Truth
formerly dtruth07
- 3,711
- 633
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
My next car will be an electric car anyways so np
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
There's a line between and practical and luxury, and I just don't see anything above 175HP as practical. I just have something with 160HP and a turbocharger, and I'm very content.
I wish we had a rolling eyes emoticon so I could post 100 of them. Oh brother, YOU don't see anything above 175hp as practical so YOU are content.
If that wasn't the case, I couldn't enjoy my EVO or own a car like a GT-R or IS-F. Performance enthusiasts would be out of luck because of ridiculous hippies like yourself that have no clue or idea about anything but "saving the world".
Really? I hear about it all the time. My filter bubble is probably different than yours, of course.
http://scienceprogressaction.org/in...hevron-exxonmobil-and-the-defense-department/
Global Warming is alive and well. The continual rise in anthroprogenic contribution of CO2 emissions and the rest of the other green house gases are apparent in the warming of our planet. a warming increase that has never been seen in the history of the Earth in such a short amount of time
....
[h1][/h1][h1]Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)[/h1]By David Rose
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ight-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1l8PS4MCq
?
0cks wrote:
Also don't you think the world would be a better place if we could leave the Middle East be and not HAVE to be all up in their business? Oil is the only thing making them hot and the sooner we get off this dependency the less we have to spend on defense/homeland security and put tax money towards better things like schools and the environment...
Living in NYC, I'm frequently approached by the Green Peace beggars in the street. This is what I try to hammer home to them. The average person doesn't really care about the environment. Emphasize the fact that oil comes from murderous regimes that hate America. I don't want to support that. Tom Friedman wrote about this recently. His solution was to tax gas at an even higher rate (which is a childish solution). But the fact remains that the United States needs to move off oil.
Originally Posted by ninjahood
"Plus, you know very well you aren't out here designing your own cars so you'll TAKE what the marketGIVES you":LOLAre you aware of unintended consequences silly putty? Are you also awareThat as Automotive enthusiast I know for a FACT that da aftermarketSupply industry is at least 3x da size of da entire car industry combined?With rules that MANDATE regulations to inferior technology, you think people areGonna pick those expensive short range vehicles, or traditional internal combustion engines whichAre at least 1/2 da price...you act like da internet hasn't BLOWN up da supply chain as far as keepingOlder cars on da road longer...studies have shown that people would rather pay MORE to keep da carsThey wanna drive...you completely ignoring how much CHEAPER da chevy Cruze is VS da chevy volt isWith more practicality underlines how snobbishly arrogant da left-wing thinks they can make decisions for people. You said we'd pick what da market gives us..you're gonna see how fast da market shows you da failure of pickingWinners & losers via legislation...Canada has da 2nd BIGGEST oil reserve after da Da Saudis...if you think that pipeline WONT eventually get builtAnd supply Da US with CHEAP gas from a NON OPEC country, den you must thinkDrake "is gonna actually catch a body like that"
They've been doing this since the late 70s.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Da government...way to prop
Up a completely incompetent cat segment
I didn't insult you.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Silly putty resorted to insults in my writing style instead of
Admitting to da fact that as long as oil is cheap and abundant
That NO ONE is gonna give 2 craps about electric cara with their
Pathetic ranges compared to good oil internal cumbustion engines.
silly putty, no matter how HARD you mandate Car companies to create
This cars, if da public doesn't want them, what are you gonna plan on doin?
Tell da government to Confiscate Lamborghinis & Corvettes? Lol you got chevy
Volts being declined by dealerships nationwide because they can't sell em..you know
Who da biggest buyers of these tax payer funded experiment? Da government...way to prop
Up a completely incompetent cat segment
And don't even get me started on da faux environmental good
These cars are with da amounts of rare earth metals needed to mine
A better option is never the best option.
Don't fault us for trying to IMPROVE.
Its like saying "well you can't cure 100% of cancer so chemo is pointless"...
To produce these toxic batteries...
Are you opposed to seeking new technology or are you just happy living according to the status quo?
You lack the foresight to make things better for those that come after you.
You're the type of person that would have prevented mandated oil filters, or catalytic converters, or reduction of CFCs or regulations by the EPA.
Where is your respect for others?
Where is your planning for tomorrow instead of the here and now?
Its like saying, well stem cell research can't grow me a new arm right now so lets scrap the whole idea.
The attitude of resistance you have holds all of us back from trying to do better. You're no different than the Catholic church telling people not to use condoms to prevent the spread of STIs...or trying to prevent evolution being taught in schools.
There are better options out there and the details are being worked out.
You can stand in the way of progress or be left on the wrong side of history.
EDIT: and another thing...you will drive what you are GIVEN. You never had a damn choice in this country and don't think for a second that you did. You pay massive fees to drive imported vehicles from different regions of the world, and you also are only limited to whats on the market. You don't have ability to build NinjaHoodMotors. You drive whatever car manufacturers make for you. You can make your own clothes. You can't even begin to make your own cars. So yes, you WILL drive what they give you and will take it as you've continued to do in the past. You have even FEWER options than you ever realized...because right now there is someone out there who is not impressed with ANY vehicle on the market...what do you tell that person?
Originally Posted by sillyputty
Rashi... I can't BELIEVE we're going to talk about whether or not global warming is real...
Are you serious right now?
If you burn more hydrocarbons than have EVER been burned at a rate as fast as we have, there is NO WAY you can not expect the environment to change.
Thats the ONLY thing you have to learn in school to understand global warming.
Thats it.
Don't tell me the environment does NOT change from the billions of cars on the streets of the world emitting unfiltered toxins into the sky.
If that argument goes over anyone's head then I think this conversation should be over.
This is like trying to debate evolution in a biology class right now.
Any "scientist" that says there is no impact of humanity on the ecology of the world is a liar and should be ridiculed by others in their field. Tarred, feathered, and paraded like the fool he/she is.
The ecology of the world rests on the interaction of literally millions of factors that contribute to and give rise to the diversity of life that we observe in the world. Changes that are minute and add up over time.
No one is saying that you will wake up next spring and the world will be set ablaze in anoxic fumes and we all will be wearing radioactive protection suits to work.
Changes occur gradually over time and some environments notice the impact more than others.
The very nature that urban areas tend to be on average 3-7 degrees warmer than surrounding areas BECAUSE OF THE SHEER AMOUNT OF CONCRETE used in cities is no mistake. We impact the ecology in a profound way. Thats not even including our chemical waste and output as a result of urban areas.
We have violently swung the resting equilibrium of the planet in ways that are not completely known yet. This is true...however to assert that humans are not responsible for the disruption of many of the restorative "characteristics" of natural ecosystems and their ability to return to equilibrium is asinine.
People just think gases just "go away"...without any understanding of how the production of things in excess of their "normal" amounts shifts the balance of chemical concentrations in different environments.
It is a gradual change as a result of many observed properties and it is REAL.
You already are.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Silly putty SWEARS that da public can be CATTLED into coppin basura by da government.
That's where your WRONG sillyputty, HELLO THERE IS A ENTIRE INDUSTRY DEVOTED TO KEEPING USED CARS RUNNING its called da aftermarket ..its 3x as Big as da auto industry & employees MANY more.
.all this mandate is gonna do is make consumers KEEP cars they already have or buy older models that appeal to them..
Canada has DA SECOND BIGGEST OIL SUPPLY AFTER DA SAUDIS, and technology has made da extraction of these oil sands profitable.
Fossil fuels will continue to play a significant role in human civilization for centuries to come
...this mandatory Crap is WILD Un American...last time I checked I can drive w/e da !%$% I want cuz its my right, I can care 2 @%!%%
How "Selfish" you think that is....what's next, government tellin you what websites you can browse? Oh wait....
Originally Posted by 0cks
Extracting oil from that Canadian slurry is very expensive and you are making the assumption they will be willing to tear up their picturesque scenery for our oil consumption...Originally Posted by ninjahood
-this is NOT a absolute though....exploration and da expansive progress in Canada's oil sand continuing...do you know they have da 2nd MOST oil behind Saudi Arabia? http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htmOriginally Posted by 0cks
I'm sayin tho, gas guzzling cars will be relegated to weekend/hobby vehicles for the rich... you won't be forced out of your HEMICharger, you'll just be priced out... Which I don't think is all bad, in those LA streets what good does it do if your car can do 0-60 in 3.2 but you're stuck in gridlock traffic all day
Also don't you think the world would be a better place if we could leave the Middle East be and not HAVE to be all up in their business? Oil is the only thing making them hot and the sooner we get off this dependency the less we have to spend on defense/homeland security and put tax money towards better things like schools and the environment...
and they're our neighbors AKA BBFs, we ALREADY get most of our oil from Canada, so if they ramp up production with da Keystone XL (which Obama is cockblockin) we can ween ourselves OFF OPEC oil and
secure our energy independence from conflict oil.
Originally Posted by ThorrocksJs
China needs electric cars we don't .If china had stricter laws on driving and better testing they wouldnt even have half the people driving.
Just some of my input:Originally Posted by ninjahood
Silly putty SWEARS that da public can be CATTLED into coppin basura by da government.
That's where your WRONG sillyputty, HELLO THERE IS A ENTIRE INDUSTRY
DEVOTED TO KEEPING USED CARS RUNNING its called da aftermarket ..its 3x as
Big as da auto industry & employees MANY more..all this mandate is gonna do is make consumers
KEEP cars they already have or buy older models that appeal to them.. Canada has DA SECOND BIGGEST
OIL SUPPLY AFTER DA SAUDIS, and technology has made da extraction of these oil sands profitable.
Fossil fuels will continue to play a significant role in human civilization for centuries to come...this mandatory
Crap is WILD Un American...last time I checked I can drive w/e da !%$% I want cuz its my right, I can care 2 @%!%%
How "Selfish" you think that is....what's next, government tellin you what websites you can browse? Oh wait....
Oil is cheap?Originally Posted by sillyputty
I didn't insult you.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Silly putty resorted to insults in my writing style instead of
I said that I am appalled that you refuse to use proper grammar.
I didn't say anything about YOU.
Admitting to da fact that as long as oil is cheap and abundant
That NO ONE is gonna give 2 craps about electric cara with their
Pathetic ranges compared to good oil internal cumbustion engines.
silly putty, no matter how HARD you mandate Car companies to create
This cars, if da public doesn't want them, what are you gonna plan on doin?
Tell da government to Confiscate Lamborghinis & Corvettes? Lol you got chevy
Volts being declined by dealerships nationwide because they can't sell em..you know
Who da biggest buyers of these tax payer funded experiment? Da government...way to prop
Up a completely incompetent cat segment
And don't even get me started on da faux environmental good
These cars are with da amounts of rare earth metals needed to mine
A better option is never the best option.
Don't fault us for trying to IMPROVE.
Its like saying "well you can't cure 100% of cancer so chemo is pointless"...
To produce these toxic batteries...
Are you opposed to seeking new technology or are you just happy living according to the status quo?
You lack the foresight to make things better for those that come after you.
You're the type of person that would have prevented mandated oil filters, or catalytic converters, or reduction of CFCs or regulations by the EPA.
Where is your respect for others?
Where is your planning for tomorrow instead of the here and now?
Its like saying, well stem cell research can't grow me a new arm right now so lets scrap the whole idea.
The attitude of resistance you have holds all of us back from trying to do better. You're no different than the Catholic church telling people not to use condoms to prevent the spread of STIs...or trying to prevent evolution being taught in schools.
There are better options out there and the details are being worked out.
You can stand in the way of progress or be left on the wrong side of history.
EDIT: and another thing...you will drive what you are GIVEN. You never had a damn choice in this country and don't think for a second that you did. You pay massive fees to drive imported vehicles from different regions of the world, and you also are only limited to whats on the market. You don't have ability to build NinjaHoodMotors. You drive whatever car manufacturers make for you. You can make your own clothes. You can't even begin to make your own cars. So yes, you WILL drive what they give you and will take it as you've continued to do in the past. You have even FEWER options than you ever realized...because right now there is someone out there who is not impressed with ANY vehicle on the market...what do you tell that person?
QFT.
Everyone should read this.
Originally Posted by ninjahood
Silly pitty still doesn't understand that he's in agreement
With me even though its gonna make him cry.
1. You said people are limited to cars that's already on
Da road...yea do you know that every time a new year
Goes by da model year of da vehicle is grandfathered into that
Years rules? So if I wanted to tear up my neighborhood in a 1969
Charger with no catalytic convertors I'm still good because it wasn't
Legislated?
2. I brought up da aftermarket industry NOT for electric toasters you call cars
Im talkin bout da MILLIONS of cars already on da road, that when da government
Keeps TRYIN to force things people's throat its gonna have unintentional Consequences
Like bolstering da used car market...you're gonna have to pry those cars people love
Off their dead hands.
3. Oil & coal = bad? Lol yea, I guess da majority of electric energy da US runs
On is powered by hamster wheels & unicorn sweat...
That's ONE car. One.Originally Posted by ninjahood
Lol..can't wait this years election..if I'm mad about all this
Needless regulation, I can imagine what da typical Republican is goin thru..
Why do cars like da Lamborghini Aventador need Zero incentives to sell out
Yet a da chevy volt being HEAVILY subsidized by da government falls short of expectations...da answer
Is called da market folks. NO amount of government interference can create a demand on a product
No one wants. Chevy Cruze vs Chevy volt is a microcosm of my whole point.
There's things you think ppl SHOULD do & there's things people are GONNA do.
Explain to me putty, why isn't da volt selling? It won "car of da year" award in motortrend magazine.
Only ppl who's bought this car in droves is da government.