Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With a global use of 100 million barrels of oil being used everyday and rising i cant believe there are people out there who believe there is no climatic consequence to this level of fossil fuel consumption particularly when all the scientists are almost unanimous in their warnings and predictions of the consequences.yet these GW deniers think all the scientists are in some way lying for money. Yeah right
With a global use of 100 million barrels of oil being used everyday and rising i cant believe there are people out there who believe there is no climatic consequence to this level of fossil fuel consumption particularly when all the scientists are almost unanimous in their warnings and predictions of the consequences.yet these GW deniers think all the scientists are in some way lying for money. Yeah right
You can't beat something with nothing. What is the alternative? Nuclear? Replacing fossil fuels with renewables would be so expensive and take up so much land it would die of its own limits. The other alternative is to do without and the only people who advocate that are those who haven't experienced it.
Yes, that alone is enough reason not to squander it by buying the V-6 option when 4 cylinders will work fine.
You're not going to get governments to ban large engines, make the speed limit 55, and restrict all sorts of rights to save a little oil. It's not going to happen.. even in European countries they love their speed.
Besides modern V6 and V8 engines really aren't that much worse on gas mileage than smaller engines.
You want to conserve resources you need to get people to stop having so many kids... or have people driving lighter vehicles... a 4 cylinder large family SUV aside from being dangerously slow is still going to have poor gas mileage because of all the weight being driven around... less weight, better gas mileage.
Expensive sports cars with good gear ratios that can cruise 85 while remaining at 1500RPM get some pretty good gas mileage at that speed.
Liberals reward people for pumping out kids out of wedlock from different fathers with more and more financial aid, tax breaks, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.... so liberals are the biggest cause of increased energy usage... more people... more energy used. A person not born is a person who will not consume endless resources over the course of their life. Just saying.
You're not going to get governments to ban large engines, make the speed limit 55, and restrict all sorts of rights to save a little oil. It's not going to happen.. even in European countries they love their speed.
Besides modern V6 and V8 engines really aren't that much worse on gas mileage than smaller engines.
You want to conserve resources you need to get people to stop having so many kids... or have people driving lighter vehicles... a 4 cylinder large family SUV aside from being dangerously slow is still going to have poor gas mileage because of all the weight being driven around... less weight, better gas mileage.
Expensive sports cars with good gear ratios that can cruise 85 while remaining at 1500RPM get some pretty good gas mileage at that speed.
Liberals reward people for pumping out kids out of wedlock from different fathers with more and more financial aid, tax breaks, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.... so liberals are the biggest cause of increased energy usage... more people... more energy used. A person not born is a person who will not consume endless resources over the course of their life. Just saying.
Oh please. Firstly, conservatives have more children than liberals and red states use more federal money for things like food stamps than blue states. Liberals don't WANT to spend money supplementing incomes, which is why we are fighting to raise the minimum wage and give EVERYONE a salary boost, but in the meantime, we aren't going to let people starve to death either.
Secondly, if you are going to go with that theory, then you should be all for abortions and birth control access so as to keep the population down and conserve resources. Oh wait, conservatives hate that.
You can't beat something with nothing. What is the alternative? Nuclear? Replacing fossil fuels with renewables would be so expensive and take up so much land it would die of its own limits. The other alternative is to do without and the only people who advocate that are those who haven't experienced it.
As a species we have to live a more sustainable lifestyle.Unfortunately no one is taking the scientists warning seriously and we will have to deal with whatever consequences Global Warming will bring.
Is it the goal of climate "skeptics" to burn these irreplaceable gifts from nature as FAST as humanly possible? What would be the point of such behavior, other than to thumb one's nose at regulations, like rolling coal in a pickup truck? "Neener, neener, you can't tell ME what to do!" Do wastrels and polluters see themselves as patriotic?
It seems to be the role of climate "believers" to run other peoples lives for them. To quote the lyrics of Jonathan Edwards' Sunshine (link below):
Sunshine go away today
I don't feel much like dancing
Some man's gone, he's tried to run my life
Don't know what he's asking
**********
How much does it cost, I'll buy it
The time is all we've lost, I'll try it
But he can't even run his own life
I'll be damned if he'll run mine, Sunshine
Seriously, I don't mind being informed. I don't want someone else trying to shame me into following their agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie
How about you ask hour idol algore how HE conserves these resources???????
By making speeches and movies. Flying private planes to travel. And living in opulent Nashville house. All based on "credits" for his save the world activities.
As a species we have to live a more sustainable lifestyle.Unfortunately no one is taking the scientists warning seriously and we will have to deal with whatever consequences Global Warming will bring.
That's not something. People want others to take the warning seriously, not themselves. Who is prepared to cut his energy use 70%? The line forms to the right. People are all for sacrifice in the abstract but practically, no. It's not my cell phone or big screen TV or daily shower that is the problem, it's someone else's.
When I see Al Gore move into a 800 sq. ft. house, stop flying private jets and walk to work I'll take him and his kind seriously. Until then they'll have to content themselves with the amount of attention reserved for hypocrites.
Yes, that alone is enough reason not to squander it by buying the V-6 option when 4 cylinders will work fine.
Real men drive a V8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
With a global use of 100 million barrels of oil being used everyday and rising i cant believe there are people out there who believe there is no climatic consequence to this level of fossil fuel consumption particularly when all the scientists are almost unanimous in their warnings and predictions of the consequences.yet these GW deniers think all the scientists are in some way lying for money. Yeah right
There are plenty of global warming econazis who claim any scientist that refutes global warming is a shill for oil company research money. As such, it doesn't surprise me that many so-called "deniers" claim that scientists who believe in global warming are merely shills for government grant money.
As for the so-called "climatic consequences" of burning fossil fuels... Until one of these environmental experts can explain the causes of the Medieval Warming Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, and how the Vikings were able to farm sheep and grow barley in Greenland 1000 years before the worldwide burning of hydrocarbons, I am going to remain skeptical of their motives.
Al Gore who has no background whatsoever in environmental science, meteorology or climatology, and who made his career in politics has seen his personal wealth multiply 10 times over since he first started pushing "An Inconvenient Truth".
How much longer before the world's petroleum is exhausted? IOW, how finite is it? I bet if we approach the point of exhaustion, the signs will be clear and we'll adjust. For now, the commodity price of oil indicates it's still plentiful... and what makes for a wasteful use of it anyway? Waste isn't a concrete thing, it's a matter of whether something is useful to someone. I would bet almost all of the people who buy petroleum put it to good use.
You've not studied Peak Oil at all, have you? I put a graph in the original message - look at it. We will not just "adjust" to something else. It takes decades to transition energy sources and most people are still ignoring the obvious signs of oil scarcity, like the peaking of conventional crude around 2005 and the need for costly shale fracking and tar sands mining.
Oil is so unique that it's really irreplaceable. We need it to last as long as possible, even if some unforeseen substance could replace its transportation utility. In energy terms, fossil fuels are capital, not income. It's like giving society a large savings account and watching it squandered on ego and luxury items.
A really good question is, why aren't we all running on ethanol?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
