| gseepes |
If you haven't, please do.
If you have, what did you think?
I thought....(soap box, please)
For the past 5 years, I have been commuting 135 miles round trip to work every day. About 3 hours total. For the last 2.5 years, it's been in the Murano. Averaging 22 miles per gallon. Good, right? I tend to drive on the sedate side, to save gas, and my sanity. Obviously, I've got a lot of time behind the wheel, and the Murano has been a great ride. Smooth as silk, plenty of power, great view of the road, style. I even get to expense 100 miles a day. How can you beat that?
The movie, and the facts presenting in it, made me realize the error in my thinking. When I purchased the Mo, I did so because I could afford it, and it will make my daily rides more comfortable. The major expense of gas was going to be offset by the exense reimbursement, I rationalized.
What I didn't think about was my carbon footprint. Mine is about 3 times the average. 3 times.
So, I started to do some research.
33,000 miles per year = 30,000 lbs of carbon dioxide released
1 gallon of gas weights 6 lbs. When it is burned, it combines with oxygen and weighs 20 lbs
On monday, I purchased a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid. Obviously, it's not a Murano. But, I did get 45 miles to the gallon. It's a start.
So, what say ye? |
|
|
| Gonzo |
Wow interesting. I think the hybirds are a start but by no means a solution. Its great in your case to get 45MPG but most as not getting the mileage as advertised. Like I say I'm glad you go one and are not getting 45MPG... awesome you can't bet that... now but we need to move away from fossile fuels and the internal combustion engine completely. Something with better efficiency.
Good luck with your new ride. |
|
|
| Corin |
I very much agree that hybrids are an excellent START, but won't be the solution.
I am, however, VERY excited about how the hybrids have started a small form of revolution. People are now thinking about this kind of thing more and more.
I thought about this very hard when I bought the Murano. All my previous vehicles have been 30+ mpg. But then again, you can't tow a trailer full of dirt with a Honda Del Sol.
I'm currently looking for a job, and my hope is that I will be able to take the bus easily for my daily commute. If not, I'm SERIOUSLY looking into an electric car. Not a hybrid, but a pure electric. The old Corbin Sparrow was an amazing 1-seater electric that could go on the freeways (even HOV lanes). They have just re-released the Sparrow under a new company and name: The Meyers Motors NMG (stands for "No More Gas").
http://www.myersmotors.com/
Not only would this be a great commuter car (especially for the Seattle area) but it's small enough that I can pull my Murano further into the garage and park this in front of it! :) |
|
|
| Corin |
Oh, yeah, I forgot to comment on the movie.
I liked the facts they presented, and I'm really hoping that more and more of this kind of information gets out to the public. It's a BIG deal, and something definitely needs to be done.
HOWEVER, there were many things about the movie that really annoyed me. First of all, only about a third of this movie was really about global warming. Another third was an opportunity to put out a mini-autobiography for Al Gore. The other third was used to take pot-shots at the current administration (which I admit is fun, and VERY easy to do, but takes away from the real message).
I also got really sick of seeing the back of Al Gore's head while he flipped through various pictures on his laptop, as if that is really what research is about.
But going back to global warming and how the facts were presented, I thought the movie did an EXCELLENT job. They managed to summarize a huge amount of information and present it in a way that anyone could understand. They referred to a LOT of scientific evidence and backed up their statements. I also liked how they talked about various counter-arguments and myths, and they discussed various ways that would help lead us on an appropriate path.
Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people out there that will either refuse to watch this movie, or simply ignore the facts if they happen to see it, simply because they will feel it's just political BS. If they toned down the political pot-shots, I think more people would take it seriously. |
|
|
| gseepes |
Corin...good review.
I think the Al Gore biography part put a human spin to his message. He lost his sister to the very thing his family produced, tobacco. It was only after it killed her did he and his family change. He doesn't want us to wait as long as his family did.
He then uses the tobacco issue, and the misconceptions that persisted after the facts where known, to highlight how the media, government, and industry continued to raise doubt in the minds of smokers, so they would have a reason to continue smoking. "Maybe I'll be ok, maybe the science is wrong".
I bought 3 copies of the movie to share with friends and coworkers.
Check out www.hybridcars.com. Lots of good info.
I'm still learning, and I hope you all will too. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Just in case you are interested in another viewpoint of the movie.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
I find that liberals don't want to listen to Conservatives and vice versa.
I find that most people don't realize that politicians are liars, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
It's pathological.
Homer |
|
|
| GripperDon |
For a "as Paul Harvey would say The other side of the story"
Personally and for some of the reasons that are in the article you referenced plus others I happen to be of the view that thinks the so called greenhouse effect is incorrect.
It is a shame that we willl not live too ages of 200 with good health for another 45 to 55 years so that we will have the tme to learn more of what really effects our lives.
Hopefull some day schools will teach good study habits and time management along with personal economics so that we can appreciate the Reading, writeing and Math and History more fully. |
|
|
| gseepes |
Thanks for the other side of the story.
I try to be objective when I can.
Each of us is a product of our education, experiences, and beliefs. If you want to believe something is true or not true, then you will find a way to do so. And you will find others who will help you.
Vehicle emissions are only only part of the problem.
Do you agree that we need to make a change in the types of energies we use, and where we get them from?
Do you see a change happening? |
|
|
| hfelknor |
"Do you agree that we need to make a change in the types of energies we use, and where we get them from?"
Sure, If only because fossil fuel is finite. We are very close IMO to "peak oil". (Hubbert)
But many of the people who want a different energy source preface their discussion with Nimby. (not in my back yard)
So, despite the fact that virtually all of France runs on Nuclear power, and despite the fact that there are more deaths EVERY YEAR in Coal fired electric plants than there has been in the history of western civilization nuclear plants, we will likely not ever build more nuclear power plants.
And we can run Coal a lot cleaner than many of them run. We need to take the politics out of Clean air. And that includes Al ("I didn't know it was a fundraiser") Gore.
What else is there?
Wind? Solar? neither of which will work as a single source solution.
As to alternative auto fuels......well a lot of money is being spent on technologies that cannot work as a single source, such as ethanol.
Will fuel cells be an answer? Could be, GM and BMW have partnered and are spending a lot of money to try and make it viable.
What will likely happen is that we will continue to clean up fossil burning engines and we will eventually adopt a handfull of partial answers, or there will be some breakthrough on Solar. Don't hold your breath on this one.
At the current time the air in LA is better than it was a thousand years ago, or ten years ago, and cars emit very little harmful pollutants and that goes down every year as the older vehicles are replaced.
Should we continue to have "documentaries" about clean air?
Sure.
If we can keep them from being used as propaganda.
We need to quit watching obvious political propaganda pieces from guys like Al ("There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law." ) Gore and try to get obvious places like MIT and CalTech produce truthful pieces that are politically neutral.
Anyway,
"an Inconvenient Truth" bugs me.
When I saw it, it angered me as even I could see the political overtones and very questionable statements.
There absolutely is not total agreement on many of these issues, and for Al to.........
Oh well, no need beating it to death.
We can all agree that clean air is good, polluted air is bad.
Homer |
|
|
| big_daddy_mpd |
Ok...let's get this straight. The climate of earth has shown dramatic shifts in heating/cooling, all through pre-history, and even during the time of mankind from greenhouse gasses, true. But consider this:
THEY ALL OCCURRED BECAUSE OF:
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
CATASTROPHIC ASTEROID IMPACTS
GLOBAL CLIMACTIC CHANGES DUE TO SHIFTS IN AIR/OCEAN CURRENTS
Nowhere in this list, has the <lip quivering, tear running down cheek, voice shaking> irresponsible energy consumption of mankind, and especially, the United State of America, been the cause.
So, let's get THIS straight. Will we run out of fossil fuels?
Sure.
Will we have to use alternatives?
Sure.
Will the scarcity of these energy sources eventually drive the cost of them to the point where other fuels are feasible?
Indeed.
Have we reached that point yet?
Not yet.
So, here's my beef. Those who wish to change the behavior of others before the undeniable market forces inevitably do so, are doing so in order to gain social/political power. They, can kiss my conservative, free market ass (and it is indeed a huge one, they will be quite a while at it!)
The liberal, pablum puking, thought-control, behavior police will never get my conservative, I-drive-a-vehicle-that-meets-my-5-person-in-my-family-haulin' vote. Never. They are trying to give themselves political power, by making people believe that THEY can save us from ourselves.
News flash...the American people will start buying hybrids, and stop "wasting fossil fuels", when it is economically infeasible to NOT do so...and not one second sooner.
I don't drive a MO in order to feel like a "socially conscious" SUV driver. I do so because is looks good, is safe, comfortable, and fits my driving economic criteria. I don't look down my nose at those that drive Tahoes or Expeditions. One family in my church had 10 people to bring this morning...wanna guess the size of their SUV?
Anyway...The Real Inconvenient Truth is that all of this CRAP being slung is just that...CRAP. We'll "get it" when it makes economic sense to get it, and not one second sooner.
Regards,
Big |
|
|
| GripperDon |
There is a lot of unused farm land.
I would like the money to go to our people farmers.
I favor biodiesel, it's low sulfur and I like Diesel Hybrids.
I favor Co2 sinks
I favor ocean farming.
I Favor Nuclear Power
All forms of solar energy
Wind energy
Geo Thermal energy
Each in it's own application and doing what is best to make America strong and self contained.
Pay a little more to buy American, and take care of our own Nation First.
Import only in the dollar amounts the other countries import.
That pretty much coverer's my very inconvenient truths. |
|
|
| TexInFla |
quote:
Originally posted by big_daddy_mpd
They, can kiss my conservative, free market ass (and it is indeed a huge one, they will be quite a while at it!)
The liberal, pablum puking, thought-control, behavior police will never get my conservative, I-drive-a-vehicle-that-meets-my-5-person-in-my-family-haulin' vote.
Anyway...The Real Inconvenient Truth is that all of this CRAP being slung is just that...CRAP.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why the tradition of not talking about political topics on this forum should be strictly enforced. There has not been a single instance of a political "discussion" on this forum that hasn't degenerated into the hostile, nasty, insulting name-calling like that shown by the above poster.
In the interest of fairness...What's amazing is that no one has bothered to check out what's behind the link that Homer provided. As is typical for him, he has led forum members to a radical right-wing hack site that perpetuates his particular political agenda. With just a little investigation, you would find out that the person behind that website is Steve Milloy, a conservative lobbyist who has been on the payrolls of big tobacco and the oil industry (among others) and whose job has been to spread disinformation to create doubt and confusion about topics of interest to his employers and clients. The "scientists" whose supportive research he cites are, by and large, conducting studies paid for by the relevant industry, and he dismisses any studies that do not support his agenda, despite their scientific merit. He also inflates or outright distorts his own bio to make it look like he's an expert when, in fact, he's not. You want to talk about propaganda? There's your propaganda.
So, let's leave the politics off this forum and get back to dissecting our Muranos. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
| MOD: Moved to OFF-TOPIC, because thats obvious what the discussion has evolved into. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
I have notified the Mods my intention to leave the board unless TexinFla is kicked off the board.
There is no justification for attacking me in this matter.
Attack Milloy if you will, but I just grabbed the first site I found with an opposite argument.
The fact that it is right leaning should surprise no one except Tex. Only he thinks that arguments against the left should come from the left. Duh.
Hey, Gore is the one that made the Documentary political.
I note that Tex does not attack the message, just the messenger.
Well, Let make Tex happy.
Here is a left leaning site and their critique. I bid everyone to read the arguments. The fact that the Author is a liberal is not important. Except to Tex.
Remember this is from a guy who LIKES Gore and therefore is treating him with kid gloves.
He makes some interesting points about the accuracy of the "documentary".
Homer
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html
An Inconvenient Truth
Gore as climate exaggerator
Ronald Bailey | June 16, 2006
I have long been a critic of former Vice-President Al Gore, but as a recent convert to the view that humanity is contributing significantly to the current increase in average global temperatures, I was trying to keep a somewhat open mind about his new global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth. As a film, An Inconvenient Truth is a competently made documentary centered on Gore's famous global warming slide show interspersed with shots of him brooding on the fate of the earth. This is the sort of movie that appeals to science lecture powerpoint junkies (of which I am one).
Gore warns that "what is at stake [is] our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization." Let's take a look at some of the evidence that he presents to justify this dire conclusion. He begins by insisting that nothing he has to say is scientifically controversial. Gore claims to be presenting the "scientific consensus" on global warming. But is that so?
Well, at least not always. Take sea level rise for example. Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100. He shows computer animated maps in which most of southern Florida, southern Manhattan, Shanghai, and Bangladesh are inundated. "Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees, and then imagine 100 million," says Gore. Of course his reference to the couple of hundred thousand refugees aims to evoke thoughts about the horrific experience of New Orleanians last year.
Well, the "consensus" of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. A new study in Science concluded if temperatures rose steeply that the Greenland ice sheet might melt away in 500 to 1000 years. So fortunately we don't have to worry about the impact of 100 million people fleeing relentlessly rising seas all at once, though it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea level in mind.
Gore shows that many mountain glaciers are melting away all around the world—glaciers in Alaska, Europe and Mount Kilimanjaro—are responding to increased warming. (Though the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro seem to be melting away because of changes in rainfall patterns rather than to increased heat. Of course, it is possible that the shift in rainfall is the result of global warming.)
As further evidence of warming, Gore notes that permafrost is melting in parts of Alaska and Siberia. The temperatures in central Siberia are thought to have increased by 3 degrees Celsius over the past 40 years. This not only causes engineering and infrastructure problems, but might also release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as once frozen organic matter begins to decompose. But is this warming unprecedented? Perhaps not.
A Russian study in 2004 found that the average temperatures in Siberia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 6000 years ago warmed up by 3 to 9 degrees celcius in the winter, and by 2 to 6 degrees celcius in the summer. Due to changes in the earth's orbit which affect how much sunlight reaches the surface, pretty much the entire Arctic was warmer than now 6000 years ago. Which brings me to the polar bears.
Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem.
Gore also argues that global warming will increase storminess. As suggestive evidence, Gore cited several examples of recent severe weather events across the globe. For example, he pointed the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 that killed some 35,000 people with temperatures hitting 104 degrees Fahrenheit. But historically such temperatures are not unknown to Europe. In July 1921, a heat wave hit much of Western Europe with the temperature reaching 104 degrees Fahrenheit in Strasbourg, France. Gore also pointed to the monsoon storm in 2005 that dumped 37 inches of rain in 24 hours on Mumbai India. But storms like that have happened before—even in the United States. In 1921, Thrall, Texas experienced a 24-hour downpour of 38 inches and Alvin, Texas was soaked with 43 inches over a 24-hour period in 1979.
Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is hotly contested by climate scientists. For example, a recent study in Geophysical Research Letters finds "based on data over the last twenty years, no significant increasing trend is evident in global ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] or in Category 4?5 hurricanes."
At a climatic moment (pun intended) in the film, Gore traces a red temperature line inexorably increasing while he declares that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Then he asserts that 2005 was the hottest ever. Pause for effect. Basically, Gore's general point is right but it's just irritating for him not to acknowledge that 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from 1998. But doing that would not have had the quite the same dramatic effect in the film. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Of course, the increase of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is thought to be the chief contemporary driver of global warming. All things being equal higher carbon dioxide levels lead to higher temperatures. Gore illustrates the relation between carbon dioxide and temperatures with a chart showing data taken from ice cores from Antarctica. These ice cores contain tiny bubbles of air from the earth's atmosphere all the way back to 650,000 years ago. Scientists measure them to see the proportion of various gases that were in the atmosphere when the bubbles were trapped. Gore points out that temperatures and carbon dioxide go up in tandem over the last four ice ages. But wait—Gore fails to mention something interesting. Temperatures go up first and then the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases some 800 or more years later. The one interpretation is that orbital changes start periods of warming which then affect ocean circulation such that the oceans begin to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which leads to further warming. In any case, current carbon dioxide levels are 27 percent higher than they have been in the last 650,000 years.
Gore overhypes the spread of various diseases due to global warming. As proof for his claim, he points to the arrival of West Nile virus in the United States and even hints that avian flu might be affected by global warming. West Nile virus (WNV) is a mosquito-borne virus that first appeared in New York City in 1999, apparently somehow arriving from Israel. It is quickly spreading across the country carried by birds on which mosquitoes feast. The Centers for Disease Control map of WNV and related viruses shows that WNV is not confined to tropical regions. WNV took hold here not because of increases in global temperatures, but because, like malaria, cholera, and dengue before it, an appropriate carrier finally made it across the Atlantic. Lowering global average temperatures is not the way these diseases will be controlled, effective public health measures and vaccines is. And of course, outbreaks of flu are not generally associated with higher temperatures.
Finally, Gore allows that some skeptics of global warming catastrophe may be sincere in their beliefs; however, he apparently assumes that most such global warming "deniers" are similar to "tobacco scientists" who were paid for "studies" that sowed doubt about whether or not cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Make no mistake about it—what the tobacco companies did was a despicable attempt by corporations to hijack and distort science to protect their profits and it backfired. Perhaps some global warming skeptics are paid advocates (liars), but many are not. Gore's tobacco industry insinuation is an attempt to discredit opponents by smear rather than on the basis of scientific evidence. Why does he bother with such low tactics since the bulk of the scientific evidence supports his views now? Because partisanship dies hard.
In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore makes a big deal about how his Harvard professor, oceanographer Roger Revelle, influenced his views about the dangers of global warming. A genuinely gifted scientist, Revelle was responsible for the creation of the Mauna Loa Observatory that has been measuring the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958. However, Professor Revelle co-authored an article in the house journal of the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC in 1991 which concluded, ?The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.? Professor Revelle died shortly after the article appeared. This conclusion apparently dismayed Gore whose staff worked behind the scenes to spread the rumor that Revelle's co-authors had taken advantage of a senile old man and that Revelle's name should be taken off the article. This sorry episode ended with a lawsuit in which another Harvard professor who had conferred with Gore's staff formally apologized for making his insinuations.
In any case few climate scientists now contest the idea that humanity is contributing to the current warming trend. All of the various data sets, surface thermometers, satellites and weather balloons, now show global average warming of about +0.16 degrees Celsius per decade since 1979. Whether or not this rate of warming would lead to catastrophe or not is still very much an open question. So what, if anything, should we do about any future warming?
Unfortunately, those who have been skeptical that global warming was happening at all will now have a credibility problem with the public when it comes to policy recommendations on how best to handle any future warming. The much of the public will likely conclude that if the skeptics were wrong on the science, then they will be wrong on policy. Of course that's not necessarily the case—being right on science doesn't mean that one is automatically also an expert on the proper policy response.
What does Gore recommend? He focuses on policies the cut emissions, but largely ignores those that would enhance our ability to adapt to future temperature changes. So An Inconvenient Truth ends with suggestions for how viewers can personally cut back on their carbon emissions—install compact fluorescent light bulbs; take mass transit; adjust thermostats two degrees up in summer and two down in winter; use less hot water; and plant carbon-absorbing trees. He also urges viewers to push their Congressional representatives to vote for the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act which would set limits on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases. Gore advises consumers to switch to renewable fuels, but is strangely silent on climate friendly nuclear power. If we did everything Gore recommends, he claims that our emissions would drop to what they were in 1970—a cut of over 25 percent. However, some researchers argue that in order to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that emissions must be reduced by 70 percent worldwide. A 70 percent cut would mean lowering U.S. emissions to 1928 levels.
Gore has won the global warming debate—the world is warming as a consequence of human activity, chiefly the loading up of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Yet he feels that he must exaggerate the dangers by propounding implausible scenarios in which sea levels rise 20 feet by 2100. He pretends that the science is settled with regard to the effect of global warming on hurricanes. And he pushes a scientifically tenuous connection between the spread of diseases and global warming. These are little inconvenient truths that cut against his belief that global warming constitutes a climate emergency. On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science (we'll leave the policy stuff to another time), but he undercuts his message by becoming the opposite of a global warming denier. He's a global warming exaggerator.
I give An Inconvenient Truth a tepid 2 stars.
Disclosure: I own a small amount of ExxonMobil stock and I am looking forward to investing in biotech cellulosic ethanol production someday. |
|
|
| TexInFla |
| It's fascinating that Homer contends that he has me on "ignore," yet he consistently reads and responds to my replies. It's fascinating that Homer gets his shorts in a knot whenever someone disagrees with him or exposes his inconsistencies. It's fascinating that Homer consistently puts forward the conservative viewpoint on any political issue that comes up and points people to blatantly conservative websites and "news" sources (junkscience.com, Newsmax, Faux News, etc.) and then denies that he is a conservative. In what world is being identified as a "conservative" a personal attack? If you want to see personal attacks, just look at the vitriol a few messages up....look at what was (and continues to be) thrown at the Clintons....look at the lies spread about John McCain the last time he ran for president...look at the lies of the Swift Boat mob against John Kerry....look at what's already starting to be thrown at Barack Obama. Those are personal attacks. |
|
|
| TexInFla |
Oh....as far as the article Homer pasted into his two replies....I don't think he did any research into the author or the publication, and it doesn't even seem that he read what he posted.
Reason might be left of Homer, but it's not a liberal publication. They claim to be non-partisan. Considering their articles as a whole, they seem to me to be relatively libertarian-leaning. They have received glowing endorsements from folks like Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, neither of whom would praise a "liberal" publication.
The author, Ronald Bailey, is decidedly NOT a liberal. In fact, he describes himself as a libertarian. He has been affiliated with the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, none of which are even remotely liberal. He was very vocally opposed to the idea of global warming (including testifying before Congress) until he started changing his views in 2005.
Homer states, "Remember this is from a guy who LIKES Gore and therefore is treating him with kid gloves." Yet, in the opening paragraphs of the very article he pasted, Bailey writes, "I have long been a critic of former Vice-President Al Gore, but as a recent convert to the view that humanity is contributing significantly to the current increase in average global temperatures, I was trying to keep a somewhat open mind about his new global warming movie." By his own admission, Bailey doesn't like Gore. Even so, at the end of his article, he (apparently begrudgingly) states, "On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science." To my trained eye, it seems that Bailey's dislike of Al Gore significantly colored his opinion of Gore's movie. |
|
|
| big_daddy_mpd |
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm tired of ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, bad science believing, behavior control intent politicians looking at my MO, and instead of seeing a "sensible" yet "sexy" vehicle for me and my family, they see...that's right, the source of global warming. Now, I don't have problems with folks asking questions...its the source of the Scientific Method...forms hypothesis that are confirmed/refuted by observation and experiment. But if folks can't be honest and note that dramatic climactic shifts have occurred, over history (just ask a paleontologist about "mass extinctions", and their root cause...hint: none involved the burning of fossil fuels), are a result of natural cause, and NOT human intervention, well, then they aren't scientists, but politicians looking to pervert science to seize control of our behavior. Why is it important here? Because it could very well limit our ability to BUY a MO or MO-like vehicle in the future. So, I apologize for my colorful suggestion in a previous post, but not my anger. Those to refuse to fight tyranny, are doomed to live beneath it. I, for one, can't haul my entire family in a Toyota Prius...which is the only vehicle I know of that truly IS a worthy hybrid. The rest are just "posers" trying to get a share of the "guilty" market segment.
Regards,
Big |
|
|
| njjoe |
TexInFla-
This is a forum for Murano-enthusiasts to exchange information and discuss topics related to the Murano. It is not a political forum. This thread is most-definitely a political discussion which has now evolved into member-bashing.
Yesterday you posted the following - "And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why the tradition of not talking about political topics on this forum should be strictly enforced." I agree with your statement. Why not follow your own advice and let this political thread die?
I am not taking sides in this debate, nor am I questioning the validity of your position, I am simply trying to steer this forum back on it's rightful course. There are plenty of other forums where this type of discussion is not only welcomed, but encouraged.
-njjoe |
|
|
| mgthe3 |
I'm glad I wasn't here to see the crap that flew in this thread. :1pat:
I am sorry that Homer got his feelings hurt. :(
I am sorry that TIF couldn't be a little more forgiving and understanding. :14:
Homer, ur a smart d00d. Stick around. :cool: |
|
|
|
