Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Canyonero!

Yahh!

Large cars make small people feel good about themselves.

Cycloptichorn

Whats with the class envy thing here with all the libs? I don't drive a large car, but I don't have a problem with people that do.

If you want to play the envy game, the hollywood libs are probably the biggest wasters on the planet, with the biggest houses, the most cars, and take jetsetting vacations all the time. And whats a bigger waste of energy than production of movies for crying out loud, for what, to make them richer? And they are the ones screaming the loudest about global warming. Same with Al Gore. If he really believed his own movie or whatever it is, he'd go live in a cave.

Tough argument to prove, that Hollywood libs thing. Of course, it really isn't an argument at all, just a cliche (again, like "blondes have more fun"). But I suppose you could do some sort of objective survey of the auto thing. I recommend you begin with Arnold and his Hummer and Larry David (Curb Your Enthusiasm, creator of Seinfeld) and his Prius and work from there.

For house size, you could find the average square footage of all actors working in Hollywood and compare with all Republican politicians working in DC. Cheney has, I understand, a fullsome bungalo. I don't think you'd be happy with this comparison either.

But the small car/big car thing isn't about class (other than as it might be for people who feel they need to own a big car for reasons of fashion and as possible suggestion there's a correlation with dick size. This is a particularly American phenomenon (Canada less so, but we too are worse than the Europeans).

It really is about waste and inefficiencies. And, of course, about profits.

0 Replies

cyclo

Thanks! What a wonderful satire that ad is. I thought Groenig failed with Futurama (failed compared to the simpsons, that is - but little matches the genius of that show). And I think he failed because what he does so well is satire of contemporary American culture. By setting the newer show in the future, he took away the fundamental referent of what he had been satirizing. That led to the need to add in awkward devices such as the 20th century heads in jars.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder what lawmakers in Canada and Europe are driving?

My state lawmakers drive a 1998 VW Golf (Social Democrat) and a Diesel Mercedes (Conservative). The liberal lawmaker drives a big Mercedes (comes from a wealthy family, got a wife from bigger private industry).

The federal MP (Social Democrat) a bicycle, he doesn't own a car. (His wife has a medium sized Opel [Vauxhall], which he sometimes has to use in his constituence if he doesn't find someone to give him a lift.)
The conservative MP, farmer, drives a Mercedes D - like farmers here do.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The liberal lawmaker drives a big Mercedes (comes from a wealthy family, got a wife from bigger private industry).

Just a quick reminder for our American friends: "liberal" in Europe means "moderately libertarian" in America. So don't think Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold when Walter says "liberal". Instead, think Goldwater, Reagan, and Schwarzenegger, minus any advocacy for gun rights. I thought I'd inject that before some of our readers take Walter's description to confirm their prejudice that liberals are really elitists masquerading as egalitarians.

0 Replies

I love the argument that you don't have an "open mind" unless you completely ignore all the evidence.

It makes me wonder how some people manage to function at all in life.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I love the argument that you don't have an "open mind" unless you completely ignore all the evidence.

It makes me wonder how some people manage to function at all in life.

I agree completely. There may be somebody weeks ago who did, but certainly nobody on the "let's wait and see" group has done that in recent weeks or months. The only ones refusing to look at all the evidence are you and a few others. So why do you do that?

What Okie, Minitax, I, and others have said persistently and frequently is that we should look at ALL the evidence and not just the evidence that you have decided to sign on to.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
And whats a bigger waste of energy than production of movies for crying out loud, for what, to make them richer?

Who would have guessed? Okie is a Stalinist!

He must be, for if he were a capitalist he would never waste his time asking why anyone in an industry would want to continue to make money and expand that industry. If Okie were a believer in the free market system, he would unabashedly say, as Lous Ruykeyser was so happy to repeat, that greed is a good thing, since it causes people to hire other people to help them make the money.

If Okie were a believer in the free market, he would NEVER complain about people using their energy "to make them[selves] richer". He would applaud them for doing so!!

You don't get it. I am not condemning Hollywooders for their big cars and big houses, or getting rich. I am condemning them for their hypocrisy. Many of the libs are the biggest wasters and the biggest environmentalists. Al Gore is another example of a hypocrit. I could chronicle his wastefulness if I wanted to take the time, but it is he that is complaining about the dire consequences of man-caused global warming, not me, so it seems it would be incumbent on him to do something about it and cut down his wasteful lifestyle. Simple common sense reasoning is all this is, if you can grasp it. Try to think real hard and maybe you can get it, keltic and all the others here of like mind.

And keltic, has it ever occurred to you that their are lots more choices concerning waste of energy than a car? I wonder how wasteful the $600,000 house is that you speak of?

And as I've said before, I will illustrate a point with an imaginary scenario, but one that applies to some degree to every person, it is more wasteful to commute 1 hour to work on buses and trains that it is to drive a hummer to work that is 1 mile away. In the first case, the person chooses to live a long way away from work and not own a SUV and in the second case, the person chooses to own the SUV but live very close to work. You cannot judge the energy awareness of a person solely upon what he or she drives. It is based on all of their lifestyle choices.

0 Replies

Okie writes

Quote:

it is he complaining about the dire consequences of man-caused global warming, not me, so it seems it would be incumbent on him to do something about it. Simple common sense reasoning is all this is, if you can grasp it.

This is the thing isn't it? I don't believe a single signatory to the Kyoto Accord has accomplished or even nearly accomplished their assigned goals to reduce greenhouse emissions, yet they insist that the U.S. do so. Not one is willing to do what is necessary to eliminate human generated greenhouse gas emissions (nor should they), but condemn those who won't agree to do what apparently is not reasonable to do. Further some of the world's worst culprits in greenhouse gas emissions are exempted from the plan at all.

However, should it be determined that elimination of human generated greenhouse gasses is necessary, I am never one to say that something can't be done just because nobody has every done it. I think humankind will solve the problem just as they have solved many other seemingly insurmountable problems in the past. But it would go a long way to working together to move in the right direction if there was more acknowledgment of the present realities and a lot less hypocrisy by those who don't seem to want to acknowledge them.

(P.S., the other component in the bus vs hummer analogy, if that hummer is hauling six folks to work every morning, even at some distance, it is more efficient that each of the six driving their own Honda Civic to work. There are many more factors to consider than Civic = good; Hummer = bad. That has to be factored into the long distance commute on the bus vs the 1 mile commute by hummer, too.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre, the bus vs Honda Civic issue is interesting to me because I think it was Parados and I on this forum somewhere, I can't remember now, debated this. I showed by actual statistics from the Denver Bus system, that it is just as economical for each person riding the bus to drive their cars to wherever they went in a car all by themselves if that car got about 35 mpg. I also argued that to ride a bus to your destination, you must zigzag a circuitous route to get there, often by boarding more than one bus to do it. I do not know the average additional distance this entails than if you simply take the most direct route to your destination, but I would think it would bring down the average mileage to about 25 mpg at least to equal the efficiency of the bus. Add in the extra pollution that is possibly emitted by diesel buses, and I do not think public transit is all that efficient, and certainly not to the extent generally thought by some people.

Denver is a more spread out city, so some other cities statistics looked a bit better, but nevertheless buses and trains are not the overwhelmingly perfect answer to saving energy as they might seem. And if cars become more efficient, such as hybrids at 50 mpg or more, they would be more efficient than public transit, certainly if a carpool of just 2 people do it, and if more then it begins to look far better than public transit.

0 Replies

If the leaked version of the forthcoming IPCC report really is true - it seems, we really have to think of getting engaged with these changed climate situations.

0 Replies

In a previous post, Okie wrote the following.

okie wrote:

And whats a bigger waste of energy than production of movies for crying out loud, for what, to make them richer?

When called on this, he later wrote the following.

okie wrote:

You don't get it. I am not condemning Hollywooders for their big cars and big houses, or getting rich.

The utter disconnect between the things you say on this forum and the things you claim to have said here is complete and total. The first statement you made clearly decried the use of energy to make movies for the sole purpose of enriching the movie makers. There is no other interpretation possible.

You have this incredibly egotistical belief that once one of your extreme statements is criticized, you can simply deny the meaning of the statement, admonish the critic for lack of perception, and simply write a lot of anti-"lib" statements entirely unconnected to the topic as a reply.

The simple fact is that you have revealed yourself as an economic authoritarian who holds that mere profit is not a sufficient reason to justify an enterprise-it must have an additional reason. If you truly believed in a capitalist system, you would realize that the profit motive is NOT something to be apologized for, but rather the very foundation of an effective economy.

Now I am not saying that businesses should be allowed to pollute the air we all breathe in their pursuit of profit, or make false or misleading advertisements in their pursuit of profits, or any of a number of other things. What I am saying is that as long as somebody is willing to follow the laws of the land, he needs no justification for his business other than it yields a profit for him.

A capitalist realizes this. You, apparently do not. Or else you would NEVER criticize any business-film or otherwise-on the basis that it exists to make people rich, which you clearly have done. Rather, you would congratulate them on their entrepeneurial spirit!

0 Replies

Just as a public service, Okie, I think it would be a good idea for you to tell us what constitute sufficient reasons to be in business, since you made it clear that the desire to become rich is not a good enough justification.

Why do you think people go into the plumbing supply business-because they like to load heavy pipes on and off trucks all day and taking inventory?

Why do you suppose people sink money into commerical garbage hauling enterprises-because they like the idea of trucks with their company logo going around town collecting the garbage in the back alleys of Chinese restaurants and thrifty dollar stores?

Why do you suppose people in the securities business commute into the city and spend many long hours each day trying to find the most profitable businesses for investors? Because they like to have to wear suits and ties to work?

All of the above businesses, and countless others like it, have the profit motive as their reason for existence. Up to now, I didn't think anyone needed more justification than that-but apparently you do.

So by all means, please tell what additional justifications these businesses require to rightfully exist, over and above the profit motive.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

parados wrote:
I love the argument that you don't have an "open mind" unless you completely ignore all the evidence.

It makes me wonder how some people manage to function at all in life.

I agree completely. There may be somebody weeks ago who did, but certainly nobody on the "let's wait and see" group has done that in recent weeks or months. The only ones refusing to look at all the evidence are you and a few others. So why do you do that?

What Okie, Minitax, I, and others have said persistently and frequently is that we should look at ALL the evidence and not just the evidence that you have decided to sign on to.

What evidence have I not looked at Fox? Do you have some? Have you bothered to follow this thread or the other global warming threads? What is the scientific evidence you have? You haven't brought anything but your "keep an open mind" argument. An open mind doesn't mean I should pretend you have any evidence, it means I should look at the evidence you provide. So either provide some or admit you don't have any.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, the bus vs Honda Civic issue is interesting to me because I think it was Parados and I on this forum somewhere, I can't remember now, debated this. I showed by actual statistics from the Denver Bus system, that it is just as economical for each person riding the bus to drive their cars to wherever they went in a car all by themselves if that car got about 35 mpg. I also argued that to ride a bus to your destination, you must zigzag a circuitous route to get there, often by boarding more than one bus to do it. I do not know the average additional distance this entails than if you simply take the most direct route to your destination, but I would think it would bring down the average mileage to about 25 mpg at least to equal the efficiency of the bus. Add in the extra pollution that is possibly emitted by diesel buses, and I do not think public transit is all that efficient, and certainly not to the extent generally thought by some people.

Denver is a more spread out city, so some other cities statistics looked a bit better, but nevertheless buses and trains are not the overwhelmingly perfect answer to saving energy as they might seem. And if cars become more efficient, such as hybrids at 50 mpg or more, they would be more efficient than public transit, certainly if a carpool of just 2 people do it, and if more then it begins to look far better than public transit.

I don't recall having this conversation okie. Perhaps you could point us to it. I don't think your argument stands up and I certainly wouldn't have thought so if you made it earlier. You may have used a personal anecdote but that does not a valid argument make.

0 Replies

OMG okie. I found it. Your argument there is HILARIOUS.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2005792&highlight=denver#2005792

If the average bus trip is 7.54 miles HOW in the hell can a car trip be MORE efficient to make up for the gas mileage?

In order for that to occur the average driving trip would have to be 5.5 miles. (assuming a 22 mpg average for a in town driving.)

If we take the reported average US mpg of 17 it would require that the average trip be 4.3 miles.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
parados wrote:
I love the argument that you don't have an "open mind" unless you completely ignore all the evidence.

It makes me wonder how some people manage to function at all in life.

I agree completely. There may be somebody weeks ago who did, but certainly nobody on the "let's wait and see" group has done that in recent weeks or months. The only ones refusing to look at all the evidence are you and a few others. So why do you do that?

What Okie, Minitax, I, and others have said persistently and frequently is that we should look at ALL the evidence and not just the evidence that you have decided to sign on to.

What evidence have I not looked at Fox? Do you have some? Have you bothered to follow this thread or the other global warming threads? What is the scientific evidence you have? You haven't brought anything but your "keep an open mind" argument. An open mind doesn't mean I should pretend you have any evidence, it means I should look at the evidence you provide. So either provide some or admit you don't have any.

I have exactly the same evidence that you have on this thread. You're the one who accused those advocating an open mind of not looking at all the evidence. Those in the 'open mind' group aren't trying to make an absolute case for AGW and dismissing any evidence disputing the case for it. Those in the closed mind group are saying that AGW is a fact and case closed and anybody who says otherwise is denigrated either mildly or blatantly.

To clarify my position on this:

"Open mind" may lean one way or the other but welcomes all points of view in the interest of arriving at a point closest to the truth.

"Closed mind" has his/her mind made up and won't consider or give respect or even courtesy to any other point of view.

0 Replies

Sunny morning. Bookstore door is unlocked and a gentleman enters and heads to the front counter.

"Yes, sir, can I help you?"

"I'm looking for the "Treatise on an Open Mind" by foxfyre"

"Oh yes, that's a favorite. Just go down the aisle passing "History" and "Logic" and you'll be at the "Composting" section. You'll find it on the bottom row right between "The Compassionate Torturer's Handbook" and "Hermann Goering - Delight of Dusseldorf".

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

A capitalist realizes this. You, apparently do not. Or else you would NEVER criticize any business-film or otherwise-on the basis that it exists to make people rich, which you clearly have done. Rather, you would congratulate them on their entrepeneurial spirit!

I won't quote all of your arguments, but I read them all, and you are barking up the wrong tree, keltic, as usual. To try to clarify what I've said, I hope you can understand it as I am trying to keep it as simple as possible for you.

I am being totally consistent here. The global warmers or tree huggers, or liberals or environmentalists, whatever, I rightly pointed out that of all the people that belong to this camp, the Hollywooders are probably some of the ones crying the loudest about it, and I simply pointed out their hypocrisy because of their lavish and energy wasteful lifestyle.

Furthermore, I am not being anti-capitalistic, but just because there are lots of things that people make a living doing does not mean I love all of them, or that I think they are all worthwhile pursuits. That is a personal choice and if it is legal, they have every right to do it. I endorse capitalism, which does not mean I endorse everything done to make money. Your reasoning is utterly ridiculous, keltic.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

OMG okie. I found it. Your argument there is HILARIOUS.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2005792&highlight=denver#2005792

If the average bus trip is 7.54 miles HOW in the hell can a car trip be MORE efficient to make up for the gas mileage?

In order for that to occur the average driving trip would have to be 5.5 miles. (assuming a 22 mpg average for a in town driving.)

If we take the reported average US mpg of 17 it would require that the average trip be 4.3 miles.

Come on Parados, you are smarter than what you just wrote, I hope. Here is my quote from that link:

I picked out Denver RTD, and if I am interpreting the data correctly, the buses traveled 26,424,000 miles while consuming 6,707,000 gallons of fuel for an average of 3.94 mpg. Another column showed annual passenger miles as 199,205,000, which translates into an average of about 7.54 in passenger average. Multiply 7.54 by 3.94 and the result is 29.7 mpg for equivalent fuel usage if everybody drove a car instead in the exact same route as the buses to get to their destinations, which I don't think would happen. This is worse than the Portland data. Some of the other ones are probably better; I did not calculate them out.

The average passengers on a Denver bus was 7.54 for every mile driven by the entire bus system, so I multiplied 7.54 by the average fuel consumption of 3.94 mpg, which yields a result of 29.7 passenger miles per gallon, which is worse than I remembered by the way. So if each and every person that rode the bus would drive a car alone to their destinations in Denver, and that car got 29.7 mpg, then cars would be as efficient as buses. Add to this the circuitous route every passenger may possibly take on a bus to arrive at their destination vs going the most direct route by car, which is virtually impossible to calculate, but using common sense, the average mileage of a personal car to equal the bus would almost assuredly be lowered to 25 mpg at least, and I think probably more. I base this on personal experience and by talking to other people. Add to the equation the possibility that people drive to a parking lot to catch a bus, and also add the additional pollution emitted by diesel buses.

And as I previously pointed out, any carpooling in cars multiplies the efficiency of cars over buses in Denver. Case closed, Parados.

0 Replies

Quote:

Add to the equation the possibility that people drive to a parking lot to catch a bus, and also add the additional pollution emitted by diesel buses.

It isn't really 'case closed,' because there are a lot of presumptions in your position. I've highlighted just one above; you should be aware that many busses are moving the other way, to natural gas and electric. And let's not even get into the train and subway systems used in many places...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know