but karl, every hole drilling into the planet causes mother earth to cry. :-p

On my list, I'd add...

That in 99.9% of causes, Human beings cannot control the planet. We might make local changes, but if the planet wants to warm up, it will warm up, if it wants to cool, it will cool. It rains when it rains, and snows when it snows.

There were ice ages before humans, and those ended, and started without us.

And lastly... to the enviormental 'climate CHANGE' crowd (formly known as the global warming crowd.

Please answer me this: What is the 'perfect' earth temperature?

I think George Carlin said it best... http://youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

I think there are going to be some interesting responses to today's blog.

For what its worth, I don't think that just because you're a 'car guy' doesn't mean you can't be environmentally friendly. Driving your hobby car for a couple weekends a year, or even more than that, is pretty insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Just because you have an interest in cars (which pollute) doesn't mean you regularly run over trees and slay dolphins.

The problem that environmentalists have (a lot of them, anyway) is their constant negative and hollier-than-thou attitude towards anyone who doesn't like like them. You don't buy organic local produce? Never mind that you're trying to save a buck, but you're basically the most evil person ever. The most ironic thing is the people who will criticize your car/eating/whatever are, by and large, ignorant on the subject anyways. They are just loud and in your face. As I'm sure we we see proven in these comments today, arguing with an environmentalist is just as meaningless and never ending as arguing Accord vs. Aura.

dougtheeng - want to mess with an organic food buyer enviromentalist mind.

Tell them that it takes more land to grow that organic food, and more rain forest has to be cut down to do so.

Their heads will explode.

I'm definitely both a car guy and a semi-environmentalist. I use that term loosely by the way. I couldn't agree with Karl more as I believe as human beings the most important life form and having the ability to use the resources of the planet to sustain life (although I believe this is a God endowed right) that it is our call to use the planet to the benefit of ourselves and society. I also believe that we are called to be good stewards of this planet so we should definitely conserve where it makes sense. Recycling is one of these things. Most cities make this a very easy and non-intrusive operation. I also made the personal choice a year and a half ago to swap my 4x4 truck for an AWD car to save a little gas that both benefits the planet and mainly my wallet! But that's the key. Conservation is a personal conviction and it turns people off to it when they are made to look like scum of the earth and "forced" to be environmentalist.

That's what bugs me about the whole left argument right now on the oil drilling thing. Obviously there are huge hurdles in alternative power that do not make it highly efficient and cost-effective yet. It's made great strides and will still continue to. But in the meantime, like Karl said we need to use what we have and know is cost-effective and efficient. Look at all the different fuels that come out of a barrel of oil. And the government has already filtered the exhaust of cars so much that they are squeaky clean. (Look at how far L.A. air quality has come since the 70's and you can't attribute that to hybrids sorry) The whole "it will take 7-10 years to bring oil online" excuse not to tap our own resources is complete bunk. You know what our demand will be then? if you want demand to go down, quit having kids!

Conservation has to be a personal "team effort" where we all chip in and conserve where we know it actually does make a difference. Recycle whenever you can especially if your city comes and gets it from your house! Don't leave your lights on in your house if you don't need them. Consolidate your trips to save money and time. These are all things that are easy and if everyone did would make a huge impact. But these simple things don't require any investment cost, and best of all will add to your own checking accounts. And if someone doesn't want to do these things, then let them spend the extra money. Judging/mocking/chastising them will only make them go to the opposite end in protest.

"dougtheeng - want to mess with an organic food buyer enviromentalist mind.

Tell them that it takes more land to grow that organic food, and more rain forest has to be cut down to do so.

Their heads will explode."

I know but presenting such an argument will be met with a ridiculous response of one sort or another.

Environmentalism is as fragmented as any other ideology. Basically, you've got the faction that says "we're only hurting ourselves in the long term with the mess we're making" (anyone intelligent); the faction that says "non-human species and ecosystems have a fundamental right to exist that we cannot ignore" (conservationism, Greenpeace); and the people who think humanity is a blight upon the planet and should be reduced to a position of non-dominance (Earth First!, ELF). There aren't that many of the last group.

None of us "greenies" here on Edmunds.com hate cars. Promise. We do believe in a path of moderation, and self-restraint, because we think it will benefit us in the long run. It's very disappointing to be bombarded with accusations that it's all about control over other individuals, or jealousy, or some conspiracy. We see that attitude as if we were telling our neighbors "hey... you might not want to run up all that credit card debt" and them getting indignant and telling us we're just jealous of their new Escalade. The means we're trying to live within include our atmosphere and other natural resources.

I don't mind the disagreement, but I don't see what's so hard about seeing where we're coming from.

As I spend a great deal of time involved with both automobiles, motorcycles and bicycles (the latter two being particular long-term passions on mine), I've spent a great deal (too much?) time on various blogs, forums and whatever the h*ll else. I've seen the other side in action.

If you've got a spare moment sometimes, go to www.bikeforums.net and go into the "Living Car Free" thread. A lot of what you're going to read there is going to have you shaking your head in wonder. Posters who absolutely cannot understand why everybody who owns an SUV didn't push it over a cliff and do all their commuting by bicycle on the day that gasoline hit $4.00/gallon. Posters who actually WANT $10.00/gallon gas to make sure that the average American has to abandon his car because he can't possibly afford the gas to run it. And yes, there's an occasional opinion that wants cars flat out outlawed, although even the most radical in the crowd still remembers the concept of freedom of choice - just make the choice virtually impossible.

In the course of my life I've lived virtually car free (1968-1974) utilizing a Raleigh Sports 3-speed roadster as my main transportation (while running SCCA B-sedan autocross on Sundays) so I can understand some of their attempts. Unfortunately, what they're pushing is based on a few automatic assumptions that may not be acceptable to those having thrust upon them:

1. We all live in urban areas, commuting no more than 10 miles to work. Bicycles aren't all that practical outside of that radius - even if I do bicycle a 42 mile round trip every Saturday to work. It's a short work day, and I'd go riding anyhow.

2. Middle class, probably white, (most likely Republican voting) suburbanites MUST be inconvenienced. If one of us were to come up with a practical method of giving a Hummer H2 60mpg city tomorrow, this crowd would object to it. After all, that's not good enough gas mileage.

3. The level we all have to be dragged down to just happens to be how the posters are currently living (in town, commuting by bicycle, walking to the natural food market, cycling to the coffeehouse or rock club). After all, you have to inconvenience someone else for the good of the planet. Don't suggest that the poster is living too fat and happy for the good of the planet.

4. Nobody's bothered to figure how these high prices are going to affect those who HAVE to live out in the country. You know, the people who grow the food? Or are we all going to do window box gardens outside of our urban apartment?

5. The suburbs are to be left to rot. After all, individual greed in moving out there is a major part of the problem in the first place.

As you can probably guess, I get rather amused with a lot of these folks. And somewhat comforted by a few rational opinions coming into the group, people who's environmental knowledge has broadened a bit more than repeated viewings of "An Inconvenient Truth".

Obviously from this post, I'm politically opposed to the Greens. Even though I probably do as much recycling, reusing, etc. and any of them. Only I do it for the financial gain (and a Depression Era mentality), not to overinflate a sense of environmental correctness and do class war against those spoiling the environment.

Oh Karl, you get more cynical every day. ;-)

The problem of the extremists on either end making the most noise is enough to make anyone cover their ears and ignore what is said. I would like to think we have a ghost of a chance of coming to some middle ground on the various environmental issues that we face today.

I'm an environmentalist, but I STRONGLY believe that we can continue to enjoy all the trappings of modern society if we're willing to make the investments in green technology. I have to wonder why the US government hasn't started a "Manhattan Project" of renewable energy, where we finally figure out how to produce cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel on a large scale in an economically feasible way. It would cost less in the long run and we could support "Farmer Bob" instead of terrorist regimes every time we fill our tanks.

The problem lies a lot more with the system than it does with individuals. I'm not saying that to absolve myself or others of personal responsibility, but rather because if I want to lead a halfway decent life, I have no choice but to drive places and burn up fossil fuels. Until we get serious about moving away from coal and oil as our primary energy drivers, we'll be stuck in this rut of all the extremists lobbing insults at each other.

As for nuclear power, I'm not opposed, but I'm also not jumping up and down at the prospect. We need someplace to dispose of the waste more than anything. From my many discussions with various Geologists, Yucca Mountain is not a good place for that. Furthermore, to figure out how to safely run the plants, we need to hire (*gasp*)...the French. France produces 80% of its electrical needs with nuclear, and exports some to neighboring countries as well. Let's think about the last incident they had there...hmmm...oh right they've never had one. That speaks volumes right there. Say what you will about the French, but they sure run a mean nuclear reactor.

OT here. What's up with the blog software? Yesterday's Escape Hybrid entry says "55 comments" but I only count 29 or so. Same problem on Straightline.

Karl, maybe it's because I don't like in California, but I don't see what the big deal is about. If we discount extreme the extreme views, environmentalists make a lot of sense. The message is really simple: let's be responsible in using the world resources and let's try as much as possible not to damage the planet. That's all!

I don't see why this message contradicts with being a car guy! How does wanting responsible use of fuel detract from handling, styling, steering feel, or even performance of cars? There is certainly some conflict between performance and responsible resource use, but technology has shown time and time again that there can be powerful cars that use a reasonable amount of fuel.

"That in 99.9% of causes, Human beings cannot control the planet. We might make local changes, but if the planet wants to warm up, it will warm up, if it wants to cool, it will cool. It rains when it rains, and snows when it snows."

Come on, opfreak! Come on! You and I know that's not true. Let's take the sea for example. Let's say we keep dumping industrial waste in the sea.....at, say, San Diego. Are you saying that, over 100 years, only the San Diego port will be affected? The reality is that irresponsible human actions can damage the planet if allowed to go on for a long period of time. I don't see what makes this reality difficult to see!

Talking about the Republican side of things, the issue I have with (most? well, many) Republicans is that they seem to look at the short term only.....things that will bring money/profit now or the next few years. Investing in alternative technologies that are more responsible of the Earth's resources will cost money, so therefore they must be against it.

Finally, I get the feeling that the reason most "car guys" don't like most "environmentalists" is that they think that somehow environmentalism will usurp the existence of being a car guy. That's not true....it's the Republican elite making noise just because they don't want to spend the money on the necessary technology! (Well, that and the views of extreme environmentalists.) People, "car guy" and "environmentalism" are not enemies!

If building more environmentally friendly cars, and other habits like walking instead of driving, didn't involve spending money and rather had a short-term profit making potential, Republicans would be all for it! At the heart of it, most Republican policies are tied to money/profit. They just exploit the fears of people......so instead of saying, "higher fuel efficiency standards would cost us, at least in the short term", they would say "higher fuel efficiency standards would force you not to drive the pickups you love so much.....the 'liberals' don't want you to enjoy America in your pickup!".

"We need someplace to dispose of the waste more than anything. From my many discussions with various Geologists, Yucca Mountain is not a good place for that."

The waste problem is mainly of our own doing. Currently, we run the nuclear fuel through one time only, and then call it "waste". There is still 99% more useable energy in this "waste", yet, all we want to do is dump it into a hole (aka Yucca Mountain), in essence creating the world's biggest nuclear waste dump ( a real dumb idea IMHO). We need to re-process this "waste" and reuse it. That is what the French do, and you end up with much less real waste, which also happens to be a lower-level type and only needs to be handled for about 200 years, not 25000.

And for wind power, has anyone studied what the environmental effect of basically removing the wind from a large arid area of the Southwestern U.S. will be? I saw the advertisements from Mr. Pickens yesterday. I assume that when the wind is converted into energy by the windmills, the wind will be essentially removed. In an already arid area, what will happen to the local animal species who must now deal with a much hotter climate, let alone the people who live there? Messing with the natural environment in such a way seems as dangerous as pouring CO2 into the air.

Nuclear power, for electrical generation, can be used to create clean, renewable, sustainable, carbon-free energy basically forever. It can be used to generate hydrogen, charge up car batteries, let us use our A/C, play our video games, convert seawater into drinking water, basically let us live a modern 21st century life, without air pollution and without carbon emissions. Sounds good to me.

blackadder5639 of course their will be a local effect. I didn't deny that.

But want to look at the 'big' picutre. Then over time land masses moved. The earth froze over, melted on its own, and has down it a few times all on its own. All without humans burning oil, in fact most of those changes occured without humans even being on the planet.

I never said we should be dumping things left are right. However the current enivormental movement is not moving an inch. They are so deep in the trenches, they'd rather live in caves eating berries then see another new car on the road.

America is currently cow tied by the enviormentalists. There is no denying it. Have we had any significant new drilling? New shale mines? How about new refinries? New Nuclear power?

The answer is no. What about the rest of the world? france like others pointed out is 80% nuclear power and has been for tens of years.

China is putting up coal power plants faster then it can dig the coal out of its ground, its also buying up/leasing/drilling for oil wherever it can get its hand on.

Brizal is set to do major off shore drilling, and is chopping up rainforest left and right to plant sugar to power their cars.

Yet in america, we both ban new production of energy, AND complain compaines are making money selling energy around the world.

I'm all for alt forms of energy. One day we wont 'need' oil.

But lets not deny that oil is quite nearly a perfect energy source, stable, easly transportable, and packed with energy.

So while its afforable, accessiable, why are we trying to limit its use?

To me thats like waking up one day and finding a ban on shovels. With people saying now we have to use sticks to dig holes. I geuss you can do it, but why not use the prefect tool for the job.

Karl:

I think you're making environmentalists look like caricutures, when really most of them would agree with your three points.

Remember, the car magazines and industry were all over the environmentalists and "safety nazis" in the '60s and '70s, as emission regulations were being put into place. But would you really want to live in L.A. now with leaded fuel and 1960's level emission standards?

Also, using oil means emitting CO2. We car guys can debate the effects of C02 emissions forever, but most climate scientists who actually have some expertise think it causes global warming. How much that matters to you may be the difference between "car guys" and "environmentalists".

umm I call B.S. on the Scientists agree that global warming is real... it is debated between the scentists as much as the right and left. And whoever referenced the "republican elite" needs to educate themselves. There are a ton of middle-class young americans that are republicans that still want their freedom from big government. And the whole motivation of money/profit is what makes a capatalist soceity work. My whole beef with the environmental movement is that most of them want the government to do everything in making this happen. Instead the Government should just be providing incentives.

I'm tired of hearing (mainly from extreme environmentalists) about the "evil oil and car companies" conspiring to keep us paying for 15mpg. Geez the goverment makes more off a gallon of gas than any one entity involved in a gallon of gas including the oil company themselves. If the market was primarily left alone, you would see car companies striving for fuel effeciency on their own to keep car sales up (just as they are doing now). Society will adjust to the higher gas prices on it's own, just as it is now.

Well, the North Pole looks like it's going to lose its ice cap, and the Northwest Passage is open.
Still, I'm sure you could find a scientist affiliated with the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute who will argue that it's not due to warming!

I comfortably were both an environmentalist and car-guy labels. As Carlismo and others have pointed out, the specturm of environmetalist is quite broad. It is as unfair to lump all environemtalist with the radical nuts who vandalize Hummers as it would be to lump pro-drilling advocates with the zeatlot James Watt types who promoted massive exploitation and sell off of public lands because the Lord was coming soon. I recall when I worked at EPA I would get thoughtout public comments from organizations like NRDC and Sierra but would recieve juvenile and insulting reposonses for groups like Greenpeace and Earth First.

Dharbin makes a good point about the harping of car enthusiast and car companies regarind emissions control. Lee Iococca even claimed it would lead to the demise of the auto industry. Obviously those claims were way overblown and the efforts of environmentalist has led to much cleaner cars that have benefitted everyone. For all of you so quick to dismiss environmenatlist you have taken for granted the benefits of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and other actions that have made the country and much better place.

As a car guy I enjoy performance cars and do not support reguations like CAFE standards that limit would type of cars can be produced. But I do recognize that cars are the major users of oil in this country and that is in our country's great interest to reduce our conumption of oil. Hence I think we need to maintain high fuel prices that discourage consumption but allow the consumer to decide what level of MPG is appropriate for them. Domestic oil supplies are limited and the largest source of potential supply - oil shales - will be expensive to harvest so the era of cheap gas has passed and we need to start planning for alternatives and have an energy strategy that looks 25-50 years down the road. Any approach we take has to be sustainable and does not push of risks or harder decisions to future generations.

blackadder5639

"..Republican policies are tied to money/profit. They just exploit the fears of people... "

And the liberals dont exploity the fears of the people?

please fear is used in massive doses on both sides.

Republicans: evil liberals dont want you to drive pick-ups.

Democrates: evil conservatives will destroy the planet.

"umm I call B.S. on the Scientists agree that global warming is real... it is debated between the scentists as much as the right and left."

Lolz! you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There is no debate in the scientific community. The only holdout is Exxon and it's supposed "scientists". Do you know about the peer review process? Do you understand why a paper that has been through said process is more meaningful than one that hasn't? If you don't I highly encourage you to read up on it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"Republicans: evil liberals dont want you to drive pick-ups.

Democrates: evil conservatives will destroy the planet."

We're all smart enough here to know better than that, right?

I mean, there are plenty of you here that I disagree with on a number of issues, but I've never made any ridiculous claims about your motives (only your methods). Whenever people do make those silly arguments about people on the opposite side of the political spectrum, who specifically are they talking about? I don't think anyone in this forum is evil on one side or the other. It's not because we're moderates - we're probably closer to the typical liberal or conservative than we think. The extremists that we talk about (and denigrate) all the time, as if they represented the other side, barely exist!

I'll do my best not to get sucked into the global warming debate anymore, besides stating the obvious - whatever each of us think, the debate isn't over. As correct as we each think we are, it's premature to say "no no, we have our proof here, and it's definitive; debate's over." For now, policy-writing has to reflect the lack of a conclusion, not that we'll agree on what that means we should do.

Opfreak, well, the San Diego example, was meant to illustrate that there would me more than just a local effect. I wasn't saying you want us to pollute the see there.

Of course, we cannot control the Earth and no sensible person will suggest so. We don't even completely understand it, let alone control it. Where I'm disagreeing with you is that some of our activities, if unchecked and allowed to take place for a long time, can and will affect the Earth on a global basis. I think that's what most non-environmentalists can't accept, but it's the truth. I can mention many examples already: dwindling amounts of fish because of overfishing, global warming, near-extintion of animals like elephonts, lions, etc. The earth is not infinite and we have to do our best to ensure that our activities won't have any nagative effects on it in the long term. That's the premise of environmentalism. I don't understand what's so wrong with that!

Well, I think Republicans, in general, exploit fears of people more. I don't think any Democrat will say "evil conservatives will destroy the planet" because it sounds silly. But I've been frustrated by the GOP's attitude....while a conservative perspective on some things is good and healthty, they always side with the business elite on just about everything despite the consequences!

I for one support drilling US oil. We need it, and to get it we're drilling foreign oil (and presumably damaging the environment too). SO why not drill our own? Unless our oil is located in such a delicate area of the country that drilling it will mean hell on earth for the neighbouring environment?

"The only holdout is Exxon and it's supposed "scientists". "

You're right that the opinions of oil company scientists are questionable but not as much as the opinions of enviromentalist scientists.

Whenever you read about man made global warming studies, it doesn't take much research to trace it back to groups like Greenpeace or the Sierra club.

Any study done by a group with a vested interest in the outcome is basically meaningless. The Earth's climate is so incredibly complex and has changed so much over the years/ centuries/ eons that it's easy to data mine and prove any conclusion that you what.

i.e ...I recently saw a report showing how much some glaciers had retreated over the last 20 years. The author said it was because of man made global warming. It only took me a few moments on the internet though to find a graph of how much they had retreated over the last 300 years.

The retreating averaged out at a steady rate over the centuries.

Is the world warming up in the short term? Looks like it.

Is the world warming up in the long term?
No one knows.

Is mankind causing it?
Not likely.

Can we change it?
Very unlikely.

Are we "destroying the earth?
Not a chance.

I strongly believe that future of our planet belongs to robots. Mission of human species is to create robots and then go away. I agree with environmentalists that humans are blight on the face of Earth and have to go. Humans are not capable to survive cosmic catastrophe (like Sun slightly changing its energy output), cosmic rays and solar wind if Earth loses magnetic field (which will happen sooner or later). Humans also have serious problems with space travel. Even traveling such a short distance as going to Mars is deadly for humans, I leave alone living on another planet for long periods of time.

BTW I am registered republican, if anyone has any doubt.

Therefore robots are post-humans future on the planet Earth and Solar system. Since human nature is strictly related to genetic design of humans – robots will be perfect species by avoiding human weaknesses by design, like having moral principles and religion, fear of death, drug addiction, family problems and etc. Robots also will be unisex, unirace and therefore there will be no discrimination among robot. There will be no greed, no money, no taxes and no big corporations. Future indeed looks bright.

If we really are __serious__ about wanting maximum efficiency in our quest for car driving or other machine-based thrills, and not wreck the environment in the process, more sophisicated games that stimulate our senses exactly the same way that a "real" experience does might be an answer.
_IF_ the system works properly, there will be no difference in the sensationw we get of the 700 hp, RWD drift machine or whatever we choose to "drive".

Granted this technology is in its infancy (Greg Bear's SI FI book ETERNITY goes into a possible future senario and is in some ways coming true).

But, given the obcession many humans, especially Generation Z, now have with continuous use of cel phones, PS3 and other devices for the (they are the first to make extensive use of these devices), it's a possibility.

Firstwagon, why should your opinions carry any weight on these topics? What is your expertise?

Classicjetta had a good link which I will repost here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686. As classicjetta noted, it's peer-reviewed science, not just a bunch of dudes spouting off in an internet forum.

For every peer reviewed report supporting man made globa warming, I can find one to rebut. In the 70's peer reviewed reports stated the world was facing a new ice age. Peer reviewed doesn't mean the conclusions are correct; just proper/accepted protocols were followed.

blackadder5639 - if you truely belive the liberals/democrates dont use as many, if not more scare tactics, I feel bad for how blind you are.

I can list many... heres a few:

republicans will take away you social security.

republicans hate poor people and will make them starve (take away food stamps etc)

republicans hate health care and will make you die.

republicans will take away your liberties.

etc etc.

As for global warming fear mongering. Thats completely on the side of the left:

massive draughts, massive floods, unperdicatable weather.

islands dissapearing, polar bears dieing off, new york under water.

you even have a head leader fear monger Al Gore, telling everyone how the world will end tommorow, if we dont stop today

my current favorite, is that the liberals are attacking the right on global warming issues...

and how its 'immoral' to cause all this polution, drive big cars etc, and we should all bike to work etc etc.

So they have no problem telling us how to use energy.

But when republicans/conservatives have a problem with who gets married, well, thats none of our business. and who are WE to JUDGE what people do?!

yet what you drive, where you live, all subject to judgement by the left.

Mnorm1: "For every peer reviewed report supporting man made globa warming, I can find one to rebut. "

If that's the case, then go ahead and post them. (Links from the WSJ editorial page or any right-wing think tank will not count....sorry!)

I doubt you looked at the link to Science magazine (I take it you just don't want to know!). It's a survey of 928 studies, not a single study. I won't tell you what the conclusion is...you have to find that out yourself. Let's just say it's not ideologically driven, as your views appear to be.

Flip that around, opfreak, and you get:

my current favorite, is that the conservatives are attacking the liberals on issues of intimacy...

and how its 'immoral' for certain people to marry etc etc.

So they have no problem telling us who we can love.

But when the left/liberals have a problem with pollution, how we use energy and what kind of cars we drive, well, thats none of our business. and who are WE to JUDGE what people do?!

yet who you marry, who you love, all subject to judgement by the right.

Funny how it works perfectly both ways!

It's so easy, it may be therapuetic, but it's counterproductive.

"I doubt you looked at the link to Science magazine.."
Your conclusion is based on incomplete knowledge , as is the conclusion that global warming is man made. I read it. I remain unconvinced.

Did you follow the Carlin link? Not that it's peer reviewed, but very funny and true.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Warm.html

Not a peer reviewed article but a summary and listing of 31,000 scientists (9000 with PhDs) that don't agree with man made global warming;
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

I do not contend the world is not getting warmer; it may be. I don't think it is man made. It will get colder too, at some point, I don't think that will be man made either. Assuming we don't go for nuclear winter.

The climate changes, whether man wants it to or
not.

"Let's just say it's not ideologically driven, as your views appear to be."

My views are "ideologically driven" but yours are not? Is that because I don't agree with you on this subject?

I can only aspire to the purity of thought you have achieved.

"Firstwagon, why should your opinions carry any weight on these topics? What is your expertise?"

On the environment, about as good as anyone on these boards.

On research and studies... Two Engineering diplomas and 20 years in the development field.

I can recognize poor science, hidden agendas and weak research.

It's what I do.

Why should your opinion carry any weight?

I suggest to increase gas taxes and introduce windfall profit tax on big oil and Detroit Big Three and spend all these money on research on teleportation. Teleportation has zero CO2 footprint and ends our addiction to oil.

I am sure that Japanese goverment is already secretly working on this technology. US goverment as always is way behind because of resistance from Bush regime and his friends in big oil.

Opfreak, in West Texas we don't hear anything from the Democrats! Just about all local government positions, as well as state Senate and House seats, are Republicans! So all I hear is what the conservatives are saying! LOLz!

But all-in-all I think the Democrat/liberal view makes more sense.

Beyond single celled organisms and insects, mankind is the nt species on the planet. Not all human impacts are bad, just look to the Native American cultures (pre-white invasions). Much of what we do fights against nature and is not sustainable. Any elementary aged school child can name dozens/hundreds of examples. To ignore environmental impacts produced by humans is shortsighted to the extreme.

The obvious long term answer to powering vehicles is fuel cells. As fuel cell technology improves and oil related prices rise, it will become practical. Other technologies (diesel, compressed air, battery) are simply stop-gap distractions. Fuel cells do not represent a new technology; it was used on the Apollo space vehicles. Speaking of which, if one nation could invent dozens of technologies in the 60s to put man on the moon, why can’t all countries come together to perfect fuel cells?

Solar energy is the obvious solution to powering the future. The sun delivers thousands of times the power we need every minute. New photovoltaic methods are in the final stages of research now that cost 5% as much as current technologies per watt produced. These methods work under low light (hazy, non-directional) levels. At home hydrogen converters will provide most of the needs for the home and car. With better batteries at home and wireless communication, I can foresee the day when coal mining, power plants, gas stations, and overhead lines could all become things of the past.

The basis for our current power production technologies is the boiling of water, internal combustion, and the piston/cylinder. They are all over 100 years old. We cling to them because so many big businesses have so much invested into them. If punishment is to be handed out, my pick would go to these big business lobbying efforts that are keeping us in the 19th century with their methods, fuels, and disregard for the environment.

"But all-in-all I think the Democrat/liberal view makes more sense."

In time, you will change and realize neither party makes sense.

In the conflict between car guy vs. environmentalist, car guys have compromised and accepted the extra cost of pollution control equipment on cars. However, environmentalists, instead of aplauding the great success in automotive emissions reduction, move the goal posts again and declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant too. Frustrating!

I believe that the country could rally around broad ideals like "Efficiency is Good", recycling is good, and being dependent on imported oil for transportation fuel is bad. The problem is car guy efforts to be responsible inhabitants of the planet seem to be met by ever more strict demands by environmetalists. I bet that if electric cars replaced internal combustion engine cars, environmentalists would still be bitching and complaining about the evils of cars and suburban sprawl.

Throwing gasoline on the fire, George W. Bush was a strong supporter of wind power as Texas governor. The end result is the Texas Renewable Portfolio Mandate and the most wind power generation capacity in the country.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/opinion/15friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Wind power and solar get to compete in a small part of the electricity market set aside for renewables. The mandate is large enough to attract business competition but small enough to avoid wrecking the economy. This model appears to be a much less expensive way to advance alternative energy technology than taxing fossil fuels to death.

Well, this thread confirms a couple of things:
- Car guys are ideologically diverse.
- We're not capable of maturely discussing things we don't agree on.

"In time, you will change and realize neither party makes sense."

So sad but so true. I'm 32 years old and have frighteningly begun to give up on our system. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Very discouraging...

Hook me up a new revolution, 'cause this one is a lie.

Mnorm1: sorry it took me a while to respond...had to work ;). My apologies.

I looked up the Carlin link. I'm familiar with his humor. I guess I'd summarize it by saying it's mostly attitude, which I'm sure speaks directly to your soul. It would take too long for me to try to dissect his routine here, but I'll just summarize by saying it mixes things anybody can agree with, along with faulty analogies. I mean, maybe he doesn't like dweebs who worry about asbestos, but I'm glad there are people who do worry about asbestos.

As for the two links: I looked at them too. The problem with both is that they are advocacy sites (one is a petition). The one in Spanish seems a little crackpot, to be honest -- it reminds me of a site I saw claiming that no airplane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11, backed up with all kinds of crazy evidence. Neither one makes any attempt to look at the issue objectively, as I believe the Science article does.

Firstwagon: as with Mnorm1 above, apologies for the delayed response.

My degree is in economics. Price, scarcity, allocation, externalities, all that stuff. One of the main principles of trade is specialization, i.e. making sure that those who are most productive in certain tasks are made to do those tasks.

So in this case, I'm more likely to give credence on issues related to earth science to researchers who specialize in those topics. I'm sure you are good at engineering (you didn't mention what kind of engineering you did), but it seems to me that you are more knowledgeable with the application of existing science. Given a choice between the opinion of an engineer or a researcher in earth sciences, I'll listen to the researcher when it comes to issues of global warming.

How convenient, any study that doesn't support man made global warming is conducted by a wacko advocacy group, and can be summarily dismissed.

Mnorm1: Wouldn't you look skeptically at a report put out by Greenpeace? Why not apply the same standard to reports put out by the anti-global warming crowd?