Green vehicles of 2007

Here in Canada the Camry hybrid is about $5,000 (US$ 4,400) more than
the base 4 cyl., but as you say the base 4 cyl is less well fitted than
the hybrid.
For example the base 4 cyl has the tackiest cheapest hub caps I've every
see. The base Honda CR-V does it one better by not having wheel covers
on ugly steel wheels.
The lack of a sunroof doesn't bother me, having had one once I no longer
have that desire.
THX I'll have a look into this.

 

Here is an interesting program on the other side:

Also look at "more from this user"...

IMO GW & CC is now being driven by business interests and the
politicans are either involved or have been swept along.

Living in cold Canada I'm hoping for more warming! <
Canada was 99.9% covered by a year round ice sheet 20,000 years ago and
even now the permafrost boundary is only about half way north in Canada.

 

Excellent - and right on!!

 

The BBC presentation looks like pretty good stuff, but I watched the
other video posted by this user and didn't like it much.
() Being
religiously in favor of either side is equally unwise, and I thought it
was obvious that the person who put this presentation together had an
axe to grind.

I take it that the segment about the ocean being depleted of fish was
included because they thought that it had turned out to be nothing more
than alarmist baloney. But it's true, most commercially fished species
are severely depleted. That's why you can go to the store and buy weird
fish now that you have never heard of before. The familiar fish are
fished out, so now the fishing fleets are delivering formerly
undesirable species that they used to throw away. The ecosystem of
large portions of ocean have changed drastically because of the
disruption in the food chain. The situation could be turned around now,
of course, but not much is currently being done about it.

I also didn't care much for the quote from George Carlin. It's pretty
silly to think that humans are incapable of affecting the environment.
Check out the latest issue of National Geographic for an interesting
article about the effect that the English colonists had on the
environment of North America within a relatively short time of their
arrival. And yes, the Brazilian forest is being destroyed at an
alarming rate so they can grow soybeans to ship around the world, among
other things. This is very unfortunate, but I don't know what anybody
is going to do about it.

At any rate, I'd like to see more facts and less sensationalism.

 

You have no integrity with which to make such a comment. You said

"The debate in Seattle started with Mark Albright, a part-time UW
meteorologist and, until this week, the associate state climatologist."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003618979_warming15m.html

If you need more sources, Google them.

Also, naming a man's occupation isn't discrediting him. You're being
defensive again. You owe me an apology.

 

You can't stop being dishonest can you. It must be genetic. You may or
may not even realize you're doing it (but that is typical of the left).
I don't owe you anything.

Also, I like how you claim you only accept "unbiased" sources, yet in
your post previous to the one above, you used out-of context quotes
(transparent to anyone with an IQ over 70) supplied by a George
Soros-funded organization.

Please keep this up. You are providing an education to those who
haven't been previously sensitized to the tactics you are exhibiting for us.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

And yet 2001 Priuses are sold every day with no difficulty.

 

Robert Reynolds:

It's very misleading and the majority of the scientists have little or
nothing to do with climate. At least one of the scientists involved has
since condemned the movie. Science has a process called peer review
where research is checked, usually anonymously, by experts in the same
field of study. The popular media is short circuiting this process by
giving equal time and weight to the opinions of any scientist who speaks
about climate change regardless of their field of study or whether they
have published any peer reviewed work.

Easy, start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

600+ scientists have spent seven years writing a report on climate
change. The information builds on decades of research and has been peer
reviewed umpteen times over... it is the best and truest information to
date. Ignore what people say about it though and look into yourself.

Until a year or so ago, I believed, like most people, that there really
is a debate among scientists about climate change. The truth is there is
no debate. All scientists in the field agree that the climate is
changing and an overwhelming majority believe that humans are
accelerating the process, while a small minority (mostly paid by special
interests) claim humans are not accelerating global warming.

There are plenty of media articles published by scientists who are paid
up to $2500/day by oil companies to write opposing opinions to the
climate research but just remember they are opinions, not verified
research. You can usually sort them out by typing the author's name in
at sourcewatch.org. I generally stay away from movies or specials
whether it's the UK movie or Al Gore's movie.

 

Bill Putney:

Well if you can't be right, at least you can be a jerk. GIGO.

What I expected. You're wrong, I know, you know it and anyone still
following along can read it for themselves. That's good enough for me.

 

I wasn't aware of any CC debate. CC has been a fact for many years.
Back in my very early school years we learned about CC. Those who live
in Canada learned at an early age about the ice age that covered most of
Canada and the northern USA with a sheet of ice only 20,000 yrs ago.
There's been a lot of warming since the last ice age and still a lot to
come to become as warm as we know is was in the past. For example Baffin
Island in Canada's far north had the climate of the Carolinas not that
long ago.

Where I live on the Canadian west coast it has been the longest cool
winter since I came here in 1967. Those who have lived here longer
agree. The spring has been cool as forecast a few months ago, but has
been wet as not forecast. Too bad we can't forecast weather a few months
ahead!

That is the debate, but I don't agree that the majority believe humans
are the most significant factor in CC.
There are incentives for both sides of the argument to bias their info.
The oil interests say humans aren't the cause, the scientists are
looking for research grants, politicians are looking for CC conference
travel funding.

Some scientists who believe humans caused CC, feel our carbon emitting
has saved us from the start of the next ice age.

We are still learning about our earth, with much more to learn.

What we need to do now is reduce our impact on the earth, I suggest we
all start by not using gasoline lawn mowers.

 

Some O:

It is a common misconception here in the states that scientists cannot
agree about whether the Earth is warming or not. The misconception is
perpetuated by popular media who boost their ratings by showcasing anyone,
scientist or not, who can present a convincing argument against climate
change, whether that person actually knows what they are talking about or
not and without regard for the 'data' they use to support their position.
So you end up with talk show hosts like this guy Beck, who has an audience
of millions, giving out false or outdated information in order to create
controversy.

 

Why is it that so many people think we have an out-of-control
conservative media that shoves propaganda down our throats, while so
many other people think we have an out-of-control liberal media that
shoves propaganda down our throats?

Why does anybody even pay attention to TV anyway? They're just a bunch
of hacks selling Froot Loops and beer.

 

No - that is a common lie among people such as yourself.

....by no one.

Instead you want us to pay heed to sites funded by Geosrge Soros and the
UN. Those are *your* "unbiased" sources that we should accept and not
question or listen to any criticism of.

You're about as FOS as a person can get.

Don't forget - tonight CNN Headline News - 7 (1 hour), and then again at
9. Mac Cool wants you to make up your own mind - only if you expose
yourself to his George Soros and UN sources of false science. Freedom
of will is a great thing.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Robert Reynolds wrote:

Funny thing - you hear that, yet when I hear liberals like Mac Cool
talk, they don't want you to hear the issues and make up your own mind.
They want you to only read their "unbiased" sources (yeah - like
George Soros and the UN). Yet the conservative here is saying - hey -
look at what both sides are saying and make up your own mind after you
see who is faking the data and who is not. Funny that the conservative
says "Listen to the B.S. and the truth, then decide which is which".
The liberal will always say "Only trust what I say, only listen to who I
label as 'scientists' and disregard anyone I label as a 'non-scientist'.
You are not smart enough to discern truth from lies. The UN and
George Soros are credible sources of information and will make the right
decision for you."

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Robert Reynolds:

Popular media boosts it's ratings by creating controversy and polarizing
audiences, targeting specific demographics. So news has moved further and
further into editorial that is designed to suck in a certain type of
people for whom life must be black and white, for whom there must be good
guys and bad guys. That is why it's more important than ever to get
information from a wide variety of sources, especially on hot topics that
are most likely to be politicized like climate or the war in Iraq.

 

That's why I asked the rhetorical question. You said the media
showcases anybody who denies global warming, to stir up controversy.
That sounds like half of the truth, according to your most recent post.
Try to see it from both sides yourself. It just might be true that we
are being lied to about the motives behind the "global warming is our
fault" movement.

 

"The UN" does not just comprise a bunch of politicians from dictatorships
running human rights committees. It does a lot of good work with a lot of
input from decent people from democratic countries, if I may put it
simplistically.

Can't tar everybody in it with the same brush.

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling

 

Robert Reynolds:

I have seen it from both sides. I became interested while following a
forum debate on global warming. I read articles linked by both sides and
realized there was so much rhetoric the only way to understand would be to
ignore stuff published in the popular media until I had a good
understanding of the issues for myself. So I started reading the summaries
of peer reviewed scientific studies. I discovered one thing right away,
there are no peer reviewed articles contesting global warming... none. All
the articles contesting global warming are editorials (opinions without
factual proof). I also discovered that some of the scientists writing
those editorials were being payed by oil companies. Others were not
contesting the theory on climate change just some of the details. The
remainder of editorials were by nonscientists parroting the former two and
usually exaggerating in the process. So I have seen both sides and the
only evidence of some global conspiracy on global warming is in the minds
of talk show hosts looking for ratings.

 

You are definitely dishonest (already established several times over in
your previous posts) and possibly also naíve, but definitely dishonest.
You could not have been involved in any serious pursuit of the truth
on this subject and come away with your claimed viewpoint.

How about when the "scientists" and "experts" claim that CO2 causes
warming and prove it by taking real data plots showing that first comes
temperature rise, and *then* CO2 increases, but, before presenting the
data, they time shift the two parameters relative to each other to show
the opposite (i.e, CO2 rise, then temperature rise).

IOW - if they were car accident "scientists", they would observe that
accidents are always accompanied by damaged paint, and would prescribe
doing everything you can and spending everything you have to protect the
paint in order to prevent accidents.

Or - how about when they spout statistics about "warm deaths" when
temperature rises, but they dishonestly fail to cite the many-times-more
less "cold deaths", and - vice versa - when temperature drops, "cold
deaths" increase much more rapidly than the drop off in "warm deaths".

Or how about when the IPCC summits occur for their collaborative reports
- they write up the conclusions they want in a summary before the report
is written, then have runners going back and forth to the various
scientists producing the pieces of the report in an iterative process to
see if they could reword and unify what they individually wrote in order
to not contradict each other and converge on the arguments to support
the summary that was written weeks earlier.

Oh - I know - you'll deny all of that. But then that goes back to your
blatant dishonesty.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

At this point there is no benefit to discussing it further. When
everybody agrees to disregard the mass media and dig into the deeper
sources, there's no way to tell somebody which sources to believe. I
guess that's just human nature. People pick sides and stick with them.