The most stupid global warming argument ever...

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I just feel sorry for the polar bears. They are truly beautiful creatures, and they're going to die out if the icecap retreats

Actually, they dying from drowning right now. Polar bears are excellent swimmers. However due to the increased ice melting, the polar bears has been forced to swim longer distances to their hunting/mating grounds. Many polar bears have been found drowned after being exhausted from swimming extreme distances.

 

[Sun Baked]

We should ban dihydrogen monoxide instead...that's the real danger.

Actually, they said that is a more effective manipulator of global climate than CO2.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

...tell me about it. I seriously see red when I see a housewife driving around in a truck that looks like it could tow the space shuttle.

They wouldn't drive around Hummers and giant SUVs if your government taxed gas as they do here. We pay about $6/gallon here in europe, consequently we don't have that many gas guzzlers running around on our roads.
I fly over to US at least 4 times per year and from my very unscientific observations I would say you could cut your petrol consumtion in half if you just began to drive sensible cars instead of huge trucks and SUVs. The only way to get people drive more fuel efficient cars is by increasing the price on gas, until it becomes so expensive that it is an economic nightmare to drive around in a SUV.

 

[lem0n]

polar bear, penguin, panda, lion... TT_TT why can't people leave them alone and not hunt them down for stupid thing like rhino horn, its not going to make any guy less impotent.

 

[aquajet]

They wouldn't drive around Hummers and giant SUVs if your government taxed gas as they do here. We pay about $6/gallon here in europe, consequently we don't have that many gas guzzlers running around on our roads.
I fly over to US at least 4 times per year and from my very unscientific observations I would say you could cut your petrol consumtion in half if you just began to drive sensible cars instead of huge trucks and SUVs. The only way to get people drive more fuel efficient cars is by increasing the price on gas, until it becomes so expensive that it is an economic nightmare to drive around in a SUV.

You're just jealous that GM is offering to pay for American's gasoline in exchange for purchasing a Hummer.

Link

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

You're just jealous that GM is offering to pay for American's gasoline in exchange for purchasing a Hummer.

Link

Well, after the sales of H1 dropped so low that GM had to end the production, I can see why GM was forced to come up this idea. Especially since GM has some serious financial problems and just don't have money to get something better out on the market. It is basically a cheap way to have ignorant consumers buy an outdated gas guzzler that will have zero resale value when GM lifts the price cap and the gas is $6/gallon. But then again, if have been unfavorably endowed and the blood pressures isnt all that anymore, what else can you do to prove your manhood.

 

[Boggle]

Oh please, let's not pretend that Greenpeace and others aren't about politics instead of evnironmental reform and understanding.

At an environmental ralley in 2000 (I think it was here in DC), 5,000 people signed a petition carried around by 1 person w/ 1 clipboard -presumably with many pads of paper - over 6 hrs (that's roughly 14 ppl / minute) calling for congress to support a bill demanding the removal of all the hydrogen oxide from America's Water Supply by 2005. It was so sucessful a stunt that Penn & Teller duplicated it in their show ******** in the first season.

Liberal activists are no more informed than the conservative activists. Idiots comprise large percentages of both camps.

 

[lord patton]

I actually believe tropical deforestation is what's causing our climate change more than the CO2 emissions. Before we started wiping them out en masse, those forests regulated the environment for millions of years. If we'd left them intact, they might have kept the balance level however much carbon we pumped out.

Too late to find out now though.

Mature forests don't produce any net oxygen, and they don't reduce CO2 levels.

Yes, living vegetation converts CO2 to O2, but there's another side of the coin. When organic material decomposes, it releases CO2. If you take a forest that is not increasing in size or mass, it has no net effect on CO2 levels.

 

[Kingsly]

Liberal activists are no more informed than the conservative activists. Idiots comprise large percentages of both camps.

Thank you. I couldn't have put it better.

Like I said in the milk thread, Facts are your friend.

...until it becomes so expensive that it is an economic nightmare to drive around in a SUV.

Im in that boat right now. Anyone want to buy a landcruiser?
I want a Desiel VW Passat that gets 40+ MPG instead of 12 MPG.

 

[Sun Baked]

Im in that boat right now. Anyone want to buy a landcruiser?
I want a Desiel VW Passat that gets 40+ MPG

What is wrong with the 60+mpg diesel Polo, besides the fact that you are the size of a bug about to splat across the hood of the landcruiser.

 

[Kingsly]

What is wrong with the 60+mpg diesel Polo, besides the fact that you are the size of a bug about to splat across the hood of the landcruiser.

Exactly.

 

[solvs]

CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent ($270,000) of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation, said it was only trying to make sure the public hears "both sides of the story."

Since when are there 2 sides to the truth? There are a lot of people who know more about this type of thing than most of us do that say it's a problem. The other side, which seems to have a lot more to gain by not dealing with it, talks about how we have to research the subject first. And they've been saying that for the last ~6 years. And spread FUD like this to make people believe it's a made up cause, even though this should not be a political issue. Can't say I'm happy with the doomsdayers either, but some people care more about their own comfort than what's best for everyone. And that includes all the liberals I know who drive SUVs.

I'm not sure what it all means, but it couldn't hurt to cut down on pollution. If one side is wrong, worst case scenario is we didn't use up as much of our natural resources and can still breath easier (literally). The other side is wrong, we're all doomed.

 

[Queso]

Mature forests don't produce any net oxygen, and they don't reduce CO2 levels.

Yes, living vegetation converts CO2 to O2, but there's another side of the coin. When organic material decomposes, it releases CO2. If you take a forest that is not increasing in size or mass, it has no net effect on CO2 levels.

Normally yes, but surely when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere the density of plants in a given space increases slightly. It would take a huge area of tropical forest to absorb the entire CO2 increase, but's that exactly what we had. Eventually those plants do die, but their offspring also grow faster and larger thanks to the increase in nutrients around them from more rotting vegetation, so they continue to lock in the carbon. The important thing is to leave the whole system untouched and able to deal with the problem itself, which is exactly what we haven't done.