[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by EmPower

And yet CO2 levels have never been higher; sea levels still rise and arctic ice still melts at an alarming rate. I am not sure how seemingly educated people can be so dumb or be so lackadaisical towards a problem that has reached a point of no return.

I am all for responsible capitalism; but the repugnicunts are a breed of selfish, boorish, acerbic, uneducated, near sighted, power hungry bullies that throw hissy fits when god forbid someone suggests a progressive solution that would ultimately be for the good of us all.

...Murrrricah!!

Ah, name calling, just what Liberals do, lovely. So if you can't interpret the geological and fossil records and understand that climate change and species extinction are part of the natural occurrences of the planet, and that all things change over time, then some of your education was wasted time. You must realize that taking a position that man can prevent the climate from changing to preserve himself is actually a conservative position since you want to maintain the status quo and want human existence as you now know it to remain intact forever, when all the scientific evidence (not climate modeling - real evidence) points otherwise. You are not being "progressive" you are actually being regressive.

Only Liberals have the arrogance to think man can adversely effect the Earth's climate and conversely fix it. I've never seen an Liberal counter argument that explains how the Earth has moved in and out of ice ages over the last 4 billion years without any intervention from humans either causing global cooling (ice ages) or global warming (ice retardation). And only liberals are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate how the rest of us should live. If you don't like my country and the gift to freely voice your opinion then move somewhere else; we'll get along fine without you and the idiots (not name calling - a descriptive term) you put in office.

The Earth is not going to be here forever, you can't save the planet, you need to accept that.

[EmPower]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ah, name calling, just what Liberals do, lovely. So if you can't interpret the geological and fossil records and understand that climate change and species extinction are part of the natural occurrences of the planet, and that all things change over time, then some of your education was wasted time. You must realize that taking a position that man can prevent the climate from changing to preserve himself is actually a conservative position since you want to maintain the status quo and want human existence as you now know it to remain intact forever, when all the scientific evidence (not climate modeling - real evidence) points otherwise. You are not being "progressive" you are actually being regressive.

Only Liberals have the arrogance to think man can adversely effect the Earth's climate and conversely fix it. I've never seen an Liberal counter argument that explains how the Earth has moved in and out of ice ages over the last 4 billion years without any intervention from humans either causing global cooling (ice ages) or global warming (ice retardation). And only liberals are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate how the rest of us should live. If you don't like my country and the gift to freely voice your opinion then move somewhere else; we'll get along fine without you and the idiots (not name calling - a descriptive term) you put in office.

The Earth is not going to be here forever, you can't save the planet, you need to accept that.

LOL; do you hear yourself? So accelerating towards Armageddon is your solution? Nice one chief!

[gonzo]

I should have worded my post's differently.
It just seems we are playing checkers while "others" are strategically and deliberately placing their chess pieces.
Bothersome.

Whipping post is what I see.
Not a this or that and despise all "sided" news channels.

Good day.

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by EmPower

And yet CO2 levels have never been higher; sea levels still rise and arctic ice still melts at an alarming rate. I am not sure how seemingly educated people can be so dumb or be so lackadaisical towards a problem that has reached a point of no return.

I am all for responsible capitalism; but the repugnicunts are a breed of selfish, boorish, acerbic, uneducated, near sighted, power hungry bullies that throw hissy fits when god forbid someone suggests a progressive solution that would ultimately be for the good of us all.

...Murrrricah!!

Not sure if you missed the point of my post entirely, or if your anger is directed at other posters despite you quoting me specifically.

I agree with your points, and find it both shocking and hilarious that people still think global warming is a construct of liberal politicians, despite the vast majority of some of the smartest people on earth, MANY of whom aren't even affiliated with the US political system, think Man is indeed contributing to global warming.

The point of my post was to say that even as more regulation is being implemented to help curb CO2 emissions in the US by cars, cars are still becoming more powerful, faster, safe, etc, AS they also become more efficient. I see these regulations as a good thing for the autosport industry, as it's going to continue to push innovation. But some people still long for the day of the 454 engine getting 5 mpg and NEARLY 400 hp.

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And only liberals are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate how the rest of us should live.

Quoted for wtfbbqfactor.

Inb4 abortion laws, gay marriage laws, women contraceptive laws, threadlock, etc.

[Diver]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

Given that this is a car forum I'll keep my response car related. Lots of people like to tout the epa and the c02 restrictions as the doomsday for cars. Yet today, with more regulation and restrictions than say ten years ago, our cars have never been faster, safer, AND more fuel efficient. The fact that we have have cars that can do sub 4 second 0-60 and get 30+ mpg is a testament to that.

That's what we have now, the noose is about to tighten. When the new EPA rules were approved the only cars in production today capable of meeting the 2025 rules were the Prius and a couple of plug ins. The price differential for high performance variants continues to climb.

Please educate me, what has a sub 4 second 0-60 and gets 30+ mpg. There is probably something with an out of sight price.

[EmPower]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

Not sure if you missed the point of my post entirely, or if your anger is directed at other posters despite you quoting me specifically.

I agree with your points, and find it both shocking and hilarious that people still think global warming is a construct of liberal politicians, despite the vast majority of some of the smartest people on earth, MANY of whom aren't even affiliated with the US political system, think Man is indeed contributing to global warming.

The point of my post was to say that even as more regulation is being implemented to help curb CO2 emissions in the US by cars, cars are still becoming more powerful, faster, safe, etc, AS they also become more efficient. I see these regulations as a good thing for the autosport industry, as it's going to continue to push innovation. But some people still long for the day of the 454 engine getting 5 mpg and NEARLY 400 hp.

I do agree with your points; however, do we REALLY need 400hp? Realistically? On the flip side, do we need to be complete eco weenies and drive Priuses like a bat out of hell; which does not really help the environment at all, but gives the owner bragging rights for owning a hybrid. My point is that while I like the progress being made on the front of light vehicles, when are they going to introduce legislation on planes, Semis, ships etc. Their cumulative impact on global warming HAS to be a good chunk of smaller vehicles.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Diver

That's what we have now, the noose is about to tighten. When the new EPA rules were approved the only cars in production today capable of meeting the 2025 rules were the Prius and a couple of plug ins. The price differential for high performance variants continues to climb.

Please educate me, what has a sub 4 second 0-60 and gets 30+ mpg. There is probably something with an out of sight price.

The proverbial noose has been starting to tighten since about the 80's, starting with the push from carbureted engines to fuel injected engines and he's right, cars have only gotten faster and more efficient over time. Sure there's not much that can get 30+ mpg and do a sub 4 second 0-60 without costing an arm and a leg (any sub 4 second car will cost an arm and a leg though regardless of mileage, that's nothing new), but look at our cars. It'll do 0-60 in just over 4 seconds and get me an average of about 25 mpg. I don't know how anyone could see that as a bad thing. We can also still afford them.

You act like this is the first time the US government has unveiled ambitious plans to cut back emissions, every time automakers have managed to not only meet them, but make cars faster and more efficient through the use of turbocharging, light weight materials, 8-9 speed transmissions, etc etc.

Our cars can beat V8 powered muscle cars from just 10 years ago that were considered some of the fastest road going cars for folks that were reasonably priced. Our cars can embarrass them while at the same time getting significantly better gas mileage.

I'd argue that most of these restrictions are probably not even necessary, the auto market is moving in that direction anyway not because they want to "save the environment" but to hedge against the risk concerning the unpredictability of oil prices.

But don't kid yourself, even without these regulations, automakers would be doing this stuff at some point anyway, ones that want to stick around long term anyway.

This topic is sort of beating a dead horse anyway, I've heard this nonsense of the end of fast cars for over 10 years now meanwhile cars have gotten nothing but faster and more efficient over time.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ah, name calling, just what Liberals do, lovely. So if you can't interpret the geological and fossil records and understand that climate change and species extinction are part of the natural occurrences of the planet, and that all things change over time, then some of your education was wasted time. You must realize that taking a position that man can prevent the climate from changing to preserve himself is actually a conservative position since you want to maintain the status quo and want human existence as you now know it to remain intact forever, when all the scientific evidence (not climate modeling - real evidence) points otherwise. You are not being "progressive" you are actually being regressive.

Only Liberals have the arrogance to think man can adversely effect the Earth's climate and conversely fix it. I've never seen an Liberal counter argument that explains how the Earth has moved in and out of ice ages over the last 4 billion years without any intervention from humans either causing global cooling (ice ages) or global warming (ice retardation). And only liberals are arrogant enough to think they have the right to dictate how the rest of us should live. If you don't like my country and the gift to freely voice your opinion then move somewhere else; we'll get along fine without you and the idiots (not name calling - a descriptive term) you put in office.

The Earth is not going to be here forever, you can't save the planet, you need to accept that.

Both sides have an ideology that the more extreme members of their party want to push onto the rest of us. From gun ownership, environment, energy, gay marriage, access to contraception, abortion, etc etc, both sides have key issues they'd like to push on everyone else.

But what do I know? Keep drinking the partisan kool-aid.

[Diver]

Not everyone subscribes to the hypothesis that CO2 is the single most important driver of Earth's climate. Certainly, the issue benefits both the UN, because it appears to require a worldwide solution and the left, because CO2 is something that can be regulated and the left loves to regulate. Scientists can be bought and the UN has about 2,500 on the take peer reviewing each other. Most of the rest are at left leaning universities. Europe has been run by the left for decades so they love this.

The rhetoric is disturbing. Anyone who does not agree is a denier, no longer a skeptic. It's presented as settled science or fact with no room for debate.

For an alternative to the UN IPCC look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Diver]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

This topic is sort of beating a dead horse anyway, I've heard this nonsense of the end of fast cars for over 10 years now meanwhile cars have gotten nothing but faster and more efficient over time.

The new regulations are different and much tougher. There will be some fast cars, but they will be extremely expensive and will have batteries that will have to be replaced during the life of the vehicle. The i8 is a sample, at $125,000. It isn't any faster than an M235i and the battery lasts 2 minutes on a track.

Your argument is like saying if the tax on liquor went to $50 per bottle it wouldn't make any difference because liquor has been taxed forever and people still drink. Folks would keep drinking, but it would hurt, and the EPA rules will hurt.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Diver

The new regulations are different and much tougher. There will be some fast cars, but they will be extremely expensive and will have batteries that will have to be replaced during the life of the vehicle. The i8 is a sample, at $125,000. It isn't any faster than an M235i and the battery lasts 2 minutes on a track.

Your argument is like saying if the tax on liquor went to $50 per bottle it wouldn't make any difference because liquor has been taxed forever and people still drink. Folks would keep drinking, but it would hurt, and the EPA rules will hurt.

Lol, no they aren't. Comparative to the times various pieces of regulation have been introduced over the past 30 years or so, they've always been "different and much tougher" than they have previously. I'd love to see how you'd overreact back when cars had to actually have a catalytic converter installed due to new environmental regulation or when lead had to be removed from fuel all of which posed "tough" challenges back then.

The i8 is also a terrible example as nothing proposed by Obama indicates we'll HAVE to rely on hybrid sports cars to go fast. Corvettes, M3's et al. will still be widely available and will continue on.

But keep drinking the Fox News and talk radio kool aid and enjoy freaking out over nothing. Crazy how people will blindly just believe anything so long as it feeds some misguided ideology they have. I figure that's what you're doing anyway, since you completely ignored the rest of my post about how automotive companies would continue to find methods to increase efficiency even in a hypothetical absence of regulations to hedge against the risk presented by oil prices and their random spikes in price.

Here's an article that talks about how new, tougher and challenging EPA regulations on the automotive industry will do nothing but increase costs too much and stifle the business. It was written on April 24, 1980, http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1...tion-fuel-cost

EDIT: Either way, this topic should be moved to the Politics section where it belonged in the first place.

[Diver]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Lol, no they aren't. Comparative to the times various pieces of regulation have been introduced over the past 30 years or so, they've always been "different and much tougher" than they have previously. I'd love to see how you'd overreact back when cars had to actually have a catalytic converter installed due to new environmental regulation or when lead had to be removed from fuel all of which posed "tough" challenges back then.

[/url]

As I recall, when smog regulations started in the late 60's horsepower and performance sank while fuel consumption rose. Things did not recover until the early 1990's with the advent of computer controlled port fuel injection. Most cars had their pollution controls removed back then. If you are looking at the recent future only, one might draw the conclusions you have, but look back at 1967-199. It was an automotive dark age and I see another one coming. Car costs did increase at a rate surpassing inflation for many years. The trend reversed later because of computer technology, but those gains have been largely absorbed.

It's a matter of degree. We could argue about this all day, the future will be revealed later. One of the ways the EPA got automakers to go along with the new regs is there is a 2018 review point. If technology has not advanced enough, the further efficiency increases will be suspended. This is because they believed by 2018 technology will not have improved enough to continue with further improvements in efficiency.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

What does election results have to do with the ignorant assertion that Germany's economic troubles stem from high utility rates? It's a woefully ignorant point of view that only comes from blindly believing anything you hear on talk radio or network news, regardless of political affiliation.

I'm not sure who "You boys" are supposed to be. I never mentioned anything as to my own political affiliation just making fun of the absolute nonsense in this thread. Most of those who lost last week deserved it. Sadly those moving into DC soon will likely be no better.

The best thing about most political discussions such as this are the hilarious blind eyes to reality and just hyperbolic slippery slope arguments. Just goes to show who blindly listens to MSNBC and Fox News so long as it feeds a misplaced ideology.

For a guy who talks a lot, you sure don't say much. What a bore.

[Diver]

One other thing that just occurred to me, during this period of fast cars in spite of tough regulations GM and Chrysler went broke. I guess that was for other reasons...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Diver

As I recall, when smog regulations started in the late 60's horsepower and performance sank while fuel consumption rose. Things did not recover until the early 1990's with the advent of computer controlled port fuel injection. Most cars had their pollution controls removed back then. If you are looking at the recent future only, one might draw the conclusions you have, but look back at 1967-199. It was an automotive dark age and I see another one coming. Car costs did increase at a rate surpassing inflation for many years. The trend reversed later because of computer technology, but those gains have been largely absorbed.

It's a matter of degree. We could argue about this all day, the future will be revealed later. One of the ways the EPA got automakers to go along with the new regs is there is a 2018 review point. If technology has not advanced enough, the further efficiency increases will be suspended. This is because they believed by 2018 technology will not have improved enough to continue with further improvements in efficiency.

Excellent response. Well done.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Diver

Not everyone subscribes to the hypothesis that CO2 is the single most important driver of Earth's climate. Certainly, the issue benefits both the UN, because it appears to require a worldwide solution and the left, because CO2 is something that can be regulated and the left loves to regulate. Scientists can be bought and the UN has about 2,500 on the take peer reviewing each other. Most of the rest are at left leaning universities. Europe has been run by the left for decades so they love this.

The rhetoric is disturbing. Anyone who does not agree is a denier, no longer a skeptic. It's presented as settled science or fact with no room for debate.

For an alternative to the UN IPCC look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Another excellent response. I didn't check the link, but another source to read regarding your topic is Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Both sides have an ideology that the more extreme members of their party want to push onto the rest of us. From gun ownership, environment, energy, gay marriage, access to contraception, abortion, etc etc, both sides have key issues they'd like to push on everyone else.

But what do I know? Keep drinking the partisan kool-aid.

Evaluating and understanding the fossil record and a geologic record is not ideology, not partisanship, nor speculation, it is real science. Developing climate models that predict the outcome of what the Left wants predicted to "prove" climate change is ideology. Basing economic regulation on bought science is ideology.

And exactly how is gun ownership an issue wanting to be "pushed", when it is already settled by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? You lost me on that one...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Diver

Not everyone subscribes to the hypothesis that CO2 is the single most important driver of Earth's climate. Certainly, the issue benefits both the UN, because it appears to require a worldwide solution and the left, because CO2 is something that can be regulated and the left loves to regulate. Scientists can be bought and the UN has about 2,500 on the take peer reviewing each other. Most of the rest are at left leaning universities. Europe has been run by the left for decades so they love this.

The rhetoric is disturbing. Anyone who does not agree is a denier, no longer a skeptic. It's presented as settled science or fact with no room for debate.

For an alternative to the UN IPCC look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

It's actually the cows. Dang methane... Stop eating beef! Oh wait, ideology again. Dang it!

and fecurits, go talk to some aircraft engineers, see how efficient commerical aircraft actually are...

[attila]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

The problem in China is its heavy reliance on coal factories. To deny its impact on air pollution is to deny science and climate change is not a political conversation but rather a scientific one. Bringing in politics to topics such as global warming and macroeconomics dumbs them down to absolute nonsense which is unfortunate as there are lots of good discussion to be had.

Thanks for the reasonable reply though. I'd argue of all of the complicated issues going on in Germany and the EU, utility rates are towards the bottom of the list as far as weighted impact is concerned.

Also if I were to shape a dialog around this topic I wouldn't base it on the notion that climate change is some liberal scare tactic. To do so would dismiss the extensive independent scientific research worldwide on the issue. It would be more interesting to discuss just how much CO2 emissions are from automobiles vs differing types of power generating factories vs the emissions caused from things as simple as cow farts and the fact that we cut down is is plenty of trees for building and agriculture purposes. All of which contribute to CO2 emissions.

Instead, making it political results in a degradation of the topic to baseless talking points and conspiracies about some silly plot to have everyone drive a Prius.

Completely agree! It is unbelievable how many people in the US are not able to grasp the huge impact of pollution our modern society is producing.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by EmPower

LOL; do you hear yourself? So accelerating towards Armageddon is your solution? Nice one chief!

You must have gone to Harvard...

[Diver]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And exactly how is gun ownership an issue wanting to be "pushed", when it is already settled by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? You lost me on that one...

I think the gun issue is the left pushing gun control.