 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to.
Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of water during the summer. The consequence of global warming are disastrous. Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher performance. They don't get significantly more gas mileage. Just a few facts. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. > > Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. > > The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. > > The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of > water during the summer. And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round. Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that day, moron? > The consequence of global warming are disastrous. The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and immediate. > Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than standard gasoline vehicles. > While the Insight and Prios are high > mileage cars, the rest simply reduce the engine a little and use the > hybrid to produce higher performance. You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. > They don't get significantly more > gas mileage. Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto MPG (city) Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 MPG (hwy) Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 MPG (combined) Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 Annual Fuel Cost* Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > Just a few facts. Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect added one more thing:
<...> >> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. > > Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto > > MPG (city) > Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 > > MPG (hwy) > Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 > > MPG (combined) > Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 > > Annual Fuel Cost* > Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 > > The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. > > You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ One thing I forgot: emissions. The hybrid version pumps out an average 5.8 tons of emissions per year. The normal 4 cylinder version pumps out 8.2 tons. That's a 30% reduction. How many tons of emissions does your vehicle pump out each year, twit? With all your concern about the environment, why do you drive a car? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >> >> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >> >> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. >> >> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of >> water during the summer. > > > And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round. Ever > hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that day, moron? > >> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. > > > The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and immediate. Even if I were stupid, which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with, just you trolls. And if I were stupid, and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real, we are talking about flooding of coastal cities, famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually making it colder, homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms. Many reputable scientists say this is the future, and man made greenhouse gasses are the greatest cause of this. > >> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. > > > No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than standard > gasoline vehicles. > The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. Check the stats. Prove me wrong. >> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply >> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher >> performance. > > > You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think > cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. > >> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. > > > Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto > > MPG (city) > Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 > > MPG (hwy) > Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 > > MPG (combined) > Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 > > Annual Fuel Cost* > Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 > > The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. > > You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > >> Just a few facts. > > > Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Compare a wider range of hybrids. Not just the one endorsed by the
Sierra Club. usual suspect wrote: > usual suspect added one more thing: > <...> > >>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >> >> >> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >> >> MPG (city) >> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >> MPG (hwy) >> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >> MPG (combined) >> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >> Annual Fuel Cost* >> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >> >> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. >> >> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > > > One thing I forgot: emissions. The hybrid version pumps out an average > 5.8 tons of emissions per year. The normal 4 cylinder version pumps out > 8.2 tons. That's a 30% reduction. How many tons of emissions does your > vehicle pump out each year, twit? With all your concern about the > environment, why do you drive a car? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Beach Runner wrote: >> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >> >> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >> >> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. >> >> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has >> areas of water during the summer. > > And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid > year-round. Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class > at Columbia that day, moron? > >> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. > > The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and > immediate. > >> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. > > No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than > standard gasoline vehicles. > >> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest >> simply reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to >> produce higher performance. > > You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you > think cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. > >> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. > > Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto > > MPG (city) > Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 > > MPG (hwy) > Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 > > MPG (combined) > Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 > > Annual Fuel Cost* > Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 > > The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very > significant. > > You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > >> Just a few facts. > > Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. ========================== Don't want to confuse him with facts there Usual. Afterall, he has advenced degrees from bush, I mean, ivy league schools! He must have missed lots of classes while there. He must still be working on the calculations for water useage that he spewed about last week too. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote:
> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. Check the > stats. Prove me wrong. ummmm.... he already did. Can't you read? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > usual suspect added one more thing: > <...> > >>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >> >> >> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >> >> MPG (city) >> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >> MPG (hwy) >> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >> MPG (combined) >> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >> Annual Fuel Cost* >> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >> >> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. >> >> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ You compare the one endorsed by the Sierra group. It doesn't compare the new Lexus, or Camry. It does compare the Honda Civic. But take your example "twit" as you say, and the compare the Honda Civic models. The GREAT DIFFERENCE is 2 mpg, which is what is expected in most of the other new hybrids. Hybrid technology is capable of much more fuel efficient cars. That's not what is going to be built. So genius, is 2 mpg a huge difference? That's much more typical of the new models. > > > One thing I forgot: emissions. The hybrid version pumps out an average > 5.8 tons of emissions per year. The normal 4 cylinder version pumps out > 8.2 tons. That's a 30% reduction. How many tons of emissions does your > vehicle pump out each year, twit? With all your concern about the > environment, why do you drive a car? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Slow Bob wrote:
>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >>> >>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >>> >>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. >>> >>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of >>> water during the summer. >> >> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round. >> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that >> day, moron? HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? >>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. >> >> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and immediate. > > Even if I were stupid, You are. You really are. > which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with, Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that! > just you trolls. Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you. > And if I were stupid, Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid. > and the many scientists > that agree that global warming is real, Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown you polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject. > we are talking about flooding of > coastal cities, Why the hell did you move to Tampa then? > famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually > making it colder, Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the summer. > homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms. You left out alien abductions and increases in bigfoot sightings. > Many reputable scientists Ipse dixit. Reputable scientists don't make outlandish claims about the future. Activists do. > say this is the future, and man made > greenhouse gasses are the greatest cause of this. What have you done to reduce your own greenhouse gases, Slow Bob? >>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. >> >> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than standard >> gasoline vehicles. > > The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. Check > the stats. Prove me wrong. I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased fuel efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g., greenhouse gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. >>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply >>> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher >>> performance. >> >> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think >> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. >> >>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >> >> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >> >> MPG (city) >> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >> MPG (hwy) >> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >> MPG (combined) >> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >> Annual Fuel Cost* >> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >> >> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. >> >> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >> >>> Just a few facts. >> >> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. Established. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> Compare a wider range of hybrids. Not just the one endorsed by the > Sierra Club. I gave you the link. You go compare. Here's one more since you're si mentally slow: Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) MPG (city) Hybrid:47 Regular:35 MPG (hwy) Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 MPG (combined) Hybrid:47 Regular:37 Annual Fuel Cost* Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 The hybrid is >27% more efficient per gallon of gas. That's not a few MPG, Slow Bob, that's a pretty decent gain. The hybrid also puts out over 21% less emissions -- greenhouse gases -- than the regular Civic. That's another model:model comparison, Slow Bob. I win again. > usual suspect wrote: > >> usual suspect added one more thing: >> <...> >> >>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >>> >>> MPG (city) >>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >>> MPG (hwy) >>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >>> MPG (combined) >>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >>> >>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. >>> >>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >> >> One thing I forgot: emissions. The hybrid version pumps out an average >> 5.8 tons of emissions per year. The normal 4 cylinder version pumps >> out 8.2 tons. That's a 30% reduction. How many tons of emissions does >> your vehicle pump out each year, twit? With all your concern about the >> environment, why do you drive a car? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner just can't stop lying:
>> <...> >> >>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >>> >>> MPG (city) >>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >>> MPG (hwy) >>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >>> MPG (combined) >>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >>> >>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. >>> >>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > > You compare the one endorsed by the Sierra group. So the **** what? It's one of two models I'm aware of available with both hybrid and conventional engines. Toyota doesn't make a conventional Prius and Honda has no conventional Insight. > It doesn't compare the new Lexus, or Camry. Neither of which has an available hybrid option for 2005. > It does compare the Honda Civic. I did that in a previous post. The hybrid Civic gets >27% better mileage and cuts down on greenhouse emissions by over 21% -- NOT small gains over the conventional. > But take your example "twit" You're the twit, Slow Bob. A slow bumbling twit. > as you say, and the compare the Honda Civic > models. I did. I used data from the same website: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > The GREAT DIFFERENCE is 2 mpg, Uhhh, no. Try 12 MPG city, 18 highway. Or 10 combined. Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) MPG (city) Hybrid:47 Regular:35 MPG (hwy) Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 MPG (combined) Hybrid:47 Regular:37 Annual Fuel Cost* Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 > which is what is expected in > most of the other new hybrids. You're blowing smoke out your ass again. > Hybrid technology is capable of much > more fuel efficient cars. That's not what is going to be built. And that's why people are buying them, you bumbling dumb ass. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Get it straight:
Honda Civic 36 44 Hybrid 48 46 I made some error. 2 mpg on highway driving. Much better in the city. A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing ... Showing off your brilliant intellect and impressive education, again? Don't you EVER get tired of shitting on yourself in public? What do you think you are gaining by being such an idiot? Power? Prestige? Respect? > ... frozen solid year-round. Thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the large and rapid temperature change man has caused by misusing technology. Intelligent, educated people are concerned about the impact of industry on the well-being of the human species in the next few 10's to hundred years, but you do not care about humans, not being one. > Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that day, > moron? If the 'moron' went to Columbia, what college did you graduate from, with what degree degrees? > Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. Another of your continuing self-attacks; why do you behave like an idiot? Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Slow Bob wrote: > >>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >>>> >>>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >>>> >>>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. >>>> >>>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of >>>> water during the summer. i clearly wrote recorded history. We all know about the ice ages this is another problem ages. >>> >>> >>> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round. >>> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that >>> day, moron? > > > HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? > >>>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. >>> >>> >>> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and >>> immediate. >> >> >> Even if I were stupid, > > > You are. You really are. > which doesn't change my statement >> which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with, > > > Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that! > It is a vegan group. >> just you trolls. > > > Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you. > It for vegans. >> And if I were stupid, > > > Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid. > No I made some typos for variety of reasons. I acknowledge my typos and mistakes. You don't. You must thing you're perfect. >> and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real, > > > Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown you > polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject. > The vast majority of global warming is from man made activities, CO2, and heat islands. Show me a number of non republican scientists that disagree. >> we are talking about flooding of coastal cities, > > > Why the hell did you move to Tampa then? > I don't lie in Tampa. I am looking at alternate. >> famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually making it colder, > > > Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the summer. > Actually a simple look at the map show Great Britain for example near Nova Scotia. It is a scientific projection by scientists. >> homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms. > > > You left out alien abductions and increases in bigfoot sightings. > That is stupid. The . Simple URL http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,...htmlreferences I made are happening today in reputable article >> Many reputable scientists > > > Ipse dixit. Reputable scientists don't make outlandish claims about the > future. Activists do. > >> say this is the future, and man made greenhouse gasses are the >> greatest cause of this. > > > What have you done to reduce your own greenhouse gases, Slow Bob? > >>>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. >>> >>> >>> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than standard >>> gasoline vehicles. >> >> >> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. Check >> the stats. Prove me wrong. > > > I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased fuel > efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g., greenhouse > gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. > >>>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply >>>> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher >>>> performance. >>> >>> >>> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think >>> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. >>> >>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >>> >>> >>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >>> >>> MPG (city) >>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >>> MPG (hwy) >>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >>> MPG (combined) >>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >>> >>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant. >>> >>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>> >>>> Just a few facts. >>> >>> >>> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. > > > Established. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, this is a vegan group, lets take it back.
1:admit when we make mistakes. Point out personal insults. I greatly respect our leaving Monsanto. Agent orange is basically roundup, if Laurie, who worked for the company wants to disagree, or someone can show he difference I will read and respond to all reasonable replies. Laurie wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > >>And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing ... > > Showing off your brilliant intellect and impressive education, again? > Don't you EVER get tired of shitting on yourself in public? > What do you think you are gaining by being such an idiot? Power? > Prestige? Respect? > > >>... frozen solid year-round. > > Thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the large and rapid temperature > change man has caused by misusing technology. Intelligent, educated people > are concerned about the impact of industry on the well-being of the human > species in the next few 10's to hundred years, but you do not care about > humans, not being one. > He is ignoring short term environmental damage with an antiquated comparison. Man made activity is raising the level of global warming. Scientists, with a vested interest rarely disagree. Bush's cabinet member left over his anti-environmal activities. The only excuse offered was she was no a left wing republicans. The last I looked this is a nation for all people. That's quite a statement. Just like Powell leaving because he won't be Bushes puppet. He was highly credentialed and respected. Rise is simply from the oil industry. Name a war we won since WW II other than Granada. Our former friends now consider us the greatest danger to the world. I think Al Qaeda is but America has lost all respect under Bush. > >>Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that day, >>moron? > > If the 'moron' went to Columbia, what college did you graduate from, > with what degree degrees? > > Too personal, but it was music, music education, with an emphasis on research. Then I took additional work in computing. My NYU degree, above a MA is in Organizational studies. BTW, Microsoft hires many music graduates because we are so good at abstract thought. And MRIs show we use more of our brains. >>Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. > > Another of your continuing self-attacks; why do you behave like an > idiot? > > Laurie > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > Thank you, this is a vegan group, lets take it back. > > 1:admit when we make mistakes. > =============== Ly number one! You have yet to do any such thing on ANY o your lys, hypocrite. > Point out personal insults. =============== You invite abuse with your ignorance and stupidity. To not oblige you would be rude of us, fool. > > I greatly respect our leaving Monsanto. Agent orange is > basically roundup, if Laurie, who worked for the company wants > to disagree, or someone can show he difference I will read and > respond to all reasonable replies. > ============== Not if you get caught telling lys by someone. Then you ignore them in hopes that your lys will somehow go away, right killer? > Laurie wrote: > >> "usual suspect" > wrote in message >> ... >> >> >>>And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing ... >> >> Showing off your brilliant intellect and impressive >> education, again? Don't you EVER get tired of shitting on >> yourself in public? >> What do you think you are gaining by being such an idiot? >> Power? Prestige? Respect? >> >> >>>... frozen solid year-round. >> >> Thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the large and >> rapid temperature change man has caused by misusing >> technology. Intelligent, educated people are concerned about >> the impact of industry on the well-being of the human species >> in the next few 10's to hundred years, but you do not care >> about humans, not being one. >> > He is ignoring short term environmental damage with an > antiquated comparison. Man made activity is raising the level > of global warming. > Scientists, with a vested interest rarely disagree. > > Bush's cabinet member left over his anti-environmal activities. > The only excuse offered was she was no a left wing republicans. > The last I looked this is a nation for all people. That's quite > a statement. > > Just like Powell leaving because he won't be Bushes puppet. He > was highly credentialed and respected. Rise is simply from the > oil industry. > > Name a war we won since WW II other than Granada. Our former > friends now consider us the greatest danger to the world. I > think Al Qaeda is but America has lost all respect under Bush. >> >>>Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia >>>that day, moron? >> >> If the 'moron' went to Columbia, what college did you >> graduate from, with what degree degrees? >> >> > > Too personal, but it was music, music education, with an > emphasis on research. Then I took additional work in > computing. My NYU degree, above a MA is in Organizational > studies. BTW, Microsoft hires many music graduates because we > are so good at abstract thought. And MRIs show we use more of > our brains. >>>Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. >> > >> Another of your continuing self-attacks; why do you behave >> like an idiot? >> >> Laurie >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, this is a vegan group, lets take it back.
1 admit when we make mistakes. Point out personal insults. I greatly respect your leaving Monsanto. Agent orange is basically roundup, if Laurie, who worked for the company wants to disagree, or someone can show he difference I will read and respond to all reasonable replies. Laurie wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > >> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing ... > > > Showing off your brilliant intellect and impressive education, again? Don't you EVER get tired of shitting on yourself in public? > What do you think you are gaining by being such an idiot? Power? Prestige? Respect? > > >> ... frozen solid year-round. > > > Thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the large and rapid temperature change man has caused by misusing technology. Intelligent, educated people are concerned about the impact of industry on the well-being of the human species in the next few 10's to hundred years, but you do not care about humans, not being one. > He is ignoring short term environmental damage with an antiquated comparison. Man made activity is raising the level of global warming. Scientists, with a vested interest rarely disagree. Bush's cabinet member left over his anti-enviromental activities. The only excuse offered was she was no a left wing republicans. The last I looked this is a nation for all people. That's quite a statement. Just like Powell leaving because he won't be Bush's puppet. He was highly credentialed and respected. Rise is simply from the oil industry. Name a war we won since WW II other than Granada? Our former friends now consider us the greatest danger to the world. I think Al Qaeda is but America has lost all respect under Bush. Under his leadership militant Islamic terrorism has their best friend, while our manufacturing and jobs are going to China so his few backers can make more money. The top 1%. Clearly, China will rule the world. > >> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that day, moron? > > > If the 'moron' went to Columbia, what college did you graduate from, with what degree degrees? > > Too personal, but it was music, music education, with an emphasis on research. Then I took additional work in computing. My NYU degree, above a MA is in Organizational studies. BTW, Microsoft hires many music graduates because we are so good at abstract thought. And MRIs show we use more of our brains. Google MRI and Brains. >> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. > > > Another of your continuing self-attacks; why do you behave like an idiot? > > Laurie > Laurie wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > >>And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing ... > > Showing off your brilliant intellect and impressive education, again? > Don't you EVER get tired of shitting on yourself in public? > What do you think you are gaining by being such an idiot? Power? > Prestige? Respect? > > >>... frozen solid year-round. > > Thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the large and rapid temperature > change man has caused by misusing technology. Intelligent, educated people > are concerned about the impact of industry on the well-being of the human > species in the next few 10's to hundred years, but you do not care about > humans, not being one. > > >>Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that day, >>moron? > > If the 'moron' went to Columbia, what college did you graduate from, > with what degree degrees? > > >>Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. > > Another of your continuing self-attacks; why do you behave like an > idiot? > A personal attack. I gave clear evidence that there is are dramatic changes to our climate in a short period. He ignores them. > Laurie > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> Get it straight: I have it straight from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > Honda Civic 36 44 > Hybrid 48 46 Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) MPG (city) Hybrid:47 Regular:35 MPG (hwy) Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 MPG (combined) Hybrid:47 Regular:37 Annual Fuel Cost* Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 > I made some error. You make them repeatedly. If you had half a braincell, you'd give up already. > 2 mpg on highway driving. Try eight MPG better on the highway -- which is 20% more miles per gallon than the conventional version. Twenty-percent is not marginal; it's significant. > Much better in the city. Which is where most people drive their cars, dummy. > A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences. Let me see if I understand you (I don't relate well to retards, do forgive me). You're concerned that consumers will turn away from vehicles like the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a base price of about $20,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional counterpart and Ford Escape Hybrid which has a base price of under $30,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional counterpart for a limited-production luxury vehicle that has a price of $52,703 and you claim gets only marginally-better mileage than its conventionally-powered counterpart? Before you answer, let me straighten out your last lie about the Lexus hybrid. The conventional Lexus RX AWD gets 18/24 (city/hwy) MPG. The hybrid Lexus RX AWD gets 31/27 (city/hwy) MPG. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon...G03-245495.htm http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html That's *72%* better mileage in the city -- WHERE MOST PEOPLE DRIVE THEIR CARS DAY IN AND DAY OUT -- and 12.5% better on the highway. What a dope you are. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Slow Bob wrote:
>>>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >>>>> >>>>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >>>>> >>>>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. >>>>> >>>>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of >>>>> water during the summer. > > i clearly wrote recorded history. We all know about the ice ages this > is another problem ages. Ipse dixit. The span of time from the most recent Ice Age to now has been one of global warming. It is not a strange human-related phenomenon. >>>> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round. >>>> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that >>>> day, moron? >> >> HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO? >>>>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. >>>> >>>> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and >>>> immediate. >>> >>> Even if I were stupid, >> >> You are. You really are. > > which doesn't change my statement Of course it doesn't. You'll stick to your lies even after they've been shattered by overwhelming evidence. >>> which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with, >> >> Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that! > > It is a vegan group. Irrelevant. You're still appealing to popularity among a group of self-marginals. >>> just you trolls. >> >> Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you. > > It for vegans. Why can't you write in clear, complete sentences? >>> And if I were stupid, >> >> Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid. > > No Yes. You really, really *are* stupid, Boob. >>> and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real, >> >> Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown >> you polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject. > > The vast majority of global warming is from man made activities, Ipse dixit and unproven. > Show me a number of non republican scientists that disagree. That's a strange way of proving your own claim. I've already given you a link to a poll of scientists who disagree. They're not all Republicans, Boob, they just happen to see either a lack of evidence or too much conflicting evidence to accept the global warming theory as mindlessly as you have. >>> we are talking about flooding of coastal cities, >> >> Why the hell did you move to Tampa then? > > I don't lie in Tampa. I am looking at alternate. You're posting from the Tampa area. Why did you move to a coastal area where overpopulation is adversely affecting the environment? >>> famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually making it colder, >> >> Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the summer. > > Actually a simple look at the map show Great Britain for example near > Nova Scotia. It is a scientific projection by scientists. WTF is your point? All the global warming projections I've read about suggest the UK will be so warm that it'll become a prime wine region. >>> homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms. >> >> You left out alien abductions and increases in bigfoot sightings. > > That is stupid. That is sarcasm, you twit. > The . The what? >>> Many reputable scientists >> >> Ipse dixit. Reputable scientists don't make outlandish claims about >> the future. Activists do. >> >>> say this is the future, and man made greenhouse gasses are the >>> greatest cause of this. >> >> What have you done to reduce your own greenhouse gases, Slow Bob? HELLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? >>>>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. >>>> >>>> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than standard >>>> gasoline vehicles. >>> >>> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. Check >>> the stats. Prove me wrong. >> >> I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased fuel >> efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g., greenhouse >> gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. Established. Shit, you even make David Harrison appear reasonable. Do you know how difficult that is? >>>>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply >>>>> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher >>>>> performance. >>>> >>>> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think >>>> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. >>>> >>>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >>>> >>>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >>>> >>>> MPG (city) >>>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >>>> MPG (hwy) >>>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >>>> MPG (combined) >>>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >>>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >>>> >>>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very >>>> significant. >>>> >>>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>>> >>>>> Just a few facts. >>>> >>>> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. >> >> Established. FIRMLY established. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> Get it straight: > > > I have it straight from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ > >> Honda Civic 36 44 >> Hybrid 48 46 > > > Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) > > MPG (city) > Hybrid:47 Regular:35 > > MPG (hwy) > Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 > > MPG (combined) > Hybrid:47 Regular:37 > > Annual Fuel Cost* > Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 Still much less significant than is clearly possible. > >> I made some error. > > > You make them repeatedly. If you had half a braincell, you'd give up > already. > >> 2 mpg on highway driving. > > > Try eight MPG better on the highway -- which is 20% more miles per > gallon than the conventional version. Twenty-percent is not marginal; > it's significant. > >> Much better in the city. > > > Which is where most people drive their cars, dummy. > >> A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences. > > > Let me see if I understand you (I don't relate well to retards, do > forgive me). You're concerned that consumers will turn away from > vehicles like the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a base price of about > $20,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional > counterpart and Ford Escape Hybrid which has a base price of under > $30,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional > counterpart for a limited-production luxury vehicle that has a price of > $52,703 and you claim gets only marginally-better mileage than its > conventionally-powered counterpart? Compared with what could be done. > > Before you answer, let me straighten out your last lie about the Lexus > hybrid. > > The conventional Lexus RX AWD gets 18/24 (city/hwy) MPG. > The hybrid Lexus RX AWD gets 31/27 (city/hwy) MPG. The point is there are improvements with hybrid technology. But, they can be MUCH better. Cars can be made that get 60 or 70 mpg or much better. That's where we should be going. Get that through your insulting thick skull. > > http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon...G03-245495.htm > http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html > > That's *72%* better mileage in the city -- WHERE MOST PEOPLE DRIVE THEIR > CARS DAY IN AND DAY OUT -- and 12.5% better on the highway. > > What a dope you are. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Get it straight: >> >> I have it straight from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >> >>> Honda Civic 36 44 >>> Hybrid 48 46 >> >> Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) >> >> MPG (city) >> Hybrid:47 Regular:35 >> >> MPG (hwy) >> Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 >> >> MPG (combined) >> Hybrid:47 Regular:37 >> >> Annual Fuel Cost* >> Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 > > Still much less significant than is clearly possible. Possible using WHAT? And how do those hybrids compare to your car(s) in terms of mileage and emissions? >>> I made some error. >> >> You make them repeatedly. If you had half a braincell, you'd give up >> already. >> >>> 2 mpg on highway driving. >> >> Try eight MPG better on the highway -- which is 20% more miles per >> gallon than the conventional version. Twenty-percent is not marginal; >> it's significant. >> >>> Much better in the city. >> >> Which is where most people drive their cars, dummy. >> >>> A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences. >> >> Let me see if I understand you (I don't relate well to retards, do >> forgive me). You're concerned that consumers will turn away from >> vehicles like the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a base price of about >> $20,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional >> counterpart and Ford Escape Hybrid which has a base price of under >> $30,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional >> counterpart for a limited-production luxury vehicle that has a price >> of $52,703 and you claim gets only marginally-better mileage than its >> conventionally-powered counterpart? > > Compared with what could be done. Such as...? >> Before you answer, let me straighten out your last lie about the Lexus >> hybrid. >> >> The conventional Lexus RX AWD gets 18/24 (city/hwy) MPG. >> The hybrid Lexus RX AWD gets 31/27 (city/hwy) MPG. > > The point is there are improvements with hybrid technology. But, they > can be MUCH better. Like what...? > Cars can be made that get 60 or 70 mpg or much > better. How? And why not use hybrids like the Prius and Insight which get nearly that much with reduced emissions until technology gets us to 70+ MPG? The next most efficient vehicles I know of are VW TDI models, but diesel engines aren't exactly environmentally-friendly (though, to the credit of the manufacturers, diesel engines are much cleaner than they were even a few years ago). > That's where we should be going. How can we get there, dumb ass? > Get that through your insulting thick skull. Increases in mileage in the 20-72% range and reductions of up to half of emissions over the same conventionally-powered models are pretty decent, yet you continue to whine and say that hybrids are overrated. I've again shown you to be wrong on every point you've made, and you still have the audacity to say that I'm the one with a thick skull. Thick or not, at least my skull has a working brain in it. What's your excuse, ****? >> http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon...G03-245495.htm >> http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html >> >> That's *72%* better mileage in the city -- WHERE MOST PEOPLE DRIVE >> THEIR CARS DAY IN AND DAY OUT -- and 12.5% better on the highway. >> >> What a dope you are. Very firmly established. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Slow Bob wrote: > >>>>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. New York Times Leads in Global Warming Nonsense By Brian Carnell Wednesday, July 10, 2002 The New York Times ran an editorial today praising the California legislature for passing a bill that sets strict CO2 emissions standards for automakers. Typically, while it slams the Bush administration for ignoring global warming science, it repeats an outright falsehood about temperature increases in Alaska. According to The Times, Then came a more narrowly focused but equally disturbing report by The Times's Timothy Egan about Alaska, where an astonishing seven-degree increase in average temperatures over 30 years has led to melting permafrost, sagging roads, dying forests, unexpected forest fires and disruption of marine life. Even Ted Stevens, the influential Republican senator from Alaska who usually has little patience with environmentalists, is openly alarmed about global warming's potential cost to his home state, which could run into the billions of dollars, and is privately even more alarmed by Washington's indifference. >>>>>> >>>>>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas >>>>>> of water during the summer. >> >> >> i clearly wrote recorded history. We all know about the ice ages this >> is another problem ages. > > > Ipse dixit. The span of time from the most recent Ice Age to now has > been one of global warming. It is not a strange human-related phenomenon. > >>>>> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round. >>>>> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that >>>>> day, moron? >>> >>> >>> HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? > > > HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO? > >>>>>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. We are not talking about long term climatic change. We are tallking about human caused global warming. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and >>>>> immediate. >>>> >>>> >>>> Even if I were stupid, >>> >>> >>> You are. You really are. >> Your opinon doesn't change facts. >> >> which doesn't change my statement > > > Of course it doesn't. You'll stick to your lies even after they've been > shattered by overwhelming evidence. > >>>> which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with, >>> >>> >>> Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that! >> >> >> It is a vegan group. > > > Irrelevant. You're still appealing to popularity among a group of > self-marginals. > Not at all. It is a vegan community. Not one objected to my posting of Dr. Greger's newsletter. You are not the king. Other's thanked me for posting it. >>>> just you trolls. >>> >>> >>> Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you. >> >> >> It for vegans. > > > Why can't you write in clear, complete sentences? > >>>> And if I were stupid, >>> >>> >>> Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid. >> >> >> No > > > Yes. You really, really *are* stupid, Boob. > >>>> and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real, >>> >>> >>> Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown >>> you polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject. >> >> >> The vast majority of global warming is from man made activities, > > > Ipse dixit and unproven. > >> Show me a number of non republican scientists that disagree. > > > That's a strange way of proving your own claim. I've already given you a > link to a poll of scientists who disagree. They're not all Republicans, > Boob, they just happen to see either a lack of evidence or too much > conflicting evidence to accept the global warming theory as mindlessly > as you have. > >>>> we are talking about flooding of coastal cities, >>> >>> >>> Why the hell did you move to Tampa then? >> I've already told you I don't live in Tampa. Road Runner services a wide area. >> >> I don't lie in Tampa. I am looking at alternate. > Yes, over the long run I am looking at alternative places in the world to survive climatic or economic change. When you farm all your manufacturing to China (and will soon demand more oil than the US) and much technical work to India (we've all called tech wupport and not understood a word), I question the US's economic future. Soon China will have much more influence in the middle east than the US as they will be a much larger consumer, not to mention a much larger army. > Also, the US is no longer the leader in R&D. For example the future versions of Microsoft and Oracle are being made in Israel. Similarly, much medical innovation is being done overseas, and little Israel, surrounded by hostile Arab nations is outproducing the US in many areas of R&D. For example, that is why Christopher Reves gave huge money to their Stem Cell research projects, where the US is way behind. Israel for example recently released "Photography" in a pill which can examine the gastro track. The largest generic pharmacutical company in Israel, just purchased the largest in the US. All while being surrounded by hostile nations and having a tiny percertage of the world's population and taking in refugees from other nations and subsidizing them. I question the US as a future leader when we do not lead in science, R&D, will lose influence in the Middle East and are no longer the manufacturing capital of the world. > You're posting from the Tampa area. Why did you move to a coastal area > where overpopulation is adversely affecting the environment? > >>>> famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually making it >>>> colder, >>> Let me in on ONE projected model of accellerated global warming, which you question but by no means have disproven. Melting of polar caps will alter the Carribian currents that warm Great Britain. Thus Great Britain's climate will no longer be moderated and warmed by currents from the Carribian and their termperature will drop to the latitude expected at that location. This is a model, it is not proven but it is based on solid science. http://www.met-office.gov.uk/corpora...20040430a.html Is an official publication by the British government. Since you are so limited, here's another reference http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LOG3.php >>> >>> Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the summer. >> >> >> Actually a simple look at the map show Great Britain for example near >> Nova Scotia. It is a scientific projection by scientists. > > > WTF is your point? All the global warming projections I've read about > suggest the UK will be so warm that it'll become a prime wine region. That's another possibility. Less of a possibility according NON politically associated climatologists. Perhaps you don't understand the greenhouse effect? You're blathering against it suggests that. > >>>> homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms. There are already homes collapsing in Alaska, read the freaking news as the permafrost is melting. And we already are having more violent storms. >>> >>> >>> You left out alien abductions and increases in bigfoot sightings. >> >> >> That is stupid. > > > That is sarcasm, you twit. > >> The . > > > The what? > >>>> Many reputable scientists >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit. Reputable scientists don't make outlandish claims about >>> the future. Activists do. >>> >>>> say this is the future, and man made greenhouse gasses are the >>>> greatest cause of this. >>> >>> >>> What have you done to reduce your own greenhouse gases, Slow Bob? > Personally. I use a bike when possible. Avoid unnecessary car trips. Telecommute. Use energy rated appliances. And eat a vegan diet which requires less fossile fuels. I avoid disposable products and recycle. AS the Union of Concerned Scientists say, a vegan lifestyle reduces greenhouse immissions. OK, for some "wacky scientific projections" let's start with MIT's American Meterological Society, composed of the best climatologists. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/6/R02 British Scientists http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1412 (The meterological society of the University of Washington http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/...e=071&page=288 http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2...le-vkt-hgf-t4c FEATURES Global Warming: A Perspective from Earth History University of Leicester geologist Jan Zalasiewicz heads a group of eminent geologists which has just published a paper in The Guardian outlining its belief that the world is under serious threat of environmental destruction. Global warming: A Perspective from Earth History [A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, first published in The Guardian] > HELLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? > >>>>>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than >>>>> standard gasoline vehicles. >>>> >>>> >>>> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. >>>> Check the stats. Prove me wrong. >>> >>> >>> I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased >>> fuel efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g., >>> greenhouse gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. > > > Established. Shit, you even make David Harrison appear reasonable. Do > you know how difficult that is? > >>>>>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply >>>>>> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher >>>>>> performance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think >>>>> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. >>>>> >>>>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >>>>> >>>>> MPG (city) >>>>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >>>>> MPG (hwy) >>>>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >>>>> MPG (combined) >>>>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >>>>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>>>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >>>>> >>>>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very >>>>> significant. >>>>> >>>>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>>>> >>>>>> Just a few facts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. >>> >>> >>> Established. > > > FIRMLY established. To be fair, something you're not, I decided to also search global warming nonsense. Here's typical of the findings. August 2, 2002, 8:45 a.m. Global-Warming Nonsense An economics journal publishes junk. By Paul Georgia tephen Schneider, the Stanford biologist turned climate scientist, has apparently become an economist too. According to his calculations, saving the planet from global warming will cost virtually nothing. The Bush administration's statements to the contrary are "fallacious" and nothing more than "wild rhetoric." Schneider, a veteran of the climate-change wars (he predicted in the 1970s that industrial emissions would usher in the next ice age), claims in an analysis that appears in the August issue of Ecological Economics, that in a hundred years the world will be ten times richer than it is now and that people on average will be five times richer. Putting the estimated costs of global warming policies in "proper context," says Schneider, leads to a stunning conclusion: the trillions of dollars that would be spent to stop global warming would only delay such a wonderful state of affairs by a mere two years. Schneider's argument leaves one gasping at its sheer audacity. Not only does it miss the point entirely, its callousness exceeds even the coldest cost-benefit analysis. It isn't the vastly wealthier generations of people living 100 years from now that opponents of energy suppression policies are concerned about, but those who are living now and especially the poor. As noted by Oxford Economist Wilfred Beckerman in 1997, just after the Kyoto Protocol was born, "it makes no sense to impose heavy burdens on today's generation in order to raise the welfare of people alive in 100 years" who will be significantly wealthier, and far less likely to be affected by the vicissitudes of climate than we are today. Indeed, it is downright immoral to ask today's poor to distribute wealth to the relatively more well-off people of the future. Not only is the argument morally bankrupt, but the underlying economic analysis is completely invalid. What distinguishes good economic analysis from junk is the comparison of marginal costs to marginal benefits — the cost of reducing one more unit of greenhouse gas versus the benefits — rather than total costs to benefits. As noted by Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, "The problem with Kyoto-type emission reduction plans is that the marginal costs rise exponentially and the benefits, if there even are any, rise linearly. So no matter which angle you look at it carbon dioxide restrictions on even a modest scale use up more social resources than any benefits they generate." Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, makes the same argument in simpler terms. He notes that the worldwide cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be about $350 billion per year beginning in 2010. Beginning in 2050, the cost rises to $900 billion per year. The cost of predicted global warming, if climate models are to be believed, would be about $900 billion in 2100. But even if fully implemented, Kyoto would only delay the predicted amount of warming by a mere six years. So what does this mean? It means that the world will spend thousands of billions of dollars over the next 100 years to prevent global warming, at the end of which it would have to pay the costs of global warming anyway, if it materializes. Kyoto is like trading dollars for pennies and would have about as much affect on the climate. An economic analysis by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration makes this calculus even starker. It estimates that the cost of Kyoto to the U.S. alone would be about $300 billion per year. The resulting loss of GDP over the next ten years, about 28 percent, would be nearly triple the loss to GDP experienced during the Great Depression, which saw a drop in GDP of about 10 percent. There is little doubt that the Kyoto Protocol, or the domestic equivalents being considered in Congress, would cause deep and broad based economic harm in the U.S. and the world as a whole. One has to wonder how such dreadful economic reasoning as Schneider's made its way into a so-called economics journal. It turns out that Schneider's co-author, Christian Azar, professor of sustainable industrial metabolism at Goteberg University, is on the editorial board of Ecological Economics, a bottom-rung economics journal. If Schneider and Azar had tried to publish this paper in a real journal, it would have never seen the light of day. Instead, it will become yet another weapon in the environmentalist arsenal to hoodwink Americans into thinking that energy rationing is good for them. But like most of their claims, this one is also based on smoke and mirrors. — Paul Georgia is an environmental-policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Slow Bob wrote:
>>>>>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc. > > New York Times Leads in Global Warming Nonsense Yes, they're full of hot air. See Jayson Blair. See Howell Raines. <...> >>>>>>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas >>>>>>> of water during the summer. >>> >>> >>> >>> i clearly wrote recorded history. We all know about the ice ages >>> this is another problem ages. >> >> >> >> Ipse dixit. The span of time from the most recent Ice Age to now has >> been one of global warming. It is not a strange human-related phenomenon. >> >>>>>> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid >>>>>> year-round. Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at >>>>>> Columbia that day, moron? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO? >> >> >> >> HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO? >> >>>>>>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous. > > We are not talking about long term climatic change. Yes, we are. > We are tallking > about human caused global warming. Ipse dixit, UNproven. >>>>>> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and >>>>>> immediate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even if I were stupid, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You are. You really are. >>> >>> > > Your opinon doesn't change facts. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. You're very stupid. >>> which doesn't change my statement >> >> >> >> Of course it doesn't. You'll stick to your lies even after they've >> been shattered by overwhelming evidence. >> >>>>> which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that! >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a vegan group. >> >> >> >> Irrelevant. You're still appealing to popularity among a group of >> self-marginals. > > Not at all. You're appealing to popularity, and the population whom you're considering are self-marginals. > It is a vegan community. A group of self-marginals. Vegans are far (self-)removed from the mainstream. >>>>> just you trolls. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you. >>> >>> >>> >>> It for vegans. >> >> >> >> Why can't you write in clear, complete sentences? >> >>>>> And if I were stupid, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid. >>> >>> >>> >>> No >> >> >> >> Yes. You really, really *are* stupid, Boob. >> >>>>> and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown >>>> you polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject. >>> >>> >>> >>> The vast majority of global warming is from man made activities, >> >> >> >> Ipse dixit and unproven. >> >>> Show me a number of non republican scientists that disagree. >> >> >> >> That's a strange way of proving your own claim. I've already given you >> a link to a poll of scientists who disagree. They're not all >> Republicans, Boob, they just happen to see either a lack of evidence >> or too much conflicting evidence to accept the global warming theory >> as mindlessly as you have. >> >>>>> we are talking about flooding of coastal cities, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why the hell did you move to Tampa then? >>> >>> > > I've already told you I don't live in Tampa. Road Runner services a > wide area. > >>> >>> I don't lie in Tampa. I am looking at alternate. > > Yes, over the long run I am looking at alternative places in the world > to survive climatic or economic change. In the meantime, you've relocated to an area under severe ecological stress from the rapidly increasing number of people living there. You don't have enough fresh water to sustain the massive population there so people are turning to desalination, which will increase the salinity along the Gulf Coast and cause further ecological harm. You create more pollution along that coastal bend than the Gulf can handle. Your power demands are increasing dramatically, causing more plants to be built; the emissions from them blows north and west with the prevailing winds and pollutes areas far away. > When you farm all your > manufacturing to China (and will soon demand more oil than the US) and > much technical work to India (we've all called tech wupport and not > understood a word), I question the US's economic future. Good, then move to China or India and enjoy the fresh air and economic prosperity. > Soon China > will have much more influence in the middle east than the US as they > will be a much larger consumer, not to mention a much larger army. We can do a lot more with our smaller army than they can do with their larger one. > Also, the US is no longer the leader in R&D. Bullshit. > For example the future > versions of Microsoft and Oracle are being made in Israel. Similarly, > much medical innovation is being done overseas, and little Israel, > surrounded by hostile Arab nations is outproducing the US in many areas > of R&D. For example, that is why Christopher Reves gave huge money to > their Stem Cell research projects, where the US is way behind. You have it wrong again. Researchers operating in the US have had to operate under tighter regulation. Reeve donated money outside the US for stem cell research because reserachers in other countries have more stem cell lines to work with. Dumb ass. >>>> Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the >>>> summer. >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually a simple look at the map show Great Britain for example near >>> Nova Scotia. It is a scientific projection by scientists. >> >> >> >> WTF is your point? All the global warming projections I've read about >> suggest the UK will be so warm that it'll become a prime wine region. > > > That's another possibility. Make up your braincell, twit. > Less of a possibility according NON > politically associated climatologists. Ipse dixit. One of the sites you linked to (ISIS) belongs to a political activist group, not to a climatology society. > AS the Union of Concerned Scientists say, a vegan lifestyle reduces > greenhouse immissions. They don't say that. http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search >>>>>>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than >>>>>> standard gasoline vehicles. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. >>>>> Check the stats. Prove me wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased >>>> fuel efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g., >>>> greenhouse gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. >> >> >> >> Established. Shit, you even make David Harrison appear reasonable. Do >> you know how difficult that is? >> >>>>>>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest >>>>>>> simply reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce >>>>>>> higher performance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think >>>>>> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats. >>>>>> >>>>>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto >>>>>> >>>>>> MPG (city) >>>>>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22 >>>>>> MPG (hwy) >>>>>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25 >>>>>> MPG (combined) >>>>>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23 >>>>>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>>>>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494 >>>>>> >>>>>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very >>>>>> significant. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy: >>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a few facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Established. >> >> >> >> FIRMLY established. > > > To be fair, You're a bumbling twit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Recently I read that they could have built hybrids more like the Prios
(look up the disappointing results in google). Which would have meant lower power, lower acceleration, but MUCH better fuel efficiency. To better appeal to the US market much more modest implementations have been made. It is a simple point to understand. Than there are the MPG regulations that Clinton /Gore had made, which exceed the current results. That was one of the first things Bush rescinded. It would have challenged Detroit to produce much more efficient, competitive cars. Now Detroit Car Bonds have reached junk bond status. You ignore the scientific references I pull out, even from well respected institutions of climactic change from MIT. You ignore the FAST climactic change going on in Alaska that even has the Republican governor concerned as it will create a calamity in his state. But all that you ignore. I guess MIT is not respected enough for you. You stated the models of Great Britain freezing unfounded, and I found 3 professional references, which you ignore. Instead you simply continue to insult. usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>> Get it straight: >>> >>> >>> I have it straight from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>> >>>> Honda Civic 36 44 >>>> Hybrid 48 46 >>> >>> >>> Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) >>> >>> MPG (city) >>> Hybrid:47 Regular:35 >>> >>> MPG (hwy) >>> Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 >>> >>> MPG (combined) >>> Hybrid:47 Regular:37 >>> >>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>> Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 >> >> >> Still much less significant than is clearly possible. > > > Possible using WHAT? And how do those hybrids compare to your car(s) in > terms of mileage and emissions? > >>>> I made some error. >>> >>> >>> You make them repeatedly. If you had half a braincell, you'd give up >>> already. >>> >>>> 2 mpg on highway driving. >>> >>> >>> Try eight MPG better on the highway -- which is 20% more miles per >>> gallon than the conventional version. Twenty-percent is not marginal; >>> it's significant. >>> >>>> Much better in the city. >>> >>> >>> Which is where most people drive their cars, dummy. >>> >>>> A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences. >>> >>> >>> Let me see if I understand you (I don't relate well to retards, do >>> forgive me). You're concerned that consumers will turn away from >>> vehicles like the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a base price of about >>> $20,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional >>> counterpart and Ford Escape Hybrid which has a base price of under >>> $30,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional >>> counterpart for a limited-production luxury vehicle that has a price >>> of $52,703 and you claim gets only marginally-better mileage than its >>> conventionally-powered counterpart? >> >> >> Compared with what could be done. > > > Such as...? > >>> Before you answer, let me straighten out your last lie about the >>> Lexus hybrid. >>> >>> The conventional Lexus RX AWD gets 18/24 (city/hwy) MPG. >>> The hybrid Lexus RX AWD gets 31/27 (city/hwy) MPG. >> >> >> The point is there are improvements with hybrid technology. But, they >> can be MUCH better. > > > Like what...? > >> Cars can be made that get 60 or 70 mpg or much better. > > > How? And why not use hybrids like the Prius and Insight which get nearly > that much with reduced emissions until technology gets us to 70+ MPG? > The next most efficient vehicles I know of are VW TDI models, but diesel > engines aren't exactly environmentally-friendly (though, to the credit > of the manufacturers, diesel engines are much cleaner than they were > even a few years ago). > >> That's where we should be going. > > > How can we get there, dumb ass? > >> Get that through your insulting thick skull. > > > Increases in mileage in the 20-72% range and reductions of up to half of > emissions over the same conventionally-powered models are pretty decent, > yet you continue to whine and say that hybrids are overrated. I've again > shown you to be wrong on every point you've made, and you still have the > audacity to say that I'm the one with a thick skull. Thick or not, at > least my skull has a working brain in it. What's your excuse, ****? > >>> http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon...G03-245495.htm >>> http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html >>> >>> That's *72%* better mileage in the city -- WHERE MOST PEOPLE DRIVE >>> THEIR CARS DAY IN AND DAY OUT -- and 12.5% better on the highway. >>> >>> What a dope you are. > > > Very firmly established. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > snip... > > Instead you simply continue to insult. > ============== And you continue to ly without any admissions of your stupidity and ignorane.... snip... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> Recently I read that they could have built hybrids more like the Prios P-r-i-u-s, you dope. > (look up the disappointing results in google). Google doesn't offer car surveys, just many links to websites with them. Many of the consumer reviews I've read have been quite kind; some of the professional reviews have been overly critical, as if a gas-electric hybrid should be compared to other (usually performance-oriented) compacts. Everyone has different tastes, and those who write for car magazines have certain expectations for how every car should perform. I know several people who own a Prius, including a couple who each own one, who are all quite pleased with them. > Which would have meant lower power, lower acceleration, Performance matters as much as luxury to people forking over twice as much as Prius buyers will. Again, different strokes for different folks. I won't begrudge those who buy a Lexus RX hybrid instead of a Prius or Escape Hybrid simply because their vehicle of choice doesn't get as many miles per gallon; they're still improving their mileage over the conventional RX model and decreasing emissions. > but MUCH better fuel efficiency. Your underlying argument is despicable because you're such an authoritarian you not only presume to know what's best for everyone but would force it upon everyone. Not everyone has the same tastes or budgets for their vehicles or for the operating costs related to them. I've already shown you to be in error regarding your claims of hybrid mileage. Even with the luxury models, hybrids get significant improvements in mileage (particularly driving in the city, where most driving occurs) and emissions. > To better appeal to the US market much more modest > implementations have been made. The "implementations" are called choices, you dumb ass. If you're not so wealthy and want the most mileage and find the Prius comfortable enough, choose it. If you have a few more bucks to spend and want some luxury and performance, choose the Lexus. President Bush isn't dictating that anyone buys hybrid or conventional vehicles, nor is he directing car companies to making modest "implementations," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. > It is a simple point to understand. Then why haven't you comprehended it yet, dummy? > Than Then. > there are the MPG regulations that Clinton /Gore had made, The Clinton administration didn't make any regulations. Only Congress can make such regulations. They only proposed raising corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. They couldn't even get their proposals through the pre-1995 Democrat-controlled Congress. > which exceed the current results. The biggest hurdle for you authoritarian zealots is consumer demand, and historically it's been an overwhelming obstacle for people like you to overcome. The most popular vehicles during the 1990s were large SUVs and full-size trucks. Consumers, historically speaking, have only bought smaller, more fuel-efficient cars during times of high fuel costs. That's the primary, if not only, reason for the spike in sales of smaller car sales right now. > That was one of the first things Bush > rescinded. Liar. Twit. No US president can rescind laws by fiat without provoking a Constitutional crisis. President Bush differs with the previous administration over CAFE standards, choosing instead to promote changes in consumer demand rather than forcing suppliers to create vehicles people don't want. > It would have challenged Detroit to produce much more > efficient, competitive cars. Demand drives supply, you moron. One of the solutions from the Bush administration has included tax credits for hybrids and other alternatively-fueled vehicles, as well as incentives to manufacturers to create and make new technologies more affordable. Between the credits and rebates for hybrids and the surge in fuel prices, sales of hybrids and other more fuel-efficient vehicles have increased. But it's been because consumers demand them, not because the government is forcing companies to provide cars people don't want. > Now Detroit Car Bonds have reached junk bond status. Non sequitur. Car companies are in deep shit because of liabilities related to their union agreements. You should be blaming the ****ing socialists at the UAW for the financial turmoil -- due to increasing health care and pension costs -- at the car companies. "It's really a tragedy is what it is. GM and Ford's managers have for too long avoided butting heads with the union and making tough decisions. The center of the auto industry has begun moving away from Detroit." http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/cuts6e_20050506.htm > You ignore the scientific references I pull out, Because you're pulling them out of your ass. > even from well > respected institutions of climactic change from MIT. Appealing to authority, as you're wont to do. Just because someone is from MIT doesn't mean he is authoritative on the subject. Remember, MIT tenured the loony Marxist Noam Chomsky. Still, consider the following I read today in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=4221504 > You ignore the FAST climactic change going on in Alaska No, I don't. I just disagree with you that the Alaskan climate ever reached a state of homeostasis sometime between the Ice Age and 1955. > that even has the Republican governor concerned Murkowski's "concerns" have a lot more to do with wanting more pork and not being in a position to bring it back home now that he's out of the Senate and his daughter has no seniority to effect porky policy. > as it will create a calamity in his state. No, it will not. Historically, these are not the hottest periods that region has ever known. Alaska has been peopled for at least 12,000 years. Within the last 12 millennia, there have been plenty of periods when it was warmer than today, and the culture flourished. Apparently it was too much effort for the Alaska senators' staffers to consult relevant articles in the refereed scientific literature. The most important is a landmark study, "Holocene [post ice-age] thermal maximum in the western Arctic," published last year by 30 eminent scientists whose specialty is past climate. It appeared in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews. The article notes that Alaska averaged three degrees Fahrenheit warmer for 2000 years, from 9,000 to 11,000 years ago. Concurrently, the first civilization radiated forward. There's another article on Alaskan climate history for the last 2000 years, published by Feng Sheng Hu in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It notes that there have been three similarly warm periods in Alaska, from A.D. 0 to 300, 850-1200, and 1800 to present. (Note that humans had no influence on global temperature 200 years ago). And what of the present? Brian Hartman and Gerd Wendler, of the Alaska-taxpayer-funded Alaska Climate Research Center, have written extensively on this subject. They are particularly interested in something called the "Great Pacific Climate Shift," a sudden and dramatic warming that occurred in a one-year period around 1976. Here's what they have written: When analyzing the total time period from 1951-2001, warming is observed, however the 25-year trend analyses before 1976 (1951-1975) and thereafter (1977-2001) both display cooling. That's right. The mean Alaskan temperature has been declining for the last quarter-century. All of the warming is determined by a one-year, mysterious "burp" in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean. Is that due to human activity? Search the scientific literature for a computer model of human influence on climate that says it occurs all at once, in a single year. You won't find one reference. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7947 > But all that you ignore. No, I take a hard look at what both sides are saying. I dismiss the blather from the activists you tend to quote. > I guess MIT is not respected enough for you. Appealing to authority again. It depends which MIT person is behind it. > You stated the models of Great Britain freezing unfounded, They're MODELS, models based on the biases of those who design them. > and I found 3 professional references, which you ignore. Read the Economist article, read the rest of the Spectator column, and then go **** yourself. > Instead you simply continue to insult. And rightfully so. You ****. Admit you were wrong about hybrids and their mileage. > usual suspect wrote: > >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>>>> Get it straight: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have it straight from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>>> >>>>> Honda Civic 36 44 >>>>> Hybrid 48 46 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto) >>>> >>>> MPG (city) >>>> Hybrid:47 Regular:35 >>>> >>>> MPG (hwy) >>>> Hybrid:48 Regular: 40 >>>> >>>> MPG (combined) >>>> Hybrid:47 Regular:37 >>>> >>>> Annual Fuel Cost* >>>> Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927 >>> >>> >>> >>> Still much less significant than is clearly possible. >> >> >> >> Possible using WHAT? And how do those hybrids compare to your car(s) >> in terms of mileage and emissions? >> >>>>> I made some error. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You make them repeatedly. If you had half a braincell, you'd give up >>>> already. >>>> >>>>> 2 mpg on highway driving. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Try eight MPG better on the highway -- which is 20% more miles per >>>> gallon than the conventional version. Twenty-percent is not >>>> marginal; it's significant. >>>> >>>>> Much better in the city. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Which is where most people drive their cars, dummy. >>>> >>>>> A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me see if I understand you (I don't relate well to retards, do >>>> forgive me). You're concerned that consumers will turn away from >>>> vehicles like the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a base price of about >>>> $20,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional >>>> counterpart and Ford Escape Hybrid which has a base price of under >>>> $30,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional >>>> counterpart for a limited-production luxury vehicle that has a price >>>> of $52,703 and you claim gets only marginally-better mileage than >>>> its conventionally-powered counterpart? >>> >>> >>> >>> Compared with what could be done. >> >> >> >> Such as...? >> >>>> Before you answer, let me straighten out your last lie about the >>>> Lexus hybrid. >>>> >>>> The conventional Lexus RX AWD gets 18/24 (city/hwy) MPG. >>>> The hybrid Lexus RX AWD gets 31/27 (city/hwy) MPG. >>> >>> >>> >>> The point is there are improvements with hybrid technology. But, they >>> can be MUCH better. >> >> >> >> Like what...? >> >>> Cars can be made that get 60 or 70 mpg or much better. >> >> >> >> How? And why not use hybrids like the Prius and Insight which get >> nearly that much with reduced emissions until technology gets us to >> 70+ MPG? The next most efficient vehicles I know of are VW TDI models, >> but diesel engines aren't exactly environmentally-friendly (though, to >> the credit of the manufacturers, diesel engines are much cleaner than >> they were even a few years ago). >> >>> That's where we should be going. >> >> >> >> How can we get there, dumb ass? >> >>> Get that through your insulting thick skull. >> >> >> >> Increases in mileage in the 20-72% range and reductions of up to half >> of emissions over the same conventionally-powered models are pretty >> decent, yet you continue to whine and say that hybrids are overrated. >> I've again shown you to be wrong on every point you've made, and you >> still have the audacity to say that I'm the one with a thick skull. >> Thick or not, at least my skull has a working brain in it. What's your >> excuse, ****? >> >>>> http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon...G03-245495.htm >>>> http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html >>>> >>>> That's *72%* better mileage in the city -- WHERE MOST PEOPLE DRIVE >>>> THEIR CARS DAY IN AND DAY OUT -- and 12.5% better on the highway. >>>> >>>> What a dope you are. >> >> >> >> Very firmly established. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
| Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
| Global warming. | General Cooking | |||
| Global Warming and what you can do to against it | General Cooking | |||
| Global Warming | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
