Re: Global Warming Thread

[Jemdawg]

By all means, lock this after I say what I must say about the thread which turned into a debate about global warming.

You simply cannot debate something that cannot, at this juncture, be sufficiently defined. Everyone is arguing in a point-counterpoint fashion. As many facts as you can bring into the discussion, you will never convince someone who truly believes the opposite of what you believe. Arguing over matters of opinion is trifling. If you can't prove to anyone that you are definitely correct, don't even bother trying. To me, unless you are supporting the actual investigation and studies of global warming, you should remain skeptical despite all of the "facts" you are aware of. Everyone needs to settle down and say "I don't know for sure, I could be wrong, you could be right, we could both be wrong," because that is the only truthful thing in this matter. I'd prefer it if I didn't get any responses involving any sort of evidence to convince me into believing one side or the other. Personally I know global warming is happening right now, the evidence of it is very clear, but I cannot say that we are causing it or not. I cannot say if anyone or anything is causing it for sure, it's one of those things that you have to wait out and see if anyone solves the mysterious catalyst for the problem we face, a raging argument about it would go on endlessly and pointlessly, as it shows no place on a Nissan Versa forum, if Geoff never shut the thread down.

Case closed.

[marleyfan]

Jem, read my last post in the other thread. I acknowledged the possibility of being wrong but ponder the consequenses of being right but doing nothing. As for debates being pointless I strongly disagree. It is the sharing of similar as well as differing opinions which makes these groups interesting. As long as we all understand that they are nothing more than opinions. I have re-read the other thread and don't see that it was getting out of hand. Robertc's comments in THIS thread are probably the most offensive of the lot. I hope that this forum does not become a place where you do not feel comfortable to share a dissenting opinion. I do agree that a thread on global warming is probably somewhat out of place in a Versa forum but people don't have to read threads that they don't find relevant.

[cireecnop1]

This thread got out of control all because some Idiot traded in his V for a piec* of Cra* prius then tried to justify it by saying he is single handily saving the planet. He should have just stayed of our forum if he was that displeased with the V. I happen to get very good gas mileage with mine and wait till he see's how poor the whole toyota line is doing these days in overall Quality. He needs to go gloat on the Toyota forum.Good riddens to rubbish.

This "idiot" would like to apologize for answering another persons question in my original thread, BBISHOPCM asked why I dumped the V, I guess the smart response should have been "just cuz" right? my bad. I hope everyone realizes that I didn't start the debate on global warming I only stated my reasons for "dumping" the V. Then Bubs Daddy got all preachy on us, oh well. And Robert I'm sorry that my opinions upset you so terribly, next time dont read my posts. or dont respond to them.

Thanks EV for setting an example that Non-V owners can have a future on this site.

[robertc]

Cars are not responsible for Global Warming the Sun cycles and other factors are involved. Just like in the past we are heading a complete physical pole reversal which will change the continents once again. It has happened before and mankind will have to start over. The ancient people wrote of this as a warning to future generations. It seems to happen about every 10,000 years. Hybrid cars are not going to save the world. Outside influences are once again ready to enter our galaxy. Plenty of scientists are writing of this now. Do a search the books are all over.

Have Fun- Sorry I got everyone upset.

[proxim2020]

By all means, lock this after I say what I must say about the thread which turned into a debate about global warming.

You simply cannot debate something that cannot, at this juncture, be sufficiently defined. Everyone is arguing in a point-counterpoint fashion. As many facts as you can bring into the discussion, you will never convince someone who truly believes the opposite of what you believe. Arguing over matters of opinion is trifling. If you can't prove to anyone that you are definitely correct, don't even bother trying. To me, unless you are supporting the actual investigation and studies of global warming, you should remain skeptical despite all of the "facts" you are aware of. Everyone needs to settle down and say "I don't know for sure, I could be wrong, you could be right, we could both be wrong," because that is the only truthful thing in this matter. I'd prefer it if I didn't get any responses involving any sort of evidence to convince me into believing one side or the other. Personally I know global warming is happening right now, the evidence of it is very clear, but I cannot say that we are causing it or not. I cannot say if anyone or anything is causing it for sure, it's one of those things that you have to wait out and see if anyone solves the mysterious catalyst for the problem we face, a raging argument about it would go on endlessly and pointlessly, as it shows no place on a Nissan Versa forum, if Geoff never shut the thread down.

Case closed.

to Master Pimp Jem Dawg's comments.

Although I enjoyed the debate (I found out a lot of information I didn't know before), it was starting to get to the point of where some were trying to cramp their beliefs down other's throats. I'm not opposed to having the debates and off topic discussions. The forum has lots of members from all across the world. I'm interested in other's opinions and information that they may have to offer. I suggest that when we have an interesting discussions, we create a topics specifically for these types of discussions. That way, those who do not wish to participate can skip the topic altogether. The topics would have very specific rules governing the direction of the topic. Mudslinging and dry clowning (sarcastic remarks) would not be tolerated as they aren't tolerated normally. So what do you guys think?

[Ever Victorious]

Sorry, Cireec... I was just logging on to take care of this. I'm not always at a computer when I'm at work, so sometimes it takes a little time for me to respond.

All parties:

I have decided it will just be easier to edit out posts with slandering and name-calling than it will be to have to lock a thread every few hours. There have been some good points brought up in this discussion and I would like to keep it that way.

Repeated slandering and name-calling will be reported to an Admin for further consideration.

Anyone who is not a regular of this forum:

Don't come into my forum trying to start crap, we don't come into your forum trying to start it. We do things a bit differently here in the Versa forum, and if you don't like it... well, go play in General Chat. There should be something there for you to occupy your time rather than trying to aggravate people on this part of the forum.

Proxim:

Feel free to edit any posts in here you feel are slanderous as well.

[Ever Victorious]

Cars are not responsible for Global Warming the Sun cycles and other factors are involved. Just like in the past we are heading a complete physical pole reversal which will change the continents once again. It has happened before and mankind will have to start over. The ancient people wrote of this as a warning to future generations. It seems to happen about every 10,000 years. Hybrid cars are not going to save the world. Outside influences are once again ready to enter our galaxy. Plenty of scientists are writing of this now. Do a search the books are all over.

Have Fun- Sorry I got everyone upset.

Actually, this is the kind of debate I was hoping we would see in this thread, keep this up... and keep the personal attacks out of the thread, we'll all be fine!

[marleyfan]

Who knew that a simple post about a Prius could spark such a heated discussion. I think all of us appreciate different views but the problem is that some of those views are so over the top. If you believe the recent press releases from the Scientific community the jury is no longer out on whether or not man is contibuting to global warming. Personally I accept that at face value. But clearly the Prius is not going to save the environment. Is it an environmentally better choice than an SUV? Of course. Is it for everyone? No. Will I get one? No. I have my Versa. And I'm happy with it. Mostly.

[nissanman04]

haha sorry i was very bored at work and it was an excellent place to reference one of my favorite south park episodes. i just wanted to get a reaction, and i did. too bad i never got to see it, lol. i had a feeling that would get deleted. anyway, i could care less what anyone else drives, to each his own...

[Ever Victorious]

haha sorry i was very bored at work and it was an excellent place to reference one of my favorite south park episodes. i just wanted to get a reaction, and i did. too bad i never got to see it, lol. i had a feeling that would get deleted. anyway, i could care less what anyone else drives, to each his own...

That was playing with fire, my friend. I'm not sure if you had read the other related topic, but there were some very specific rules set for this topic and you violated them. I'm all for debate, but I'm kinda sticking my neck out here breaking a few rules by even letting this thread exist. I'm not going to let it get out of hand. I would thank you to either stick to the topic at hand in a civilized, rational manner, or to not post in this thread at all.

[Jrscherer]

Well here's my whole thing about this "global warming" Right now it's one of the coldest temps we have had in many many years in Wisconsin. Along with this, they have done many studies that show that temps have gone up and down in the whole history of the world. I know this isn't supposed to really be one of the subjects talked on here but I'm just saying.

[proxim2020]

Actually your comments are welcomed in this topic. This topic was created to continue the debate for those who wish to.

[kc5f]

Well here's my whole thing about this "global warming" Right now it's one of the coldest temps we have had in many many years in Wisconsin....

One of the global warmimg predictions is that extremes will be amplified, giving colder winters, hotter summers and worse storms, with the worldwide average temperature rising faster than normal due to our meddling.

[audtatious]

Seems they have all bases covered? If you say it enough times then people will begin to believe what you say is true.

Reminds me of those infomercials where a doctor is telling you some new herb will make you lose weight or fix everything wrong with you. Do you take what they say as fact just because they claim to be doctors?

The economic impact of Chicken-Little responses will do nothing good for us nor the world as a whole.

[Ever Victorious]

The economic impact of Chicken-Little responses will do nothing good for us nor the world as a whole.

I have to disagree somewhat there. If the world economy remains completely locked to petrodollars, then yes.. but then again, if the world economy stays locked to petrodollars, the global economy will be completely ruined when we run out of petroleum. It's a finite, non-renewable resource.

So far, big oil has expressed no interest in alternative energy, yet they are the ones who could contribute the greatest resources to research in this field, and reap the rewards from it. Economies are never static, and the economy of conservation COULD be profitable if enough attention were devoted to it. As it is right now, there is not much scale involved, so it is considered expensive. But if that were stepped up, if it got to enjoy the benefits of economy of scale, it would be a different story.

I don't know the story about anyone else's neighborhood, but around here we get a credit on our garbage bills if we use curbside recycling. That's just one example of how systems like this work. Another is that our local PUD gives rebates to homeowners if they buy certain high-efficiency appliances, instead of their "basic" counterparts.

We have many architectural firms who specialize in "green" buildings... and new city regulations state that a certain percentage of new commercial construction must be green. This green regulation is certainly not bad for our local economy. You're still paying architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc... That part doesn't change.

I find it hard to believe that the world economy would collapse from the use of "green" technologies. It would simply shift money from one part of the economy to another. Naturally, those from whom the money shifts are going to complain... but that's the glorious nature of our system.. you can change with it. And if there is a significant change in economic climate and you refuse to change with it, noone to blame but yourself (although some companies still like to blame everyone BUT themselves).

[audtatious]

I was referring to knee-jerk reactions. Oh noes, its Global Warming...We must stop auto makers from making combustion engined cars NOW, regardless of any other consequences.

[proxim2020]

I don't know the story about anyone else's neighborhood, but around here we get a credit on our garbage bills if we use curbside recycling. That's just one example of how systems like this work.

Our city is run by what I like to call "special" councilmen and women. You have to petition enough members of your general neighborhood, which would be quite a few blocks of people you don't know, then you can submit your request to the city. After that you get moved to a waiting list. There's actually a waiting list to have a recycling program instituted in your area. It normally takes between 2 to 4 years to get green bins if everyone's still all for it. Apparently, they need a recycling market, which isn't big in the area, in order to move green bins out to people. I think they should create the market by showing that tons of people would recycle if they had the chance.

I have to agree with you on the collapse theory. What comes to mind immediately is Bio Diesel. It's all grassroots now and not very commercial. But I think that if we got our country to move more toward diesel (like Europe) and away from gas, then we'll see a huge jump in the amount of commercial Bio Diesel available in this country. Natural Gas vehicles were starting to head down that way. Some of the largest oil companies were thinking of putting NG fill stations with their normal gas stations. Some even did. But I think NG is starting to taper off because people are seeing hybrids as a more viable alternative than hunting for NG fill stations. I think transference will become the wave of the future. I never thought Toyota would over take Ford for the number 2 spot, but it's going to happen. I think one day that green energy providers will overtake the current providers.

A guy can have dreams

[7speed]

This is a very good discussion (when read without slanderous content). I don't know much about Global Warming, personally I think it's a bit of a misnomer. Climate Change would be better I think. And I would agree with EV about the economic environment change. Excellent post EV.

[cireecnop1]

I was referring to knee-jerk reactions. Oh noes, its Global Warming...We must stop auto makers from making combustion engined cars NOW, regardless of any other consequences.

Although it would be nice to see our government and the people/companies that run it suddenly open their eyes and drastically reduce the maufacturing of fossil burning engines. I am not that extreme, I want change, it can be gradual, it can be quick but it definately needs to happen! Besides the technology that is in "green" cars is just gonna benefit the "other" vehicles on the road, what I mean is, other car companies now have competition, they need to make smaller more efficient cars to make sure that they dont lose their current and future customers.

I would also like to point out that Pollution doesn't just come from transportation, Its EVERYWHERE, non-renewable resource power and so on, I just come to realise that with every moment I use a light bulb, even though its a CFL, I am supporting/contributing to pollution. turn off a light when not in use and unplug electronics that are not in use. Maybe just a little incentive for some penny-pinchers out there, I saved $80 on my electric bill. more money for my Prius Payment.

if anyone is interested,... you should check out this link

http://www.stopglobalwarming.o...22007

hope this thread didn't put anyone to sleep.

[Ever Victorious]

A lot of those things listed have economic gains for doing them, and I can tell from personal experience that they are completely correct.

For example, carpooling. My wife and I own 2 cars, but only operate 1 on weekdays... we carpool to and from work, so the car that is not being operated uses almost no gas. Based on the current cost of gas and how far my wife would have to commute for work, we're actually saving about $50 a WEEK on gas alone by running only one car.

We've converted almost completely to CFL bulbs (almost completely due to the fact that CFL's don't work in dimmed fixtures) and that has kept our electric bills to consistently under $80/month.

We get paid to use our curbside recycling. While it's only about $36 per year, that is still 6% of our garbage bill that we don't have to pay.

We've switched to B20 biodiesel in our home furnace.. while this will currently INCREASE the cost of oil by about $40/year, I still have lower cost of heating than my electric-furnaced neighbors due to the fact that my nearly brand-new furnace has an AFUE rating about 18% higher than their furnaces. Plus I'm using more renewable resources. When the new biodiesel plant in W. Wa comes online in the next year or two, I expect the price of biodiesel around here to drop to the same or a little less than conventional home heating oil.

Even if it's not for "ecological" reasons, a lot of the tips make sense for everyone in both the long and short term, as a way to bring more money into their budget.

Now I'm not one to bend to trends just because they're there, but I DO intend to change from mass-produced milk to organic milk when my child is born... rBGH is not something I want running in my kid's system. So I will be doing something "ecological" myself for reasons other than having a greener earth.

[audtatious]

I just switched from my old 1970 Kerosene-oil furnace to a standard gas-based. It is hugely efficient whereas the last one was not. Cost of use will probably be the same. Temps and the size of the house made a heat-pump something I chose to stay away from. We have curb-side recyling but they charge everyone $30 every 6 months just to do it (mandatory). Mostly a money scam since those picking it up have already been caught dumping it in the city garbage pit.

Seems every time someone presses Green bills, their aim is to tax the oil companies more since they have "record profits" and then use that money for programs. I really don't see the point as the public will eventually pay those costs with higher prices. Forcing cars to be more green simply raises manufacturing costs and impacts the poor. The Greenies and such have already tried to sneak in bills to disallow cars over a certain age and to institute a "destroy any car that is not licensed" program which was crushed by groups like SEMA and others.

At this point, it is hard to believe either side of the arguement. Common sense says polution is not good, but at what cost should everyone pay when there are currenly no real viable solutions on the market for consumers for alternate fuels?

[proxim2020]

Seems every time someone presses Green bills, their aim is to tax the oil companies more since they have "record profits" and then use that money for programs.

I was watching this show "Living with Ed" (very cool show-HGTV) and I saw this thing called a TerraPass. Apparently, companies are allowed to produce a certain amount of pollution in their area. The amounts are represented in the form of credits. When a company produces more than they are allowed, they have to pay in the form of fines. In order to get around the fines, they can purchase pollution credits from other companies that may have them available (Green Companies have tons since they produce very little pollution). When you purchase this thing called a TerraPass, the money is used to finance certified green energy projects. The theory goes that by creating more green companies and having an large amount of sources for green energy, the pollution creating companies will eventually be phased out. They will get tired of having to buy credits from companies that are getting all these tax breaks and incentives and clean up their act. So if you have to drive your gas guzzling RV or SUV halfway across the country or fly on a plane, you can buy this pass (which is basically a donation) to make yourself feel better about what you're doing. I for one think it's a pretty cool idea. I'd much rather than give my money to a company who I know is investing in the future rather than the government who will probably take my money to fund the bridge to nowhere.

[audtatious]

That is acceptable to the point where the companies make a change. If they are producing a product that the public has to have, then they simply raise rates to keep their profit margins up. If this is the case, the public is paying for the programs and not the companies.

[Ever Victorious]

I'm sorry that you live in an area where you have con-artists like that running your recycling/refuse program. You could get involved in your community and get something done about it, at least with respect to eliminating the fees you are paying for this sham.

I don't agree with crushing old cars. I DO agree with keeping emissions standards mandatory, even when a car gets older... a car should meet the emission standards for when it was manufactured, regardless. It should also be mandatory everywhere... not just in high population areas. Every time I go east of the mountains I see a ton of old beat up 70's jalopies that spew technicolor smoke all over the place, and they won't be cleaned up because that side of the state does not have emissions testing. This isn't even so much a "Green" initiative as it is applying the law fairly and equally to the entire population.

[audtatious]

I'm sorry that you live in an area where you have con-artists like that running your recycling/refuse program. You could get involved in your community and get something done about it, at least with respect to eliminating the fees you are paying for this sham.

I would have to change party affiliations for anything I say to be listened to. Something I don't plan on doing.

[AZhitman]

Lots of folks here don't recall the uproar over "global cooling" in the 70's.

Don't fall prey to the imaginary "monsters under the bed".

Funny how the same people who worry about our impact on the climate are the same people who believe the Earth is FAR older than it is. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ice ages come and go. Global cycles exist, and our view of "history" is absurdly short in the grand scheme of things.

Keep in mind that ONE 747 taking off and flying cross country ONCE contributes more CO2 (the big baddie according to the greenies) to the atmosphere than five 2003-model year cars do in A YEAR (at 15K miles a year).

It's estimated that the Mt. St. Helens eruption contributed more CO2 to the atmosphere than all internal combustion engines in the U.S. since the invention of the automobile. Say WHAT???

Yeah, so don't panic, folks.

Be more concerned about our dependence on foreign oil. Be more concerned about PCB's, overcrowded landfills. Be more concerned about logging and farming's impact on the ecosystem. Be more concerned about overcrowding and disease.

Your cars are NOT, contrary to the hand-wringing greenies, the "Bad Guy".

[audtatious]

The methane gas from cow crap is far worse than CO2 as well. I actually heard some greanies on the news saying we need to stop eating beef because it is bad for the planet. To them, vegetarianism is just fine.

Of course, the only thing ever discussed is motor vehicles and oil dependancy.

edit: http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

"This is a serious miscalculation. Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.

The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. It’s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth’s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem.

Even this overstates the effect of CO2, because the primary sources of these emissions—cars and power plants—also produce aerosols. Aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the magnitude of this cooling approximately cancels out the warming effect of CO2. The surprising result is that sources of CO2 emissions are having roughly zero effect on global temperatures in the near-term! "

So, per the above, CO2 is not the main problem (altho it is agreed we should contain it as much as possible). Thus, why are vehicles being singled out? It's the focus. You have people on this forum buying environmentally concious vehicles to help solve global warming when the emmisions from those vehicles are not causing the issues in the first place. Not that doing so is bad, but it is not resolving the actual problem. Instead, it is following some misguided direction and believing all the hype spewed by those with some agenda that does not necessarily relate to the environment in the first place.

[AZhitman]

There was an interesting article in Rolling Stone (yeah, I know, it's crap journalism) about pork farms - I had no idea they were as damaging as they are.

[Cowboys Fan 87]

Jemdawg.....very nice way to open this thread. Seriously...good job.

As for global warming......I don't care.....Wait, wait...before the flaming begins...

To me, the REAL problem with oil is that WE are paying for our destruction at the hands of Radical terrorlst and the nations that harbor them. I may have this wrong, but I think in Saudi and Kuwait, if you are a natural born citizen, you get a annual payment of like $40-$100 grand per year.....just for breathing. Most of the 9-11 hi-jackers were Saudi....you do the math.

If Radical terrorlst (yes..I'm dancing around saying it), release a Bio Weapon or nuke a major city, do you really think anyone will ever care about "Global Warming" again. Instead of UV index on the nightly news, it would be RAD Exposure index.

I see an opportunity to "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" here.....If we quickly move away from oil to a cheap, renewable, "Green" energy source (I mentioned Fuel Cells as a example) or something yet undiscovered, then what would these Radical terrorlst use to fund their horrible agendas.

So you see....I don't care about Global Warming because I think, as a species, we have far faster, more horrific ways of killing ourselves.

One last thing, thanks to Admins for allowing these threads...they have been very interesting to read.

[Ever Victorious]

There was an interesting article in Rolling Stone (yeah, I know, it's crap journalism) about pork farms - I had no idea they were as damaging as they are.

If you think that's bad, take a look at some of what they feed cows at non-organic farms. There are some that will take concrete dust and industrial waste oils and feed it to the cows because they get paid by the disposers to take care of it.

On the other hand, vegetarianism isn't necessarily the answer either. Our teeth show characteristics of both vegetarians and carnivores, hence why we are omnivores. Also, I seem to recall back in an old earth sciences class many years ago that it actually takes more land to feed a human on a strictly vegetarian diet than on a combined diet. If indeed true, greenies and their all-vegetarian style will actually cause humanity to run out of food faster, not slower.

Speaking of interesting magazine articles, I was reading... I think Newsweek... a couple months back, about green building practices... and it turns out that some companies shred up old denim jeans and turn them into insulation that is almost as effective as fiberglass... and completely biodegradable, to boot. Plus, those old worn out jeans will not end up in landfills.