Originally Posted By Spree Blushing here a little. There were 11 countries "listed" in my almanac.....the US was number 4 not 11... Sorry for the mis-information.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<There are 11 countries on this planet that pollute more then the US...Even if Bush banned Every Car and smokestack in America the overall effect on World "greenhouse gases" would be negligable.>> <<Blushing here a little. There were 11 countries "listed" in my almanac.....the US was number 4 not 11...>> Don't worry about it. No one else here gets it right either. You are just the first person to admit it. ;-)
Originally Posted By lilprincess there has been global warming since the ice age. the cause is undetermined, i think it's probably both, a natural cycle and human causes. even a 1 degree change in water temp can affect the strength and path of a hurricane or other weather patterns.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Why is this a "Bush" problem. He has signed many a law that will reduce our ommisions over the next 20 years..." Ommissions or Omissions? Granted Bush's made plenty of omissions in the last four years ;-) The Bush Admin. hasn't seriously done much in the way of reducing our emmissions, just look at the recently passed energy bill. He's talked about support for fuel cell technology, but that's at least a couple of decades in the future. He could have very well increased the individual mileage per gallon that cars get that would reduce greehouse gas and buffered the hit we take on gas prices. Bush has gutted the previous enviromental laws that required coal fired electrical generation plants to install state-of-the-art anti-pollution devices anytime they get a major expansion or alteration. The reason why it's a Bush problem is because he's PRESIDENT. He's the one that sets policy. Anyone forget that his family is hooked into the US oil industry, along with Cheney?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Anyone forget that his family is hooked into the US oil industry, along with Cheney?>> Yep, you win... Bush hates clean air and water and the war was staged for big oil and Halliburtan. mooooonbattttt
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Snore. Why do people have to turn every topic into a Bush bash fest? I think I am going to fall asleep until we get back to the subject at hand - Global Warming.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Hey, here in farm country, the biggest poluters are cows. They eat their grain and other food -- they fart, and the methane in their farts causes a murkier ozone layer. In other words -- smog.
Originally Posted By thenurmis "We should constantly be searching for more efficient uses of energy and ways to reduce waste, regardless if global warming is real or not." Very good point Toonie I agree 100%
Originally Posted By thenurmis hey can some one open a window in here....what did that cow eat for breakfast?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The thing that chaps my rear is that car companies build these new Hybrid cars -- that are supposed to be better for the environment, and then they're more expensive than the regular car. And you get Consumer Reports that it doesn't save you any money and that they're not that reliable. And electric cars get sort of pushed off to the side like a leper. Sort of like recycling cans and bottles -- I agree that it might be a good thing, but man is it a pain in the butt.
Originally Posted By ecdc It's one of the myths of the Right that the Global Warming issue is somehow an equally balanced set of scales, with some scientists arguing for it and others arguing against it. This is simply not true. The vast, vast majority of scientists agree global warming is real, and that it's a problem. There are some who disagree, but they're in a small minority. But as others have pointed out, what's so wrong about assuming it's a problem, and acting more responsibly. Will the outcome be that horrible? If global warming is real and we ignore it, then we're doomed. If it isn't real but we act as if we need to get our act together, we're still safe. The answer seems obvious.
Originally Posted By ecdc Part of the anti-global warming argument is to act like alternative energy sources are an uber-futuristic dream. Maybe *someday*, our great-great-great-grandkids can enjoy alternative fuel sources. This is, of course, absurd. I saw Willie Nelson being interviewed when he said all his cars and buses run on bio-diesel. It's a fancy name for vegetable oil. Our cars run on technology that's over 100 years old. We can go from picture tube TVs to plasma screen, from VHS to DVD, from typewriters to word processors. It seems like it's about priorities. If we were more demanding and more engaged over alternative sources, we'd get it done.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<But as others have pointed out, what's so wrong about assuming it's a problem, and acting more responsibly. Will the outcome be that horrible?>> Because the motivation behind global warming freaks is to weaken America and line their pockets with research money by scaring people with junk science.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 In 1988 I bought a Cheney Nova (which wasn't like the old Novas - this one was actually built by Toyota) and we got 55 miles per gallon on the highway. After we had kids, we traded in the Nova and bought a minivan. Now, I'd like to buy a car like that Nova again -but guess what, you can't get a car with that mileage anymore. So, if they could do it in 1988, what happened?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So, if they could do it in 1988, what happened?<< The Chevy Nova you bought was likely assembled right here in my hometown. That plant, New United Motors Manufacturing, is a joint effort between GM and Toyota. The Geo line of cars came from there for many years. It now produces light trucks instead of fuel efficent small cars, so I'd say what changed is that consumers decided to heck with worrying about fuel efficiency when gas prices went down.
