig of a human being, and feel that you are the standard by which all others should model their lives. Nothing will convince you otherwise. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Hello mirror...

Not at all, and still further proof that you don't get it.

I try to save energy. I try not to drive more than I have to, use public transportation when possible, ride my motorcycle when weather permits. I buy products that use minimal packaging, and recycle everything that local recycling will allow. They still don't take polypropylenes for some reason. *shrug* I don't use A/C if at all possible, and in the winter keep my house quite a bit colder than most people would consider normal. All of these things and I don't even really consider myself an environmentalist. I just try to do what I think is right. If other people do the same, I commend them. What I don't do is demonize people who live differently than me. That's where we differ.

No, you just demonize (or piggize) if they don't follow "it", more specifically, if they don't follow your definition of how people can or cannot judge or decide, in relative manner, how they think some people might try to conserve. Really, your self righteous attitude is nothing more than what I was saying, so, in actuality, your "it" or point, is nothing more than the same one I have. If you want to belittle that, then I cannot stop you from punching yourself in the nose.