reasons why real man don't drive electric cars

[SsZERO]

First of all, let me thank you for posting something that is thought out and presented intelligently. As you may have noted, actual informative posts are usually few and far between on these forums.



<< SsZERO,

It's easy for you to state that, because, in all honesty, it is impossible - as you, and many others know - to provide a causal link to a phenomenon that could be natural or artificial. It is unfair for any organization (scientific or otherwise) to claim absolutely CONCLUSIVE evidence that provides a causal link, with cars being the number one cause, of global warming; in addition, however, it is neither beneficial nor even moderately intelligent for you to refute a preponderance of evidence by demanding absolute proof. >>



While I can't speak for joe public, I can say that if I am going to have to part with my car on the premise that it is causing the demise of the planet MORESO than anything else on this planet, I sure as hell would like some absolute proof and not just heresay. If I came up to you and told you that there is a 80% chance that your home might be built upon a toxic waste dump site, that you will probably see the results of this waste on your health in 20-60 years, and that you need to move, what are you going to do? Now bear in mind, ever since you've lived there, you have witnessed NO evidence to support the claim that your health is being adversely affected...i.e., no cancer, no extra limbs, no skin problems, etc. Are you going to leave your house (not sell, just leave) based on someone claiming a probability? Wouldn't you like some PROOF of the claim? Wouldn't you like this proof to be undeniable? If you can honestly answer no to either of these questions, I want to meet you. I got a time machine I'd like to sell to you for $15K (I can't prove that it works, but I am pretty sure it does).




<< What I'm getting at is this: an organization cannot, and will not, in good conscience, claim that cars will bring the apocalypse; however, in order to gain some glimmer in the eye of the public, they must make some claims that will allow for an environmental conscience to have some hope in competing with the avaricious nature of the SUV and gas-guzzling car market. It is the nature for a theory (and global warming is exactly that) to have some holes; that is, in fact, the nature of a theory itself. Over time, it will evolve into something that becomes more and more concrete - yet at this time, the fact that it is not "concrete" yet does not make it invalid. >>



This is similar to what I said...except the reason they want to get a glimmer in the eye of the public is not to create hope, it is more to make some quick money off anybody gullable enough to donate to them. And there are MANY people who donate to such causes. Now I don't like SUVs at all, and I find that the most people who drive them cannot drive at all...but I can look you in the eye and say that SUVs are not causing any significant environmental damage or pollution. Anybody can concoct a theory and warp statistics to give the theory some weight and credibility, but that is not enough to warrant any change on our behalf...in essence, it is propaganda.



<< If all you want to do is sit there and spout rhetoric, that's fine. Don't, however, put down the fact - and yes, this is a fact - that humans are impacting our environment in negative ways, both in our direct effects upon the environment, and in the results those effects will have on us. We may not ever have proof that the impact cars have on our environment is catastrophic; yet we have enough understanding that by reducing emissions, we will be doing something that is - on the whole - a "good" thing. Forgive this drastic summation, but it is late, and I am tired. >>



Anything on this planet affects the environment, and I do not deny that humans are on the top of the list when it comes to abusing the resources of the planet and damaging the world they live in by being careless towards the environment. But passenger cars are very low on this list. YES, they do release pollutants, but so do all living creatures. One volcano blowing its top in one day, even mildly, releases more 'harmful' gases into the atmosphere than perhaps a year of the US driving cars...are you going to say that we need to plug up all the volcanos? We have reduced the emmissions from cars by a very large margin...but the fact remains that automobiles never were a major cause of air pollution! They are just a much easier target than say, the steel industry.



<< If you don't want to give up your car, that's fine. If you would rather drive a 10mpg guzzler than a 50mpg fuel-cell protocol vehicle, that's fine. But please, for the sake of progress, don't discourage those who are trying to figure out what is at the root of many of these recent environmental problems, and don't act so dogmatic about the nature of your knowledge. There are many researchers out there who could put your "knowledge" to shame and debate you around the clock - and, I might add, whip your ass at it - in this realm; unfortunately, none of them are here.

http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/0warming.html
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

Oh, and to stick to the topic: I agree - electric cars do suck. Hybrids, fuelcells, et. al, however...

Rob >>



Look at what you just said up there...you say that people are still trying "figure out what is at the root of many of these recent environmental problems". What problems? The warmer weather we've been having = global warming = we must destroy all gasoline-powered cars? I don't think so. Reviewing the weather records way back to the 1800s will show a similar phenomena occuring way back then, back when there were no cars or factories. Maybe the pollution used my time machine to travel back to the 1800s to pollute the air so that people today could use it as a tool to dispel the misleading claims being made by misinformed individuals and organizations. I'm afraid that bringing in a "pro-global warming" pseudo-scientist would only support my claim further, because there is no scientific data that supports global warming or that cars are a major cause of air pollution.


-= SsZERO =-

 

[Entity]

SsZERO,

Let me start by saying that you have a gift in semantics, but in this case, I think you are dead wrong. Here's why:


<< if I am going to have to part with my car on the premise that it is causing the demise of the planet MORESO than anything else on this planet, I sure as hell would like some absolute proof and not just heresay. >>


You seem to be guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of - getting your information from media-based sources. Please correct me if I am wrong, but honestly: when was the last time that a global-warming researcher asked you, personally, to give up your car? Here, you are using what appears to be a slippery-slope argument; first people will be concerned about a popular, but unproven, theory, and next I will no longer be able to use my car. Let's be honest here: we aren't being asked to drastically alter our lifestyle - namely because researchers haven't proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cars are the single most damaging element to our environment. Why haven't they proven that? You've already answered that: because cars aren't.

You seem to be fond of analogies, and understandably so; here's one for you to try on. It's not perfect, but such is the case with analogies...

You enjoy knives. In fact, you are an avid knife collector. On your own, you have never done any damage to anyone with knives; however, the government, in an attempt to cut down on school violence, realizes that knives are one of the few things that they have direct control over, since, unfortunately, guns (the oil plants of our analogies) cannot be eliminated from our economic system, due to protection by the constitution. Consequently, they are interested in limiting the effect knives can have on violence within schools; they are not seeking to entirely eliminate knives, or, for that matter, violence, but instead to gain some element of control over one of the detrimental effects knives (and humans) have had. In that case, you would most definitely fight for the abolition of any restrictions upon knives, right? Especially when there is no causation to be derived from the use of knives; after all, violence happens without them, naturally. Knives don't cause violence, and consequently, we shouldn't seek to restrict them. Right?



<< you have witnessed NO evidence to support the claim that your health is being adversely affected...i.e., no cancer, no extra limbs, no skin problems, etc. >>


Good analogy, but I have a question: is it that you have witnessed no evidence, or that you haven?t put two and two together and seen the link? Here are some facts ? i.e. statistically significant, non-manipulated data ? that have been assembled. I am not proposing any causal link between ?global warming,? as the theory is proposed, and this data; rather, I am providing the data in attempt for you to be able to possibly see that there may be a link there. I?m not into research enough to be able to substantiate these claims with more evidence, but you have made some outlandish claims in your argument and without proof (as I am attempting to offer), your argument becomes no more than an exercise in words.


<< Since the late 19th century, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1º F (0.3-0.6°Celsius).
Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).
Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.
Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s, and 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Ni&ntilde;os on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began. >>


Analyze these as you wish.


<< Reviewing the weather records way back to the 1800s will show a similar phenomena occuring way back then, back when there were no cars or factories. >>


I believe I have responded to this point; please read the data above. You will find very few scientists, in the true empirical sense of the word, who would rest their career on the reliability of data from the 1800?s; nevertheless, at this point in time, there was still significant pollution from coal factories, etc., and, to continue, we have seen this pattern since the late 19th-century.

It is impossible to argue causation from correlation; yet in all honesty, some arguments are more plausible than others. We must admit that, otherwise we must remain hopelessly agnostic on all issues.

I would like to take issue with some other statements you made, but this is getting hopelessly long. I?m guessing that you won?t give up, so I?ll save more responses for you for then.

Here are a few closing comments; read them and digest them, and if you take issue with them, remember that you must take issue with every scientist that is supporting these statements (which is now in the majority, remember; at the same time, very few of these people, as you claim, that they want to ?make some quick money off anybody gullable (sp) enough to donate to them.?).

For you to back up some of your claims, you must be able to do the following:

Refute the posted data (not too hard, but still, must be done with counter-data rather than arguments about validity; the data has passed several layers of empirical testing, remember).

Post data to support your claim that scientists are in this for the money; keep in mind, that with minds such as theirs, they could easily be working for the oil industry, or as consultants for lobbyists, etc. This will be a tough one; if I were you, I would probably concede that scientists aren?t in it for the money, unless you can provide salary data, etc., to prove counter to this claim. You made the claim, so you have the burden of proof.

It?s been nice debating with you. I haven?t had one of these in ages.

Sincerely,
Rob

 

[figgypower]

<<
Nuclear Fusion should be the answer to this in not too long from now (hopefully). Nuclear energy without waste! Now that would be something... >>



Ah yes... a hydrogen bomb strapped to our car that can blow up far more than a large metropolitan city... that's what we need!

 

[Ultima]

<<

<<
Nuclear Fusion should be the answer to this in not too long from now (hopefully). Nuclear energy without waste! Now that would be something... >>



Ah yes... a hydrogen bomb strapped to our car that can blow up far more than a large metropolitan city... that's what we need! >>



You're just as bad as ssZero

Not in the cars of course, but as energy producers for the hydrogen economy

 

[SsZERO]

Maybe you just need to make yourself more clear.

-= SsZERO =-



<< You're just as bad as ssZero

Not in the cars of course, but as energy producers for the hydrogen economy >>

 

[SsZERO]

<< SsZERO,

Let me start by saying that you have a gift in semantics, but in this case, I think you are dead wrong. Here's why:

You seem to be guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of - getting your information from media-based sources. Please correct me if I am wrong, but honestly: when was the last time that a global-warming researcher asked you, personally, to give up your car? Here, you are using what appears to be a slippery-slope argument; first people will be concerned about a popular, but unproven, theory, and next I will no longer be able to use my car. Let's be honest here: we aren't being asked to drastically alter our lifestyle - namely because researchers haven't proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cars are the single most damaging element to our environment. Why haven't they proven that? You've already answered that: because cars aren't. >>



You agree that cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else that is environmentally detrimental. Good, that's one of the points I was trying to make, and evidently, I have made it.




<< You seem to be fond of analogies, and understandably so; here's one for you to try on. It's not perfect, but such is the case with analogies...

You enjoy knives. In fact, you are an avid knife collector. On your own, you have never done any damage to anyone with knives; however, the government, in an attempt to cut down on school violence, realizes that knives are one of the few things that they have direct control over, since, unfortunately, guns (the oil plants of our analogies) cannot be eliminated from our economic system, due to protection by the constitution. Consequently, they are interested in limiting the effect knives can have on violence within schools; they are not seeking to entirely eliminate knives, or, for that matter, violence, but instead to gain some element of control over one of the detrimental effects knives (and humans) have had. In that case, you would most definitely fight for the abolition of any restrictions upon knives, right? Especially when there is no causation to be derived from the use of knives; after all, violence happens without them, naturally. Knives don't cause violence, and consequently, we shouldn't seek to restrict them. Right? >>



Once again, I have nothing to say because you are in agreement with me. Switch out knives for cars and you are repeating what I said.




<<
Good analogy, but I have a question: is it that you have witnessed no evidence, or that you haven?t put two and two together and seen the link? Here are some facts ? i.e. statistically significant, non-manipulated data ? that have been assembled. I am not proposing any causal link between ?global warming,? as the theory is proposed, and this data; rather, I am providing the data in attempt for you to be able to possibly see that there may be a link there. I?m not into research enough to be able to substantiate these claims with more evidence, but you have made some outlandish claims in your argument and without proof (as I am attempting to offer), your argument becomes no more than an exercise in words. >>



I have made no outlandish claims, I am responding to the common claims you get from the anti-car coalition. You want to know what claims? Read this thread and you'll get an idea of what I am speaking of. Now there is no evidence to support the notion of global warming, in fact, the polar ice mass has increased over time...not decreased...and temperatures measured from satellites indicate that the temp on the planet has slightly decreased. On top of all this, man-made 'greenhouse' gases only account for 2% of the total...most of the greenhouse gases are naturally occuring. This means that even if we wanted to warm the planet, we would be out of luck!



<<


<< Since the late 19th century, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1º F (0.3-0.6°Celsius).
Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).
Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.
Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s, and 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Ni&ntilde;os on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began. >>


Analyze these as you wish.

I believe I have responded to this point; please read the data above. You will find very few scientists, in the true empirical sense of the word, who would rest their career on the reliability of data from the 1800?s; nevertheless, at this point in time, there was still significant pollution from coal factories, etc., and, to continue, we have seen this pattern since the late 19th-century. >>



What is to say these are not naturally occuring weather patterns? And do you think that the "true" scientists of today have been doing a better job of measuring the planet's mean temperature, as well as identifying what causes rises and falls in the temperature? You have not provided any information that would either support or disprove the theory of global warming.



<< It is impossible to argue causation from correlation; yet in all honesty, some arguments are more plausible than others. We must admit that, otherwise we must remain hopelessly agnostic on all issues.

I would like to take issue with some other statements you made, but this is getting hopelessly long. I?m guessing that you won?t give up, so I?ll save more responses for you for then. >>



It's hard to prove a theory as being right, especially when there really is no clear-cut data to form a basis upon.



<< Here are a few closing comments; read them and digest them, and if you take issue with them, remember that you must take issue with every scientist that is supporting these statements (which is now in the majority, remember; at the same time, very few of these people, as you claim, that they want to ?make some quick money off anybody gullable (sp) enough to donate to them.?). >>



You fail to note that there are true scientists, and then we have pseudo-scientists. Who do you think started this global warming crap, along with other baseless claims of air pollution reaching intolerable levels with cars being at the root of the source? Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, that MAN as a whole is causing our air to become unbreathable...what self-respecting scientist would stand behind something like that? I'll give you a hint: a real scientist wouldn't make claims based upon inconclusive data -- that is very unscientific. You can become an ordained minister of any religion you can dream up just by filling out a slip and mailing it to Ministerz R Us...there are self-proclaimed scientists, often referred to by the media as 'experts'...these are the people who take actual scientific data and twist it into a form that suits their interests.



<<
For you to back up some of your claims, you must be able to do the following:

Refute the posted data (not too hard, but still, must be done with counter-data rather than arguments about validity; the data has passed several layers of empirical testing, remember).

Post data to support your claim that scientists are in this for the money; keep in mind, that with minds such as theirs, they could easily be working for the oil industry, or as consultants for lobbyists, etc. This will be a tough one; if I were you, I would probably concede that scientists aren?t in it for the money, unless you can provide salary data, etc., to prove counter to this claim. You made the claim, so you have the burden of proof.

It?s been nice debating with you. I haven?t had one of these in ages.

Sincerely,
Rob >>



Hey, I don't need lessons on debate. And as I stated before, I am not making any claims, hence I have nothing to support. If you are going to say that global warming exists, and that cars, or even man as a whole, is responsible, I'd love to see the scientific report that clearly states that as fact. If you cannot provide that, then you can only believe in global warming, but you cannot actually expect anyone else to believe you...well, not unless you call yourself an expert. You're bound to pick up a few followers that way, and you can sell them electric cars! Anyway, these are the points I wish to make clear:

a) Global warming is currently non-existant, and cannot be proven to exist.
b) Cars create a highly insignificant amount of total global air pollutants.
c) If you are a guy and you have never driven a loud V8-powered car with massive horsepower and torque, then you can never fully be a man.
d) If a real man had an electric car, it would only be as a 'toy' for occasional use, not as a primary means of transportation.

As you can see, if you want to disagree with me about the global warming thing, you got some work to do...and I really doubt you are going to find anything that will prove me wrong. Is it a possibility? Yes. I won't deny you that...there is a potential for our planet's mean temperature to rise...but right now it is not, and cars are not the problem. That is the topic, cars...actually, electric cars and how they suck.

-= SsZERO =-

 

[Entity]

<< I have made no outlandish claims, >>




<< the reason they want to get a glimmer in the eye of the public is not to create hope, it is more to make some quick money off anybody gullable enough to donate to them. >>


I do believe, sir, that you contradict yourself here.


<< Once again, I have nothing to say because you are in agreement with me. Switch out knives for cars and you are repeating what I said. >>


In my analogy (and perhaps I didn't make this clear enough), I would still support restrictions upon knives, which you do not (according to my reading of your posts) support. Despite the fact that there is not a preponderance of evidence supporting the analogical knives as the "singlemost" contributor to violence, I would still support their restrictions; do you? If not, then we disagree, once again.


<< You agree that cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else that is environmentally detrimental. >>


Wrong. You have grossly misstated my comment. My comment was this (bolded for specific emphasis):
Cars aren't the single most damaging element to our environment. Your misreading of that, as "cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else..." is not only misleading, but to me, disrespectful as well. If I haven't made my point clear, please let me know; do not, however, change my words. If I have, in any ways, changed yours, please bring this to my attention.


<< I am responding to the common claims you get from the anti-car coalition. >>


Your initial claims were not those which I took issue with; rather, I began the debate on issues that I felt you were not properly representing.


<< Now there is no evidence to support the notion of global warming, in fact, the polar ice mass has increased over time...not decreased...and temperatures measured from satellites indicate that the temp on the planet has slightly decreased. On top of all this, man-made 'greenhouse' gases only account for 2% of the total...most of the greenhouse gases are naturally occuring. This means that even if we wanted to warm the planet, we would be out of luck! >>


Of these claims, to my current knowledge, the only "common knowledge" point you refer to is greenhouse gases being 2% of the total. In addition - and in tradition with the "lies" of statistics, I can refute your other points. To add to that, drawing the weak inference that because we can only directly affect 2% of the greenhouse gases through the use of cars, we cannot change our environment, is uninformed. The concern is not with the 2%, but at the speed of which the CO2 levels are rising.


<< the polar ice mass has increased over time >>


By this, statistics would not support the notion that they have increased "over time," unless you narrowly define "time" to mean the last year. I will provide my statistics, and sources. Check them if you wish. Please, when refuting these, provide statistics in your response - otherwise you have invalidated your claims on the following points.


<< Measures of ice thickness taken by U.S. submarines between the 1950s and 1970s compared with recent measures indicate that the ice covering the Artic Ocean may have thinned dramatically during the last few decades. The older submarine data showed an average thickness of 3.1 m, whereas data at the same sites in the 1990s shows an average thickness of 1.8m (Rothrock et al. 1999:3469). Satellite observations since the 1970s show the Arctic Sea cover to be shrinking at about 3 percent per decade (USGCRP 1999). - Source: World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life, published by the United Nations Development Program >>


By referring to the temperature decrease, my guess (and please, again, correct me if my assumption is wrong by providing your statistics) is that you are referring to a very small amount of time?


<< Since Hansen's 1988 testimony, temperatures have risen to their highest levels since at least A.D. 1400 and show no signs of cooling off. The 150-year warmup is now the most prolonged in 1,000 years. One record after another has toppled. January to September 1998 was the second warmest period on record in North America, exceeded only by 1934. September 1998 was the warmest September ever globally for over a century, more than 0.6 C above the long-term mean for 1880-1997. - Source: The Little Ice Age, How Climate Made History [1300-1850] >>




<< What is to say these are not naturally occuring weather patterns? >>


Nothing. Speculation, of course, could say that these are naturally occuring weather patterns; however, the question is not to defintively find what is causing changes in the weather patterns, but rather to limit our effects on them.


<< Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, that MAN as a whole is causing our air to become unbreathable...what self-respecting scientist would stand behind something like that? I'll give you a hint: a real scientist wouldn't make claims based upon inconclusive data -- that is very unscientific. You can become an ordained minister of any religion you can dream up just by filling out a slip and mailing it to Ministerz R Us...there are self-proclaimed scientists, often referred to by the media as 'experts'...these are the people who take actual scientific data and twist it into a form that suits their interests. >>


Can we say strawman? First of all: we (as in you and I) have not been talking about 'unbreathable' air, to my recollection. Leave it where it belongs: in another debate. In addition, your claim that "no self respecting scientist" wouldn't "make claims upon inconclusive data." Without taking into issue your definitions of "inconclusive," "scientist," and "self respecting," I'll just tackle the main point; again, I would like to assert that theories are just that. People collect enough data to make a basic assumption about our surroundings and the laws that govern them; as new data is formed, the theory will adapt. The theory of global warming, in addition, passes the criterion determining a theory: it is an "analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another." There is nothing presupposing the nature of a theory which states that for a theory to exist, it must be absolutely correct, that it is unrevisable, etc.

Many other scientists have brought forth theories counter to this, but as of yet, they are in the minority among the ecological fields. Maybe this will change, but like I said, such is the nature of science.


<< a) Global warming is currently non-existant, and cannot be proven to exist.
b) Cars create a highly insignificant amount of total global air pollutants.
c) If you are a guy and you have never driven a loud V8-powered car with massive horsepower and torque, then you can never fully be a man.
d) If a real man had an electric car, it would only be as a 'toy' for occasional use, not as a primary means of transportation.
>>


Refutations:
Point a) has more to do with epistemology, and the idea of how we can actually prove a theory. Christianity is a theory, and yet many people believe in it; such is the belief in theory. I will not concede you this point, for the following reasons:

1. 1 - Cars Produce CO2

1. 2 - We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

1. 3 - Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth's atmosphere

1. 4 - An increase in greenhouse gases, in theory (and this is accepted) will warm global temperature

1. 5 - Consequently, cars produce a greenhouse gas

1. 6 - We can limit the amount of emissions cars produce

1. 7 - Consequently, we can limit the amount of heat trapped DUE TO AUTOMOTIVE INFLUENCE

Should we, in turn, limit the amount of emissions produced? To me, yes. To you? I honestly don't know enough about you to answer that. To refute point b, I would simply ask whether or not you would seek to control - not eliminate - the amount of toxins secreted into the air on your behalf.

This point, to me, can be summed up very simply; precaution vs. a wait-and-see mentality. If your only desire is to refute those who would remove cars from the earth, then you have succeeded - and I would argue with you on this point. However, and you still haven't cleared this up to me, you seem to be opposed to any desires to improve emissions based on a supposition that global warming may become a reality.

Points C and D, of course, I don't think I'll even justify with a response. I've driven a V8, but never owned one; frankly, I don't feel that I need the compensation.

I still drive a car; I try to be a reasonable environmentalist, rather than a radical one. My hope is that people will realize, in some small way, that the smallest cause can trigger much larger effects; consequently, we need to introduce an environmental basis into pop culture and pop sensibilities. Catastrophic preachings are as invalid as those which state we don't need to do anything, but it is evident to those with a modicum of foresight that we must, at the very least, consider the future in our actions today.

Rob

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

congratulations. you are such a "real man", that you're helping kill the planet and screw our nation. thank you

 

[SsZERO]

<<

<< I have made no outlandish claims, >>




<< the reason they want to get a glimmer in the eye of the public is not to create hope, it is more to make some quick money off anybody gullable enough to donate to them. >>


I do believe, sir, that you contradict yourself here. >>



Actually, I don't. You've not shown me anything to say I am incorrect...however judging by all these organizations to pop up asking for donations to fix problems that don't exist, well there's more to say that my statement is true and not false. Of course, I too can quote what you said OUT OF CONTEXT to make it look like you are saying something you did not.



<<
In my analogy (and perhaps I didn't make this clear enough), I would still support restrictions upon knives, which you do not (according to my reading of your posts) support. Despite the fact that there is not a preponderance of evidence supporting the analogical knives as the "singlemost" contributor to violence, I would still support their restrictions; do you? If not, then we disagree, once again. >>





<< In that case, you would most definitely fight for the abolition of any restrictions upon knives, right? Especially when there is no causation to be derived from the use of knives; after all, violence happens without them, naturally. Knives don't cause violence, and consequently, we shouldn't seek to restrict them. >>



Well now, looks likes you threw your car into reverse after getting stuck in some mud...but yeah, that's what you said and I agree with it. You did not make any mention of YOU supporting restrictions on knives. You simply said that I would not support any restrictions, and how the hell can I disagree with that??




<<

<< You agree that cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else that is environmentally detrimental. >>


Wrong. You have grossly misstated my comment. My comment was this (bolded for specific emphasis):
Cars aren't the single most damaging element to our environment. Your misreading of that, as "cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else..." is not only misleading, but to me, disrespectful as well. If I haven't made my point clear, please let me know; do not, however, change my words. If I have, in any ways, changed yours, please bring this to my attention. >>



I have misstated yet another of your comments? Really? OK! Let's examine this, shall we? You said, "Cars aren't the single most damaging element to our environment..." How can cars be damaging to our environment? Primarily by air pollution! So I said, "cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else...". Now I may have used different words to state what I said, but to say that I am CHANGING the point of what you said is ridiculous! Looks like you've been playing some word games there...but it doesn't change what you said. And the way you stated it, being so general, you covered all bases! Thank you!



<<

<< I am responding to the common claims you get from the anti-car coalition. >>


Your initial claims were not those which I took issue with; rather, I began the debate on issues that I felt you were not properly representing. >>



I am not representative of any issues. I simply do not buy into the environmentalist propaganda that other people are so eager to soak up...WITHOUT ANY PROOF I might add.




<<

<< Now there is no evidence to support the notion of global warming, in fact, the polar ice mass has increased over time...not decreased...and temperatures measured from satellites indicate that the temp on the planet has slightly decreased. On top of all this, man-made 'greenhouse' gases only account for 2% of the total...most of the greenhouse gases are naturally occuring. This means that even if we wanted to warm the planet, we would be out of luck! >>


Of these claims, to my current knowledge, the only "common knowledge" point you refer to is greenhouse gases being 2% of the total. In addition - and in tradition with the "lies" of statistics, I can refute your other points. To add to that, drawing the weak inference that because we can only directly affect 2% of the greenhouse gases through the use of cars, we cannot change our environment, is uninformed. The concern is not with the 2%, but at the speed of which the CO2 levels are rising. >>



Water Vapor is the main greenhouse gas, not CO2 or anything else. You cannot prove that CO2 levels are rising anywhere on the planet, just as you have not proven anything else you are accusing me of "misrepresenting". Man's effect on the environment AS A WHOLE is existant, but highly insignificant. Now if we were to detonate several nuclear warheads at once, THAT would mess things up...but not driving cars, breathing, burping or anything else that releases small amounts of CO2. Think about it...most of the earth's surface is water (OCEANS), and the surface that is land is not fully occupied, even with every land creature on this planet included, it'd STILL be a small fraction of the whole. Essentially, what you are saying is that if you have 1 million gallons of water, and you use 10 gallons per day, you are worried that in 100,000 years you'll be out of water...but you neglect the fact that the water replenishes itself at a rate of 15 gallons per day. Even if we do produce more CO2 than we did before, we are FAR from overwhelming the planet's ability to replenish the 02 supply...and like I said before, we COULDN'T make enough CO2 to cause global warming even if we wanted to!! You overestimate your significance as a man.



<<

<< the polar ice mass has increased over time >>


By this, statistics would not support the notion that they have increased "over time," unless you narrowly define "time" to mean the last year. I will provide my statistics, and sources. Check them if you wish. Please, when refuting these, provide statistics in your response - otherwise you have invalidated your claims on the following points.


<< Measures of ice thickness taken by U.S. submarines between the 1950s and 1970s compared with recent measures indicate that the ice covering the Artic Ocean may have thinned dramatically during the last few decades. The older submarine data showed an average thickness of 3.1 m, whereas data at the same sites in the 1990s shows an average thickness of 1.8m (Rothrock et al. 1999:3469). Satellite observations since the 1970s show the Arctic Sea cover to be shrinking at about 3 percent per decade (USGCRP 1999). - Source: World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life, published by the United Nations Development Program >>

>>



I need not say much about this. Like everything else you are saying, it is nothing more than speculation with numbers! What's this MAY HAVE THINNED? Yeah, it MAY HAVE BEEN ASSIMILATED BY ALIENS! I MAY win $10,000,000 tomorrow!! Yeah!! THat's the hard facts I was looking for. I may actually believe you now.



<< By referring to the temperature decrease, my guess (and please, again, correct me if my assumption is wrong by providing your statistics) is that you are referring to a very small amount of time?


<< Since Hansen's 1988 testimony, temperatures have risen to their highest levels since at least A.D. 1400 and show no signs of cooling off. The 150-year warmup is now the most prolonged in 1,000 years. One record after another has toppled. January to September 1998 was the second warmest period on record in North America, exceeded only by 1934. September 1998 was the warmest September ever globally for over a century, more than 0.6 C above the long-term mean for 1880-1997. - Source: The Little Ice Age, How Climate Made History [1300-1850] >>

>>



I believe you said something like: "You will find very few scientists, in the true empirical sense of the word, who would rest their career on the reliability of data from the 1800?s" Yet here you are telling me that I'm supposed to assign credibility to a study that dates back to 1400??? Like I said before, you need FACTS to prove something...and facts you have not. The fact is, you are making an issue out of nothing, i.e., to put it bluntly, blowing smoke up my a$$. There is no conclusive data to support your side of the story, but I do commend your efforts!



<<

<< What is to say these are not naturally occuring weather patterns? >>


Nothing. Speculation, of course, could say that these are naturally occuring weather patterns; however, the question is not to defintively find what is causing changes in the weather patterns, but rather to limit our effects on them. >>



Well, how can we limit our effects on something if we do not know how much or in what way we are affecting something. We don't even know if we are in fact effecting anything. We need irrefutable proof before action can be taken.



<<

<< Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, that MAN as a whole is causing our air to become unbreathable...what self-respecting scientist would stand behind something like that? I'll give you a hint: a real scientist wouldn't make claims based upon inconclusive data -- that is very unscientific. You can become an ordained minister of any religion you can dream up just by filling out a slip and mailing it to Ministerz R Us...there are self-proclaimed scientists, often referred to by the media as 'experts'...these are the people who take actual scientific data and twist it into a form that suits their interests. >>


Can we say strawman? First of all: we (as in you and I) have not been talking about 'unbreathable' air, to my recollection. Leave it where it belongs: in another debate. In addition, your claim that "no self respecting scientist" wouldn't "make claims upon inconclusive data." Without taking into issue your definitions of "inconclusive," "scientist," and "self respecting," I'll just tackle the main point; again, I would like to assert that theories are just that. People collect enough data to make a basic assumption about our surroundings and the laws that govern them; as new data is formed, the theory will adapt. The theory of global warming, in addition, passes the criterion determining a theory: it is an "analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another." There is nothing presupposing the nature of a theory which states that for a theory to exist, it must be absolutely correct, that it is unrevisable, etc. >>



Do I really need to define conclusive and inconclusive for you? There really not ambiguous words...unless you want to pull a Bill Clinton and say "Can you define 'is'?" Conclusive data indicates that a study has led to a unanimous conclusion, meaning that there is irrefutable and undeniable evidence that claim is actually true as stated. You then go on to tackle your main point, that we are talking about a theory here, and you are attempting to "prove" this theory using data that just doesn't add up. I wouldn't even call 'global warming' a theory, that's giving it too much credit. If you recall my original statement, here is a little twist on it:

"Global Warming and all that crap about excessive air pollution being caused by man (not just cars, now...we are extending the scope to encompass ALL humans) is little more than propaganda. There are real pollution issues hidden within the claims of the environmentalists, however there is no proof of global warming being a direct OR indirect result of man, nor is there any data to support the notion that the quality of our air on a planetary scale is excessively polluted, with man as the cause, once again."



<< Many other scientists have brought forth theories counter to this, but as of yet, they are in the minority among the ecological fields. Maybe this will change, but like I said, such is the nature of science.


<< a) Global warming is currently non-existant, and cannot be proven to exist.
b) Cars create a highly insignificant amount of total global air pollutants.
c) If you are a guy and you have never driven a loud V8-powered car with massive horsepower and torque, then you can never fully be a man.
d) If a real man had an electric car, it would only be as a 'toy' for occasional use, not as a primary means of transportation.
>>

>>



Theories are no cause for action. And you are really "selling out" the term theory by calling these mental farts theories. A true scientific theory can be used to accurately predict the phenomena in question. With all that data you claim to be supportive of global warming theory, can you predict anything? I'll be surprised if you can because meteorologists have a hard time predicting the weather from day to day.



<< Refutations:
Point a) has more to do with epistemology, and the idea of how we can actually prove a theory. Christianity is a theory, and yet many people believe in it; such is the belief in theory. I will not concede you this point, for the following reasons:

1. 1 - Cars Produce CO2

1. 2 - We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

1. 3 - Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth's atmosphere

1. 4 - An increase in greenhouse gases, in theory (and this is accepted) will warm global temperature

1. 5 - Consequently, cars produce a greenhouse gas

1. 6 - We can limit the amount of emissions cars produce

1. 7 - Consequently, we can limit the amount of heat trapped DUE TO AUTOMOTIVE INFLUENCE

>>



Christianity is not a theory, it is a set of beliefs based on FAITH. Faith is a concept where you believe without proof. Sorry, but I am not believing a word you say without proof unless you are God and I don't know it yet.

1- True
2- True, however the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Apparently, if we were using hydrogen powered cars, we'd be more likely to cause global warming with all that excess water vapor released from the combustion of hydrogen.
3- That's the idea, else we'd freeze when the sun goes down.
4- Fair enough.
5- Redundant
6- Sure we can, but why if it is not necessary or beneficial?
7- You failed to state exactly how much heat is trapped (if any) due to automotive influence.



<<
Should we, in turn, limit the amount of emissions produced? To me, yes. To you? I honestly don't know enough about you to answer that. To refute point b, I would simply ask whether or not you would seek to control - not eliminate - the amount of toxins secreted into the air on your behalf.

This point, to me, can be summed up very simply; precaution vs. a wait-and-see mentality. If your only desire is to refute those who would remove cars from the earth, then you have succeeded - and I would argue with you on this point. However, and you still haven't cleared this up to me, you seem to be opposed to any desires to improve emissions based on a supposition that global warming may become a reality.

Points C and D, of course, I don't think I'll even justify with a response. I've driven a V8, but never owned one; frankly, I don't feel that I need the compensation.

I still drive a car; I try to be a reasonable environmentalist, rather than a radical one. My hope is that people will realize, in some small way, that the smallest cause can trigger much larger effects; consequently, we need to introduce an environmental basis into pop culture and pop sensibilities. Catastrophic preachings are as invalid as those which state we don't need to do anything, but it is evident to those with a modicum of foresight that we must, at the very least, consider the future in our actions today.

Rob >>

>>

[/i]

Well, you can refute all you want, but you're going to need a little more than "MAYBE" as a basis for your point of view. Now I have no problem with reasonable encouragement to care for our environment...but I wouldn't want any other people, or my kids, being taught propaganda (your MAYBES) as fact. What is reasonable? Well, you could say it is subjective, but to me reasonable is for each person to use common sense and do what they can...do not just take, but give back, etc. Considering the result of our actions in the present and in the future is also reasonable, but when you start accepting notions as theory, that's were you cross the line from environmentally considerate to environmental wacko.

-= SsZERO =-

 

[Ultima]

<< Maybe you just need to make yourself more clear.

-= SsZERO =-



<< You're just as bad as ssZero

Not in the cars of course, but as energy producers for the hydrogen economy >>

>>



bah



<<
The electricity required to charge their batteries produces more pollution .... The plants that produce electricity are the cause of this... now, if we could just produce clean electricity >>



Nuclear Fusion should be the answer to this in not too long from now (hopefully). Nuclear energy without waste! Now that would be something...
>>

 

[Ultima]

Hmm...

Roadkill. Kills up to 25% of a given population and often kills the car's driver/passengers if you hit something big like a moose for example.

Habitat loss. Carving up the lands into many roads destroys habitat as lots of animals are afraid of roads and won't go anywhere near one except when they have to.

Loss of quality of life. Cities turn into giant flat squares with big-box retailers at the edge of town, killing competition and making neighbourhoods boring.

Loss of quality of life. Highways and busy roads create lots of noise which increases stress levels.

Loss of quality of life . Highways split neighbourhoods in half.

Acid Rain. This IS a proven fact, and cars play a role in it.

Billions of dollars spent in property damages because of bad road conditions, incompetent drivers, faulty mechanics, or any combination of the three. Unmeasureable, huge losses in loss of life. The automobile is the biggest cause of death these days. It's killed more americans than all the wars that they have fought together.

Terrorism. Some of the money that you spend on gasoline winds up in the hands of terrorists or terrorist friends one way or another.

Drive by shootings. Without a car, people would have to do bike-by shootings or horse-by shootings instead


So, air pollution is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the car. I don't think people will ever give up their cars before a truly great public transit system is in place (will never happen in the USA.. or even Canada. Government can spend 5x or more on highways alone than public transit). Not only does the car have a detrimental impact on nature (loss of habitat, roadkill etc...), you know, the kind of impact you probably don't care about, but it also has a significant effect on the human condition. For every "advantage" a car gives you, there is a disadvantage equally as great. Indeed, if drivers paid the true cost of driving a car, the price of gasoline would be more in line with Europe, probably even bigger.



<<

<< SsZERO,

Let me start by saying that you have a gift in semantics, but in this case, I think you are dead wrong. Here's why:

I] >>



You agree that cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else that is environmentally detrimental. Good, that's one of the points I was trying to make, and evidently, I have made it.




<< >>







<<
>>






<<


<< >>






<< >>






<< >>






<<

>>



>>

 

[SsZERO]

I never said that cars are perfect, or that there are no disadvantages to them. But clearly, the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages. I don't want to go through your whole list, but I'll pick out a few...



<< Hmm...

Roadkill. Kills up to 25% of a given population and often kills the car's driver/passengers if you hit something big like a moose for example.

Habitat loss. Carving up the lands into many roads destroys habitat as lots of animals are afraid of roads and won't go anywhere near one except when they have to. >>



98.5% of all statistics are false. I would not allow statistical data to sway my take on a subject one way or another. Roadkill would fall under "accidents" category, and yes, there are many car accidents each day, but that is a risk people are willing to take for the convinience of being able to go anywhere they want, whenver they want.



<< Loss of quality of life. Cities turn into giant flat squares with big-box retailers at the edge of town, killing competition and making neighbourhoods boring.

Loss of quality of life. Highways and busy roads create lots of noise which increases stress levels.

Loss of quality of life . Highways split neighbourhoods in half. >>



I prefer the busy hustle and bustle of the city as opposed to a quite and serene rural area. I wouldn't classify any of the above as lowering my quality of life. I've live in Philadelphia, but my mom lives in California, away from civilization. I much rather prefer Philadelphia and all its faults.



<< Acid Rain. This IS a proven fact, and cars play a role in it.

Billions of dollars spent in property damages because of bad road conditions, incompetent drivers, faulty mechanics, or any combination of the three. Unmeasureable, huge losses in loss of life. The automobile is the biggest cause of death these days. It's killed more americans than all the wars that they have fought together. >>



Acid rain is formed by smog particulates fusing with water vapor...smog is typically localized to heavily populated areas (i.e. cities). Cars may play a role in it, but cars do not release particulates in their exhaust. That kind of pollution tends to come from factories, diesel engines in trucks and busses, etc. I've heard people claim that ______ is killing the most people. Well, the biggest killer in the world is death. It happens to all of us one day. I'd rather die in a car accident than on a hospital bed.



<< Terrorism. Some of the money that you spend on gasoline winds up in the hands of terrorists or terrorist friends one way or another.

Drive by shootings. Without a car, people would have to do bike-by shootings or horse-by shootings instead


So, air pollution is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the car. I don't think people will ever give up their cars before a truly great public transit system is in place (will never happen in the USA.. or even Canada. Government can spend 5x or more on highways alone than public transit). Not only does the car have a detrimental impact on nature (loss of habitat, roadkill etc...), you know, the kind of impact you probably don't care about, but it also has a significant effect on the human condition. For every "advantage" a car gives you, there is a disadvantage equally as great. Indeed, if drivers paid the true cost of driving a car, the price of gasoline would be more in line with Europe, probably even bigger. >>



Suffice it to say that anything that adds convinience generally comes with its share of disadvantages. Whether you opt for the convinience, or prefer to "rough" it, is a personal descision. Nobody is forcing anyone to drive, so if you don't like it, don't do it. Personally, I love driving my car, even if I am not going anywhere. The act of driving is recreational for me. It would not be so recreational if I were restricted in my choice of vehicles.

-= SsZERO =-

 

[Jeff7]

1. - Stupid reason
2. - Need air conditioner
3. - Acceleration can be useful
4. - Need better battery technology
5. - Wonder if LithiumIon or NiMH would be better? NiMH can be charged fast
6. - Replace all batteries? Again, need better battery technology
7. - Anything new like that will take some adaptation


From what I've seen on hydrogen power, that is probably a more economical option than electrical. They are supposed to be even safer than gas-powered cars in the event of a fire - the tanks are very well sealed. Plus, hydrogen isn't exactly an element that is in short supply.

 

[RU482]

<< 1. Electric cars don't have motor sound
2. Electric cars can't afford air conditioner
3. Electric cars suck on acceleration.
4. Electric cars need 1000 pound batteries and can only run 60-100 kilometer per charge.
5. It takes 12 hours to pump your electric car.
6. You need change all batteries in 3 years and they cost $5000.
7. Hardly any place outside your home can you pump your electric car.
8. >>





What about hybrid cars??? Electric only cars are a thing of the past and future, hybrids are today!!!


Skimming through this I saw the word TransAm somewhere... If only they could make a hybrid tuned for performance instead of efficiency.
A TA with A 5.7L Gas motor with Electric assist would blow your mind

 

[RU482]

<< 1. - Stupid reason
2. - Need air conditioner
3. - Acceleration can be useful
4. - Need better battery technology
5. - Wonder if LithiumIon or NiMH would be better? NiMH can be charged fast
6. - Replace all batteries? Again, need better battery technology
7. - Anything new like that will take some adaptation


From what I've seen on hydrogen power, that is probably a more economical option than electrical. They are supposed to be even safer than gas-powered cars in the event of a fire - the tanks are very well sealed. Plus, hydrogen isn't exactly an element that is in short supply. >>



Hydrogen cars...I'm assuming you mean fuel cell..are Electric, as far as propulsion is concerned

 

[SsZERO]

The purpose of hybrid gas-electric cars is to create a more efficient vehicle...hence a low performance/high efficiency gas engine is supplemented by an electric engine. The LS1 V8 in my WS6 needs no 'assistance' from an electric motor...and the added weight from the batteries would slow the car down more than the electric motor would speed it up. We have things called superchargers and turbocharges to boost the power of IC engines...and a turbo LS1 can easily put 650-700 HP/TQ to the ground (not BHP, RWHP).

-= SsZERO =-



<< What about hybrid cars??? Electric only cars are a thing of the past and future, hybrids are today!!!


Skimming through this I saw the word TransAm somewhere... If only they could make a hybrid tuned for performance instead of efficiency.
A TA with A 5.7L Gas motor with Electric assist would blow your mind >>

 

[Entity]

<< Actually, I don't. You've not shown me anything to say I am incorrect...however judging by all these organizations to pop up asking for donations to fix problems that don't exist, well there's more to say that my statement is true and not false. Of course, I too can quote what you said OUT OF CONTEXT to make it look like you are saying something you did not. >>



Here are your words, within their context:



<< This is similar to what I said...except the reason they want to get a glimmer in the eye of the public is not to create hope, it is more to make some quick money off anybody gullable enough to donate to them. >>



Implicitly within your words, you state that scientists (the organizations of which I referred to) do not want to create hope, but only to make money off anybody gullible enough to donate to them. That, to me, is a rather outlandish statement, unless you furnish some proof rather than simple semantics; simply enough, there are a number of careers ? many of them more economically feasible ? that these minds could be pursuing. Why, then, are they involved in Global Warming research?

Your statement, consequently, seems outlandish to me; maybe this subjective term is just that, and we can?t come to a conclusion on it ? that?s fine. Nevertheless, I could find a number of other people, irrespective of their personal beliefs, who would agree with me on this point.



<< Well now, looks likes you threw your car into reverse after getting stuck in some mud...but yeah, that's what you said and I agree with it. You did not make any mention of YOU supporting restrictions on knives. You simply said that I would not support any restrictions, and how the hell can I disagree with that?? >>



Don?t tell me that you couldn?t read enough into my analogy to read that I was in support of restrictions upon knives. If I support restrictions on cars, I would support restrictions on their analogical equivalent, no?



<< I have misstated yet another of your comments? Really? OK! Let's examine this, shall we? You said, "Cars aren't the single most damaging element to our environment..." How can cars be damaging to our environment? Primarily by air pollution! So I said, "cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else...". Now I may have used different words to state what I said, but to say that I am CHANGING the point of what you said is ridiculous! Looks like you've been playing some word games there...but it doesn't change what you said. And the way you stated it, being so general, you covered all bases! Thank you! >>



Are you really so black-and-white about all issues? You?re either against it, or you are for it? By no stretch of any reasonable imagination can the statement ?cars aren?t the single most damaging element to our environment? be constituted to be the equivalent of ?cars are not a significant contributor to air pollution, or anything else?? Such a gross overstatement, in an intellectual debate (and thus far, I have considered this to be such), is an insult to the original author.



<< I am not representative of any issues. I simply do not buy into the environmentalist propaganda that other people are so eager to soak up...WITHOUT ANY PROOF I might add. >>



Fair enough, I suppose. Then again, you say ?WITHOUT ANY PROOF,? which would mean that you ignore any possibility of any evidence. At least I?m not that closed-minded; I, for one, acknowledge that humans are not the sole cause of environmental change, and we cannot positively state causation from correlation.



<< You cannot prove that CO2 levels are rising anywhere on the planet >>



Absolutely incorrect. There is absolute empirical data which states exactly to the contrary to that; the failure in the pro-global warming argument is the assumption that we know why CO2 levels are rising. Regardless, they are ? and at a higher rate than ever recorded in the course of such measurements.


<< , just as you have not proven anything else you are accusing me of "misrepresenting". Man's effect on the environment AS A WHOLE is existant, but highly insignificant. Now if we were to detonate several nuclear warheads at once, THAT would mess things up...but not driving cars, breathing, burping or anything else that releases small amounts of CO2. Think about it...most of the earth's surface is water (OCEANS), and the surface that is land is not fully occupied, even with every land creature on this planet included, it'd STILL be a small fraction of the whole. Essentially, what you are saying is that if you have 1 million gallons of water, and you use 10 gallons per day, you are worried that in 100,000 years you'll be out of water...but you neglect the fact that the water replenishes itself at a rate of 15 gallons per day. Even if we do produce more CO2 than we did before, we are FAR from overwhelming the planet's ability to replenish the 02 supply...and like I said before, we COULDN'T make enough CO2 to cause global warming even if we wanted to!! You overestimate your significance as a man. >>


Not only do you completely negate what the issue actually is here, but you show an alarming inability to comprehend the arguments of either side (either pro or anti-global warming). Global warming bears no comparison to your poorly thought out water analogy; in addition, I don?t overestimate my significance as a man. Rather, I think that we should try to limit our possible negative impacts, as a whole.



<< I need not say much about this. Like everything else you are saying, it is nothing more than speculation with numbers! What's this MAY HAVE THINNED? Yeah, it MAY HAVE BEEN ASSIMILATED BY ALIENS! I MAY win $10,000,000 tomorrow!! Yeah!! THat's the hard facts I was looking for. I may actually believe you now. >>


Having fun with semantics? Great. Now provide some sort of alternate explanation.



<< I believe you said something like: "You will find very few scientists, in the true empirical sense of the word, who would rest their career on the reliability of data from the 1800?s" Yet here you are telling me that I'm supposed to assign credibility to a study that dates back to 1400??? Like I said before, you need FACTS to prove something...and facts you have not. The fact is, you are making an issue out of nothing, i.e., to put it bluntly, blowing smoke up my a$$. There is no conclusive data to support your side of the story, but I do commend your efforts! >>


Thanks, but at this point, your commendation means little to me. I have a significant problem with your ?logical? steps to argumentation, though; keep in mind that arguing contrary to a point requires evidence, not just semantics. You can state that my data is unreliable; regardless, I have provided data. The least you could do, in a civilized debate, is make some sort of attempt to do the same.




<< Well, how can we limit our effects on something if we do not know how much or in what way we are affecting something. We don't even know if we are in fact effecting anything. We need irrefutable proof before action can be taken. >>


With any cause, there is an effect (just for grammatical clarity, the word you were looking for is ?affecting? anything). We know, in fact, that we are affecting the environment; the degree, and nature, of this effect, however, is what remains unknown.



<< Do I really need to define conclusive and inconclusive for you? >>


Please do. You have denied the plausibility of any data I have provided, while neglecting to provide any data on your behalf; consequently, I would like to see what, to you, would be conclusive evidence. I am not a catastrophist; yet using a catastrophist?s example, are you simply going to wait until it is too late to determine that yes, cars did have a negative effect on our environment?



<< Conclusive data indicates that a study has led to a unanimous conclusion, meaning that there is irrefutable and undeniable evidence that claim is actually true as stated. >>


Again, epistemology. Evolution is not unanimously concluded upon; consequently, is it an invalid theory? Nothing, in this universe, is universally acknowledged; nihilists will debate the nature of existence. See my point?



<< I wouldn't even call 'global warming' a theory, that's giving it too much credit. >>


If you would take it to that level, then you would prove your level of ignorance. I hope you would not ever resort to that, but if you would, here is a definition of theory for you:


<< Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another >>


Source: Miriam Webster?s Online Dictinoary.



<< "Global Warming and all that crap about excessive air pollution being caused by man (not just cars, now...we are extending the scope to encompass ALL humans) is little more than propaganda. There are real pollution issues hidden within the claims of the environmentalists, however there is no proof of global warming being a direct OR indirect result of man, nor is there any data to support the notion that the quality of our air on a planetary scale is excessively polluted, with man as the cause, once again." >>


I?ll highlight the problems inherent in this statement?


<< nor is there any data to support? >>


Beyond that, there is little I can negate, because you use negative terminology. Do you have a theory? By all means, state it then.



<< Theories are no cause for action. And you are really "selling out" the term theory by calling these mental farts theories. A true scientific theory can be used to accurately predict the phenomena in question. With all that data you claim to be supportive of global warming theory, can you predict anything? I'll be surprised if you can because meteorologists have a hard time predicting the weather from day to day. >>


Please read about chaos theory, in the least, before posting something as blatantly irrelevant, and, for that matter, unintelligent, as what is written above.



<< Christianity is not a theory, it is a set of beliefs based on FAITH. Faith is a concept where you believe without proof. Sorry, but I am not believing a word you say without proof unless you are God and I don't know it yet. >>


Any theory, as in my example of Christianity, requires some element of faith; evolution, special relativity, and global warming are no different. Each theory requires an element of faith in the core argument presented within the theory.




<< Well, you can refute all you want, but you're going to need a little more than "MAYBE" as a basis for your point of view. Now I have no problem with reasonable encouragement to care for our environment...but I wouldn't want any other people, or my kids, being taught propaganda (your MAYBES) as fact. What is reasonable? Well, you could say it is subjective, but to me reasonable is for each person to use common sense and do what they can...do not just take, but give back, etc. Considering the result of our actions in the present and in the future is also reasonable, but when you start accepting notions as theory, that's were you cross the line from environmentally considerate to environmental wacko. >>


Apparently your concern ? and in your case, this appears to be valid in transfer to your concerns about your children ? is that you have little understanding of what presents a fact. Like I said before, there is nothing about a theory that presupposes that a theory is correct; rather, it is an analysis of the relation between facts.

Fact: we have recently (approx. 150 years) seen a more drastic rise in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than at any other time (using geological records) in history.

Fact: we have recently (approx. 150 years) seen an incline in temperature, on the whole, on a global scale.

The analysis of the apparent relation of these facts is presented within the theory of Global Warming.
I apologize if any of this seems heated, but I am about to run to play racquetball, and wanted to get my concerns out before I forgot about them. I?ve got too much homework to worry about pointing out logical errors in the next couple of nights.

Rob

 

[SsZERO]

Ok man, now you are just rambling on and getting way off the issue. You cannot disagree with what I said scientifically because the facts just aren't there to support what you are saying. As your reply clearly demonstrates, you have done nothing but cause literary pollution.

theory (n. pl):

*** 1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3) A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4) Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

from: dictionary.com

How convinient that you pick the definition that makes you seem like you have some idea of what you are talking about. But this isn't up for debate. A theory, in science, is not just an idea. Maybe to an environmentalist, calling an idea a theory to make it sound important flies...but not with me, and not with any truly objective scientist. See the definition that is proper to this situation***, not the definition that best suits your interests.

Fact: Are you now saying that 150 years ago, or any time before that, we were well-equipped to measure global CO2 levels?

Fact: Are you now saying that 150 years ago, or any time before that, we were well-equipped to measure global temperatures?

Even if your 'facts' are indeed facts, what does that prove? Nothing! That's all you have...bits and pieces of factual information. But you can't glue these facts together, stamp "theory" on it, then expect it to pass as evidence. But you are right about one thing, you have A LOT of homework to do. We can resume this at another time, when you...though if you do your homework properly, you should end up agreeing with me about these issues.

-= SsZERO =-




<< Fact: we have recently (approx. 150 years) seen a more drastic rise in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than at any other time (using geological records) in history.

Fact: we have recently (approx. 150 years) seen an incline in temperature, on the whole, on a global scale.

The analysis of the apparent relation of these facts is presented within the theory of Global Warming.
I apologize if any of this seems heated, but I am about to run to play racquetball, and wanted to get my concerns out before I forgot about them. I?ve got too much homework to worry about pointing out logical errors in the next couple of nights.

Rob >>

 

[Ultima]

<< The purpose of hybrid gas-electric cars is to create a more efficient vehicle...hence a low performance/high efficiency gas engine is supplemented by an electric engine. The LS1 V8 in my WS6 needs no 'assistance' from an electric motor...and the added weight from the batteries would slow the car down more than the electric motor would speed it up. We have things called superchargers and turbocharges to boost the power of IC engines...and a turbo LS1 can easily put 650-700 HP/TQ to the ground (not BHP, RWHP).

-= SsZERO =-



<< What about hybrid cars??? Electric only cars are a thing of the past and future, hybrids are today!!!


Skimming through this I saw the word TransAm somewhere... If only they could make a hybrid tuned for performance instead of efficiency.
A TA with A 5.7L Gas motor with Electric assist would blow your mind >>

>>



There's a 200hp electric car out there that can probably kick the crap out of your car or at least rival it (0-60mph in 4.1 seconds), and it gets 100MPCharge, 30 min recharge to 80% power

I agree that pure electric doesn't seem to have a bright future ATM, but hybrids, fuel cells and flywheel (especially because flywheels has the advantage of quick refueling like a fuel cell, long range like a fuel cell, and doesn't actually need fuel, just electricity (like pure EV vehicles) do look like they will have a bright future. Maybe in 20 years we'll be using fuel cells, flywheels or a combo of the two. If a 200hp can get 0-60mph in 4.1 seconds (with the weight of the batteries, fuel-cell/flywheel wouldn't be saddled down with that), I wonder what a 500hp electric engine could do. I wonder what kind of tricks will be done to boost performance, as there will be no intake, no exhaust, so no turbos, supers, no nitrous, no headers, no cams, no cats, no ecu's, ... doesn't seem like there's all that much you can do other than buying a more powerful engine.

 

[Jerboy]

<< Sure, let's build lots of fusion reactors. Then we can junk the old oil and coal reactors. It'll be worth it in the long run.

Where to get money for hydrogen economy? Easy, tax gas to make it more in line with Europe. Tax the hell out of it and use the money to make hydrogen nice and cheap. Problem solved. Sooner or later we'll have to switch, unless you think that Western civilisation should continue financing terrorist attacks, expensive cars, women and all the money they consume, palaces, jets, etc... for a few spoiled middle-eastern guys....



<<


The question is whether or not the energy required to produce hydrogen doesn't exceed the advantage..

 

[SsZERO]

If you are talking about that T-Zero car...it is not much of a match for a WS6. Nobody races 0-60 MPH...it's a fairly pointless figure, and is not a really good way to gauge a car's performance. Let's talk about 1/4 mile times...right now I have a catback exhaust and a K&N filter on my WS6. I run low 12s to high 13s depending on track and weather conditions, with a best of 12.8 @ 109 MPH. The tzero scored 13.2s @ 90 MPH on a 100% charge, 13.7s on an 80% charge. If my gas tank is 20% full, I go faster because my car is lighter...and I doubt you'll be driving that electric car home after making one, maybe two passes at the track.

A 500 HP electric motor probably weighs about 2 tons. The motor in the tzero revs pretty high to achieve 200 HP, and it has 183 ft-lbs of TQ from 0-5000 RPM. That is great for being quick off the line, but since there is no transmission, you need to rev past 5000 RPM to keep up with traffic...and as you approach the 10K redline, your torque curve starts to decline...200 HP @ 10K RPM is maybe producing 100 ft-lbs of torque. By then, you are just a little better off than you were in a honda.

I have nothing against alternative power cars, but I do have a problem if the intent is to ultimately REPLACE cars like the WS6.

-= SsZERO =-



<< There's a 200hp electric car out there that can probably kick the crap out of your car or at least rival it (0-60mph in 4.1 seconds), and it gets 100MPCharge, 30 min recharge to 80% power

I agree that pure electric doesn't seem to have a bright future ATM, but hybrids, fuel cells and flywheel (especially because flywheels has the advantage of quick refueling like a fuel cell, long range like a fuel cell, and doesn't actually need fuel, just electricity (like pure EV vehicles) do look like they will have a bright future. Maybe in 20 years we'll be using fuel cells, flywheels or a combo of the two. If a 200hp can get 0-60mph in 4.1 seconds (with the weight of the batteries, fuel-cell/flywheel wouldn't be saddled down with that), I wonder what a 500hp electric engine could do. I wonder what kind of tricks will be done to boost performance, as there will be no intake, no exhaust, so no turbos, supers, no nitrous, no headers, no cams, no cats, no ecu's, ... doesn't seem like there's all that much you can do other than buying a more powerful engine. >>

 

[Entity]

SsZERO,



<< Ok man, now you are just rambling on and getting way off the issue. You cannot disagree with what I said scientifically because the facts just aren't there to support what you are saying. As your reply clearly demonstrates, you have done nothing but cause literary pollution. >>


My apologies if I strayed too much from the topic. Here I will simplify my stance to its simplest essence; I hope this helps.

Measurements of CO2 levels in the past 150 years are considered sound scientific evidence by the scientific community (this does not include only environmentalists). The measurements of these levels are reliable. Here:


<< Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. According to the IPCC "business as usual" scenario of carbon dioxide increase (IS92a) in the 21st century, we would expect to see a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels around the year 2065. >>


http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Was the heliocentric model of the universe a theory? I'll answer it simply: yes. Was it correct? No. Nevertheless, it took available evidence of the time and construed it into a theory, in order to make sense of the surroundings of that period; global warming parallels this. The construction of a theory is based on constructing a hypothesis to explain observed data, then refining the hypothesis as the data confirms/changes the validity of your hypothesis. Theories are not always correct; more so, theories are not always applicable as they want them to be.

In terms of the scientifically-accepted version of theory, this would most likely be the most acceptable definition:


<< A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. >>



Please note the structure of this definition:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Consequently, your definition reads in a very similar way to the one I posted: it is not requisite for a theory to be repeatedly tested, widely accepted, or be used to make predictions about natural phenomenon. For an example of this, I would cite Darwin?s theory of Evolution: it is not tested, nor (when it was first released) was it widely accepted, or able to make predictions about natural phenomenon. Yet a theory it remains.

Thus, logically, in order for something to be a theory it must:

1. Explain a group of facts or phenomenon [rising temperatures; CO2 levels]. This, according to the definition, is the only required criterion; the other criteria make something to be more likely to be a theory,

Global warming, however, also is partially accepted by another element of your definition; specifically, it ?can be used to make predictions about natural phenomenon.? It can be ? and often is ? used to make predictions about natural phenomenon.

In addition, a majority of scientists currently support the validity of Global Warming, as a theory; the consequences of Global Warming, however, are what are widely debated among the relevant scientific community.

Let me respond to few of your questions:



<< Fact: Are you now saying that 150 years ago, or any time before that, we were well-equipped to measure global CO2 levels? >>


Do you even understand how CO2 is historically measured? Here:
http://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n12c1.htm. This method of measuring CO2 is not debated as being scientifically sound.


<< Fact: Are you now saying that 150 years ago, or any time before that, we were well-equipped to measure global temperatures? >>


Read above.

If you wish to continue this ?debate,? let?s keep to the core issues. Throughout this argument, you have been excessively dogmatic when, in many instances, you have shown a profound lack of knowledge of the situation (read the above responses to your claim about ?measuring? things from 150 years ago).

In summary:

Global warming is a theory. It passes both your definition and mine. In addition, it is supported, as a theory, by a majority of the scientific community; many scientists believe that it is not happening ? few, however, have claimed that Global Warming doesn?t constitute a theory.

The facts I have claimed are widely accepted by the scientific community, by both factions of the pro/anti-Global Warming community.

My belief, as it stands (FWIW) is as follows:

I do not believe in the catastrophic model of global warming; however, I believe that we should err on the side of caution. Simply put, I see it is a modified version of Pascal?s wager; we are dealing with consequences significantly greater than the current luxury of getting whatever we want is worth. In the last 150 years, sine the advent of coal and steel industries, cars, etc., the global temperature has increased, on the average, 0.6 degrees, and the CO2 levels have raised as well. Will we, by reducing the output and emissions of cars, halt this increase? No. Nevertheless, any small part may help; to me, it is worth the small inconvenience. Have I ever needed a V8? No. Will I? No. I am not asking for absolute conversion to an automobile-less society; rather, I am suggesting that every person do what they can. Drive less. Walk to work once in a while (for me, I do it every day; work is only 1.5miles away).

Does that make sense?

Rob

 

[Entity]

<< I have nothing against alternative power cars, but I do have a problem if the intent is to ultimately REPLACE cars like the WS6. >>


You and I agree on one point, at least.

Rob

 

[Ultima]

<< If you are talking about that T-Zero car...it is not much of a match for a WS6. Nobody races 0-60 MPH...it's a fairly pointless figure, and is not a really good way to gauge a car's performance. Let's talk about 1/4 mile times...right now I have a catback exhaust and a K&N filter on my WS6. I run low 12s to high 13s depending on track and weather conditions, with a best of 12.8 @ 109 MPH. The tzero scored 13.2s @ 90 MPH on a 100% charge, 13.7s on an 80% charge. If my gas tank is 20% full, I go faster because my car is lighter...and I doubt you'll be driving that electric car home after making one, maybe two passes at the track.

A 500 HP electric motor probably weighs about 2 tons. The motor in the tzero revs pretty high to achieve 200 HP, and it has 183 ft-lbs of TQ from 0-5000 RPM. That is great for being quick off the line, but since there is no transmission, you need to rev past 5000 RPM to keep up with traffic...and as you approach the 10K redline, your torque curve starts to decline...200 HP @ 10K RPM is maybe producing 100 ft-lbs of torque. By then, you are just a little better off than you were in a honda.

I have nothing against alternative power cars, but I do have a problem if the intent is to ultimately REPLACE cars like the WS6.

-= SsZERO =-

Yeah, but since there's no transmission that power is going right to the wheels. IT doesn't need a transmission cause you have maximum power at most RPM's. With a regular car engine, you need a transmission to keep the engine in the powerband. On low gear for example, you're going to have a lot more torque at the wheels (and a lot less speed), while on high gear, you have much less torque at the wheels (and a lot more speed). So theres really no difference between that and how an electric operates at higher RPMs. The only reason you drop gears when you accelerate is to get into the powerband of the engine. Electric engines are almost always in their powerband. You'd only want gears to get past the eventual 10000RPM limit, if you want to go really fast. However, most today's electric cars are already at their power limit when going that fast and wouldn't be able to go faster even if you added an "overdrive" gear. I mean, they can already go at highway speeds without the gear anyway, so I don't think they'd bother, at least over here. Maybe in Germany...



<< There's a 200hp electric car out there that can probably kick the crap out of your car or at least rival it (0-60mph in 4.1 seconds), and it gets 100MPCharge, 30 min recharge to 80% power

I agree that pure electric doesn't seem to have a bright future ATM, but hybrids, fuel cells and flywheel (especially because flywheels has the advantage of quick refueling like a fuel cell, long range like a fuel cell, and doesn't actually need fuel, just electricity (like pure EV vehicles) do look like they will have a bright future. Maybe in 20 years we'll be using fuel cells, flywheels or a combo of the two. If a 200hp can get 0-60mph in 4.1 seconds (with the weight of the batteries, fuel-cell/flywheel wouldn't be saddled down with that), I wonder what a 500hp electric engine could do. I wonder what kind of tricks will be done to boost performance, as there will be no intake, no exhaust, so no turbos, supers, no nitrous, no headers, no cams, no cats, no ecu's, ... doesn't seem like there's all that much you can do other than buying a more powerful engine. >>

>>

 

[figgypower]

I was kidding... I do wonder what happens if a fusion reaction goes out of control or is that not really a concern at all... I'm too ignorant to
know that, maybe someone more educated