Re: Global Warming Thread

[audtatious]

I'll drive the green Hummer.

[proxim2020]

I wanted to bring this thread back. We have a lot of new members since this thread died. Although this wasn't a Versa specific topic, it definitely one of the most intelligent conversations we've shared on this board. So if any of you want to comment or bring the thread back, please do so. For those new folks, you have 3 pages of catch up

[CodeRed]

I wanted to bring this thread back. We have a lot of new members since this thread died. Although this wasn't a Versa specific topic, it definitely one of the most intelligent conversations we've shared on this board. So if any of you want to comment or bring the thread back, please do so. For those new folks, you have 3 pages of catch up

why, oh why did you bring this thread back all it caused was arguing in the past!

[marleyfan]

Well.... it IS a lot warmer since this thread was last active.

[proxim2020]

why, oh why did you bring this thread back all it caused was arguing in the past!

It did at first, it was a pure mud slinging fest back on the old thread. But then it turned into a valid debate, then somehow transformed into a "Green" conversation on how to reduce your impact.

[audtatious]

Want to reduce your carbon footprint?

It's easy

Quit breathing...

[Ever Victorious]

Want to reduce your carbon footprint?

It's easy

Quit breathing...

My wife doesn't like it when I do that...

[audtatious]

My wife doesn't like it when I do that...

[motoguy128]

I remember reading once that humans represent less than 20% of total greenhouse gas emitions. It may have been closer to 5%. Either way, if we are such a small source or emissions compared to naturally occuring sources, then what difference does it make if we all reduced fuel consumption by 50%.

In my opinion the more serious problem is the future availability of petroleum as a raw material for plastic resin and petrochemicals. Hybrids, flex fuel and hydrogen vehicles help resolve this problem.

I think we're barking up the wrong tree by pouring resources into global warming. It's a good theory for getting grant money because it can't be conclusively proven or disproven. Once the government and other large revenue sources are on board, what was once a far fetched thoery and "junk science", is now mainstream and has almost been accepted as fact by a notoriously uninformed general public... 1/2 of which, in a study were shown to be unable to find Earth on a map of our solar system, yet are convinced that global warming is a proven fact, not a theory.

edit - - post modifed to be less offensive and more accurate ... my appoligies
Modified by motoguy128 at 6:10 PM 4/29/2007

[Ever Victorious]

Motoguy... while I respect your decisions and viewpoints, the point of this thread was to hold a debate with NO inflammatory language or insults.

Ergo, this is YOUR first and last warning on this thread.

[proxim2020]

I was saying this exact same thing yesterday to my wife. Reducing emissions, cleaner coal factories, more fuel efficient vehicles aren't the way to go. We are fighting a losing battle. Eventually the coal and oil will run out and what do you do then? So far we don't know how to reproduce it on the scale that we are refining it. As cars and people become more efficient with their uses of oil and electricity, the reserves are still getting thinner. And even if we did reduce our emissions and use, we still have 2 other major players, China and India, who are using more and more oil. So in theory we could all ride around in hybrids, but still see prices climb.

[audtatious]

Utilities that utilize coal/FF can be replaced with nuclear. Of course, "they" will fight that tooth and nail. So, we have to lower our footprint and replace these utilities with something more environmentally favorable. What is it? Wind power won't do it and neither will solar. Shale oil extraction as a intermediate solution? Yeah, right, like "they" will allow that. Is the only direction "they" will let us go is simply force the limiting of energy by consumers?

On another front, "they" are against cross-cutting forests, clearing scrub brush and clear cutting/replanting for building materials. Cross-cutting and clearing scrub brush helps to limit forest fires which is a great polluter. We have a large requirement for wood, but the fact that it is a renewable resource means absolutely nothing to the point that "they" spike trees to kill loggers.

Seems every direction has a "they" who will raise hell to stop that direction. Science is being used to supposedly prove their point, but "they" are against science to help solve their immediate problems (nuclear energy). These same people seem to be for utilizing corn-based solutions for vehicles regardless of the fact that it takes more petrolium to make less product (processing corn into ethanol requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel it produces) and will result in more deforestation to support additional corn crops (which "they" would be against).

The ONLY solution is for us, capitalistic America, to completely cease and decist anything "they" may determine to be a pollutant. What "they" target as their "cause of a day" is a moving target and always will be.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to GW, technology has not been created yet to keep up with their constantly revolving-door anti-everything policy.