Forum Discussion
campigloo wrote:
Diesel, if I'm so out of it, why have none of the predictions come to pass? We've been told we would be under a block of ice in twenty years and told multiple times the planet would be uninhabitable in just a few years because of excessive heat. When it doesn't happen the government funded "scientists" simply announce a later date. How do you explain a growing ice pack in the Antarctic?
Maybe you're the one that needs to do some fact checking.
Here ya go.
NASA- Diesel, if I'm so out of it, why have none of the predictions come to pass? We've been told we would be under a block of ice in twenty years and told multiple times the planet would be uninhabitable in just a few years because of excessive heat. When it doesn't happen the government funded "scientists" simply announce a later date. How do you explain a growing ice pack in the Antarctic?
Maybe you're the one that needs to do some fact checking. - Diesel, if I'm so out of it, why have none of the predictions come to pass? We've been told we would be under a block of ice in twenty years and told multiple times the planet would be uninhabitable in just a few years because of excessive heat. When it doesn't happen the government funded "scientists" simply announce a later date. How do you explain a growing ice pack in the Antarctic?
Maybe you're the one that needs to do some fact checking.
Go refill your koolaid jug. wilber1 wrote:
I'm one of those older folks.
I think government has to provide some kind of direction for the future because the market won't. We see it all the time. When fuel prices go down, sales of gas guzzlers go up and fuel efficient vehicles go down. When fuel prices go up, the opposite happens and in both cases manufacturers supply what the customer is buying.
Our air and water is cleaner than 50 years ago in spite of a 50% increase in population Whether you like how they have done it or not, the EPA has to get a lot of the credit for that.
Wish the board had a thumbs up.
Its an age old argument that only changes as one generation replaces another. The older generation have been conditioned to believe that putting the environment somehow costs more money and creates poverty. not their fault, its just the thinking of the era. It'll change over time.
Oh and far as China being the polluters, nope, we are the pigs of the planet. They may produce more pollution over all (they have four times the population) but they put out less than half per capita than what we do. It all starts at home.Why does the name of this scientific problem keep changing? It started out as global cooling. Next it was global warming then man made global warming and now it's climate change. It seems to me that these computer models keep changing to meet the demands of the desired result.
Desired result? It seems to me you are easily fooled by conspiracy theories. If you can't keep up with current research and terminology there is only one person to blame for that.blofgren wrote:
LOL thanks for the laugh! :B
We are enjoying the Presidential debates here in Canada.
You're welcome, I wish I could find some amusement in our national political discourse, but I can't. :B
Nothing at all wrong with cleaning the air, water, etc., but as Wilber said, within reason. EV's have a place, but they're not for everyone. Why the major Class 8 truck manufacturers are tinkering with hybrid vehicles, along the lines of the diesel electric locomotive. Got no problem with wind and solar, but I don't see them as a practical replacement for mass produced fossil fuel power generation, though wind, solar, and fossil fuel are certainly preferable to the staggering cost of nuclear power, and I'm not talking about the cost to the environment or people in the event of a reactor accident. Duke Energy is collecting something like 8 bucks or more a month from every one of its Florida customers to decommission a nuclear plant at Crystal River, Fl. The reactor room floor is separating from the reactor building walls. Caught before it became a problem, but not before almost a billion bucks was spent trying to fix it and concluding they can't........- I think we are getting the result whether we desire it or not.
- I'm confused. I thought scientific theory was proven by being able to achieve
the same result through repeated testing and experimenting. I was never taught that scientific truth is an opinion; i.e. consensus. Why does the name of this scientific problem keep changing? It started out as global cooling. Next it was global warming then man made global warming and now it's climate change. It seems to me that these computer models keep changing to meet the demands of the desired result. thomasmnile wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
CAFE standards have to be an honest, realistic collaboration between government and industry taking into account what is possible with existing technology. Vehicles that are more fuel efficient are a good thing.
Very well said. Um, you wouldn't be available to run for President of the United States, would you? :B We're a quart low on reasonable and common sense down here............
LOL thanks for the laugh! :B
We are enjoying the Presidential debates here in Canada.
I do agree that the EPA does deserve some credit. I was amazed at the difference in exhaust smell, smoke, and soot from my 2003 F-350 6.0L to my 2013 6.7L Cummins. There is absolutely none with the Cummins, and I'm still trying to get the soot off the side of my beer fridge from the 6.0L. And I remember the first time I left my 1996 F-250 7.3L running when I hooked up my tt; let's just say I shut it off while hooking up after that! Great truck, though!- I'm one of those older folks.
I think government has to provide some kind of direction for the future because the market won't. We see it all the time. When fuel prices go down, sales of gas guzzlers go up and fuel efficient vehicles go down. When fuel prices go up, the opposite happens and in both cases manufacturers supply what the customer is buying.
Our air and water is cleaner than 50 years ago in spite of a 50% increase in population Whether you like how they have done it or not, the EPA has to get a lot of the credit for that.
