Check out this shiny happy person

bravenrace wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: Exactly. Global climate change is real. Ice age? However, there are absolutely no undisputable facts to show that man is a significant source of it. Yes, let's move forward on the environmental front. No, let's not over-react to the point that it costs so much money that we go bankrupt. Funny thing. I work in the air conditioning industry. Back in the early 90's they just had to replace R-12 with R-134A. It cost a LOT of money to do it. Now we think R-134A might be worse for the environment than R-12. About 8 years ago, carbon dioxide was the leading candidate for replacing R-134A. Now they want us to believe that this element that we exhale and plants need to survive is killing the earth. Arrogance leads to the assumption that you are right instead of proving conclusively that you are right, and that leads to rushing to make changes pre-maturely, and that does nothing but waste a ton of money. Yes, why rush?

4cf and bravenrace make good points, and even Jerry.......

The "denier's" skepticism is fueled by a toxic concoction made by mixing science, money and politics - drink it and some find it intoxicating, others regurgitating.

No one really knows if it's good medicine that tastes bad or if it's snake-oil promoted by shills looking for new victims.

Just sayin..........

^ first of all, I'm totally with you on the whole AC thing. It's not green if you replace one harmful gas with another one. Remember MMT? That was the miracle additive in gasoline responsible for cutting emissions. Unfortunately, it also had the unpleasant side effect of poisoning the water. So back to square one. An idea is not really green unless it's really green. Looks like we'll have to alter our lifestyles a bit to effect real change.

Meanwhile, a billion Chinese are on the verge of getting themselves a lifestyle. That'll make our 25 percent of the world's carbon emissions (despite being four percent of the world's population) look like nothing. Tell me if I'm wrong then.

Here's the thing: The grand majority of people warning us about global warming are scientists who have no agenda other than looking at the receding glaciers and the increasing aridity and the super violent hurricanes and saying, "this is what's happening." They are not trying to sell us any miracle cures or special machinery to stop global warming. They see the facts and report them. Yeah, a couple of guys will write books and they'll make a couple of bucks but nowhere near as much as the people shouting about no global warming as the ocean threatens to swallow up half of Florida

Al Gore culled the info and made a movie. He already has more money than the rest of TN he's not all that motivated by greed. ( Yeah, okay, his own personal carbon footprint is excessive but he's not too bright in the people skills department so he should've known people would come after him personally if he didn't clean up his own crap first).

Meanwhile, all the folks lined up on the no warming side of the argument have an agenda like saving money. They worry (and rightfully so) if U.S. businesses have to mind the greenhouse gases, they'll lose more economic ground to other countries. Therefore, if any country wants to sell stuff in this country, they must conform to the same standards, including all the carbon used shipping the stuff over here. That'll have the pleasant side effect of returning jobs to America. There are good people working on this stuff right now. Unfortunately, they are being thwarted by the same companies who moved all their production to Asia. Oops.

So why rush, especially if the upside helps the vast majority of Americans who lost their jobs to cheap dirty labor overseas? Or is that just a crock too?

Today is the first day off I've had since April 15. I'm working two jobs right now. I'm spending my day off fixing the EGR system on my wife's car. It's the right thing to do. Spend any time in the LA Basin and you'll know why, especially if you saw it thirty years ago.

Ya know, I've said it before and I'll say it again: a lot of the changes made in the name of cleaning up the air and water have made a big change, such as you can now see across LA again and rivers in Ohio don't catch fire.

That doesn't automatically mean that everything the ecofreaks espouse is a good thing. And I stand by my statement that many of the most virulent ones are misanthropic.

Norman Chad said: NASCAR is so last century.

Agree... really it is hard to argue that point. Fuel injection anyone?

BradLTL wrote:

Norman Chad said: NASCAR is so last century.

Agree... really it is hard to argue that point. Fuel injection anyone?

That's coming next year. The question is when they'll try overhead cams....

GameboyRMH wrote: Ironically enough Mr. Save Teh Earf from Racing here is causing more people to turn to climate change denial by being such an asshat (much like Al Gore).

Let's not forget that it is possible to love racing and still care about the environment. Remember that GRM had an about Randy Pobst's veggie-oil powered daily driver and the West Coast Challenge had an AWD fiero hybrid

What's sad is that we have so little trust in either journalism or science, and that we're so quick to condemn and pick a fight. There was a time when we expected the practitioners of both businesses to put their love of truth ahead of pressures from their bosses and their own biases. There was also a time when we'd hear someone like Gore, and if we disagreed, simply roll our eyes and go on with our lives. Now we have to take it to the level of a pissing match, even though I'd bet that only a small percentage of people who are passionate on the subject could make a well-reasoned argument to support their views.

Could it be that our own vehemence reflects our powerlessness? That indignation is a way of pretending that the world actually gives a E36 M3? Could it be that I should STFU and fix that radiator leak?

Appleseed wrote:

jlm_photo wrote: Sorry to have offended you but I can't think of a person who is having or going to have a bigger impact on the way we operate our automobiles than Al Gore.

Ralph Nader. Without racing we'd still be driving this and loving it. Can I still drive that.......it looks fun

Kia_racer wrote: I will defend his right under the Constitution to say what he wants because it is covered under the first amendment. However, it does not change the fact that he is an IDIOT.

+1

I enjoy watching the Tour de France more than just about any auto racing (except for rally). Does this make me a dirty, dirty environmentalist?

Jerry From LA wrote: ^ first of all, I'm totally with you on the whole AC thing. It's not green if you replace one harmful gas with another one. Remember MMT? That was the miracle additive in gasoline responsible for cutting emissions. Unfortunately, it also had the unpleasant side effect of poisoning the water. So back to square one. An idea is not really green unless it's really green. Looks like we'll have to alter our lifestyles a bit to effect real change. Meanwhile, a billion Chinese are on the verge of getting themselves a lifestyle. That'll make our 25 percent of the world's carbon emissions (despite being four percent of the world's population) look like nothing. Tell me if I'm wrong then. Here's the thing: The grand majority of people warning us about global warming are scientists who have no agenda other than looking at the receding glaciers and the increasing aridity and the super violent hurricanes and saying, "this is what's happening." They are not trying to sell us any miracle cures or special machinery to stop global warming. They see the facts and report them. Yeah, a couple of guys will write books and they'll make a couple of bucks but nowhere near as much as the people shouting about no global warming as the ocean threatens to swallow up half of Florida Al Gore culled the info and made a movie. He already has more money than the rest of TN he's not all that motivated by greed. ( Yeah, okay, his own personal carbon footprint is excessive but he's not too bright in the people skills department so he should've known people would come after him personally if he didn't clean up his own crap first). Meanwhile, all the folks lined up on the no warming side of the argument have an agenda like saving money. They worry (and rightfully so) if U.S. businesses have to mind the greenhouse gases, they'll lose more economic ground to other countries. Therefore, if any country wants to sell stuff in this country, they must conform to the same standards, including all the carbon used shipping the stuff over here. That'll have the pleasant side effect of returning jobs to America. There are good people working on this stuff right now. Unfortunately, they are being thwarted by the same companies who moved all their production to Asia. Oops. So why rush, especially if the upside helps the vast majority of Americans who lost their jobs to cheap dirty labor overseas? Or is that just a crock too? Today is the first day off I've had since April 15. I'm working two jobs right now. I'm spending my day off fixing the EGR system on my wife's car. It's the right thing to do. Spend any time in the LA Basin and you'll know why, especially if you saw it thirty years ago.

You are choosing to believe information that has not been proven. I choose to believe facts. When I hear facts that proove conclusively that man has and is playing a significant part in global warming, then I'll be very concerned. Until then, I believe that a measured, logical and methodical approach to progressing on environmental issues is best, not forcing technology before it's time or making pre-mature conclusions, as that does waste a tremendous amount of money. Please note that I am not following some conspiracy theory or complaining about spending money. I just don't see the facts to support it, and I am very much in opposition of wasting money when we aren't sure about what or why we are doing something.

Jerry From LA wrote: Here's the thing: The grand majority of people warning us about global warming are scientists who have no agenda other than looking at the receding glaciers and the increasing aridity and the super violent hurricanes and saying, "this is what's happening."

Like it or not, scientists have an agenda; to fuel and fund their research. What grant proposal do you think would get more money: "the study of the Common Grey Squirrel in city parks" or "the study of the affects of global warming on the Common Grey Squirrel in city parks"?

While blown out of proportion, the "Climategate" emails are an excellent example of scientists with agendas.