Feds finally starting to act on global warming

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<A lot of builders in Colorado use Viking. We though about using Andersen, but that would have been 3X, and a builder friend told us to stick with Viking.<

we were lucky our builder only used Andersen's --

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo

<<Ponderous handling because of their primitive suspension systems and high centers of gravity. Not exactly something I would go canyon carving in.>>

One thing they drilled into our heads when I received my class-A license years ago was that the larger the vehicle, the more dangerous it is; not only to those around you, but to yourself as well. SUVs don’t have the maneuverability as smaller vehicles do and have a much larger brake zone. These two factors increase the probability of getting into an accident and injuring yourself and your family exponentially. The whole SUVs are safer is purely a myth according to professional drivers.

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo

<<The whole SUVs are safer is purely a myth according to professional drivers.>>

SHould have read, "The whole "SUVs are safer" mantra is purely a myth according to professional drivers.


BTW, I'm not going to get into another "global warming" debate. I'm still waiting for answers in a previous thread, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

I remember reading somewhere that those full size passenger vans (the kind that seat 12 passengers) are very accident prone and offer poor protection in the case of an accident.

I love the VW commerical where two guys are talking and they sideswipe a pickup truck thats backing out of a blind driveway. I wonder how they filmed the airbag deployment scene (or was it just CG).

 

Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger

Airbag deployment:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woO3kCScDrU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=woO3kCScDrU</a>

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

LOL!

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

I used the same windows in the Maine Solar House.

<a href="http://www.solarhouse.com/" target="_blank">http://www.solarhouse.com/</a>

They were expensive. But in the winter time you can actually put your hand up against the glass and you don't feel any cold. They are truely that good. Also, thickest glass on the market of any window. If I was to redo the windows today I would use Jeld-Wen. Thats what Urban Design Group prefers to use. They designed and built the Wilderness Lodge, Animal Kingdom Lodge and Grand Californian Hotel. They prefer to use the outside copper facing windows on residential projects.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<BTW, I'm not going to get into another "global warming" debate. I'm still waiting for answers in a previous thread, so I'll just leave it at that.>>

I put a link on this thread that does a great job at explaining why CO2 gas does not cause global warming and why the entire subject is a total scam set up by anti capitalists and groups who want to get funding.

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo

LOL! You’re a real hoot.

Thank you, but I'll stick with the REAL scientists from—and I quote—“NOAA, NASA, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (part of the DoE), U.S. Geological Service, the EPA, American Geophysical Union, the Energy Information Administration (which is the official outlet of energy statistic for the US government), Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (again, an official government organization), and several other respected climatological organizations.â€

But you can stick with your advocacy junk science if you wish; it’s your prerogative. But don’t expect to convince anyone you are right. It only makes you look like an idiot in the eyes of anyone with a cursory knowledge of scientific expression.

But seriously, I think don’t think you would change your mind if God himself came down and told you Himself. So why am I even having this conversation with you? There is a question I seriously need to mull over.

BTW, if anyone wants to know what I’ve been referring to, the thread here:

<a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79356-P-12&Refresh=0925233843" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de
fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79356-P-12&Refresh=0925233843</a>

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

He really simply doesn't understand any of this.

He even is still going on about his 17000 scientists which have already been totally debunked.

I also find the person who says they "don't buy into the global warming scare" because he has read some article by a poltical opinion writer that says it's not true, as opposed to the numerous scientific agencies and organizations that says it is.

You can quote whomever you choose to, the most respected and eminent names in the field, but because Neil Boortz says something else, well, they're obviously all wrong.

So what it comes down to is on one side, you have the people who actually study the situation and understand it the best we can right now saying one thing, then we have some advocates with little or no science behind them and who are trying to make a political point on the other.

Fortunately, as the original post shows, even the people in Congress are starting to realize what's going on, and it's now crossing party lines. Still, there is partisan politicing involved, but the basic consensus in DC right now is falling on the side of actual science, and not on the side of people who basically want to win a political battle.

Look folks, it's not a political debate. At this point, it is a scientific understanding as best as we can have right now. That doesn't mean that the idea can't be changed, but as time goes on, more and more information comes out supporting the global warming "scare."

In any case, I think the National Science Foundation has a bit more weight behind its opinion on the subject than Neil Boortz or someone who barely managed to get out of high school (if that).

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

He really simply doesn't understand any of this.

He even is still going on about his 17000 scientists which have already been totally debunked.

I also find the person who says they "don't buy into the global warming scare" because he has read some article by a poltical opinion writer that says it's not true, as opposed to the numerous scientific agencies and organizations that says it is.

You can quote whomever you choose to, the most respected and eminent names in the field, but because Neil Boortz says something else, well, they're obviously all wrong.

So what it comes down to is on one side, you have the people who actually study the situation and understand it the best we can right now saying one thing, then we have some advocates with little or no science behind them and who are trying to make a political point on the other.

Fortunately, as the original post shows, even the people in Congress are starting to realize what's going on, and it's now crossing party lines. Still, there is partisan politicing involved, but the basic consensus in DC right now is falling on the side of actual science, and not on the side of people who basically want to win a political battle.

Look folks, it's not a political debate. At this point, it is a scientific understanding as best as we can have right now. That doesn't mean that the idea can't be changed, but as time goes on, more and more information comes out supporting the global warming "scare."

In any case, I think the National Science Foundation has a bit more weight behind its opinion on the subject than Neil Boortz or someone who barely managed to get out of high school (if that).

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"Fossil fuels are bad.
Nuke generated power is bad.
Hydro power is bad."

Kind of, yes. All have problems. People are really scared of nuclear power. But it is not currently wrecking our atmosphere.

We are dumping tons and tons of debris into the air. We need to find a way to stop that. The way to do that is to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

We need to manufacture things in such a way that they use less energy. Or, manufacture things such that they can, once built, use less energy such that we can stop using fossil fuels.

Why? Because the fossil fuel usage is causing the most damage to us right now.

If we start using nuclear energy, it will produce toxic waste. It is, however, concentrated and containable in a much simpler manner than what is being pumped into the air right now.

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

Nuclear power isnt' going to be the answer. There is only enough sources of uranium on the planet to support 100% of the planets energy needs to 4 year. Nuclear isn't going to be the answer.

The answer is going to be building a more sustainable future as to our energy needs. Everything needs to be on the table, hydro power, geothermal, wind, coal, wood, waste disposal, solar and waste disposal.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

Look folks, it's not a political debate. At this point, it is a scientific understanding as best as we can have right now. That doesn't mean that the idea can't be changed, but as time goes on, more and more information comes out supporting the global warming "scare.">>>

I imagine you could still find a cadre of scientists who would insist that no real link exists between cigarrette smoking and cancer.

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

I fail to understand why you have to believe in global warming in order to comprehend the significance of using our nations energy resources more wisely? The two are not mutually exclusive.

Do you have to believe in global warming to be part of the solution to our country's dependence on foreign oil?

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

Meanwhile, the Earth's temperature may be its warmest in a million years.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/25/warming.earth.reut/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/s
cience/09/25/warming.earth.reut/index.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<< But you can stick with your advocacy junk science if you wish; it’s your prerogative. But don’t expect to convince anyone you are right. It only makes you look like an idiot in the eyes of anyone with a cursory knowledge of scientific expression. >>

I can get you thousands of scientists from the leading universities in the world who tell you and prove to you why man made global warming is a scam and why it is impossible to be real as Al Gore and his puppet jon say it is.

I ask you guys for PROOF that man is causing global warming and you start spinning like the tea cups in Fantasyland.

Oh jon... my 17000 scientists have not been debunked at all. Their opinion and their facts are just as strong now as ever. You on the other hand are pushing a scam that is designed to get us out of our cars and to get donations to left wing researchers.

Why was it hotter in the 1930's than it is now?

Why is Mars hotter now?

Keep being suckers if you want to. Just like the global COOLING suckers of a few years back.


Ken, we are all in favor of new sources of energy. Just don't tell me we are causing the earth to heat up by driving our cars to scare me into a behavior change when the science is not there to vback those claims up.

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo

<<I can get you thousands of scientists from the leading universities in the world who tell you and prove to you why man made global warming is a scam and why it is impossible to be real as Al Gore and his puppet jon say it is.>>

Blah blah blah. You always say..."I can..." this and "I can..." that, but you never produce squat. Put up, or shut up, Beau. I’m tired of “I can…â€

And I couldn't care less about Al Gores movie, nor doomsday scenarios. I simply respond to the contentions I presented in other thread. If you can’t hack it, bother me no further.


<<Oh jon... my 17000 scientists have not been debunked at all.>>

I already explained to you what those 17,000 represent. Sadly, they don’t represent all that much amongst the scientific community at large.

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo

BTW, you will have a seriously hard time finding rivals to the sources I’ve been using. They are regarded as *THE* most respected climatological and atmospheric research communities in the world. But good luck anyway.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"Why was it hotter in the 1930's than it is now?"

It isn't.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/25/warming.earth.reut/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/s
cience/09/25/warming.earth.reut/index.html</a>