cali92RS

Did people have the ability to ruin the earth 7000 years ago like they do today? Were there 6 billion people on earth 7000 years ago?
It doesnt take a scientist to see the effect people have had on the environment.
Go fishing in the LA harbor and tell me if you actually catch anything, and if you do, there are signs everyway saying not to eat the fish.

But we shouldnt believe we negatively effect the environment because that would mean we would have to change our lifestyle, and stop driving cars that dump smoke in the air, and stop dumping **** into the ocean.

Whats the easiest possible solution to this problem?
"Lets do nothing because doing something requires money, and I like my cars, therefore, lets twist facts around and say its just a theory".

Thats what this country is all about, looking for the easiest, most non-invasive solution.

cali92RS

Oh, BTW, of course the climate changes on its own. That doesnt mean we dont have the capability to greatly accelerate or amplify those changes.

If you don't think humans have an effect on the environment, check out how many animals we have already killed to extinction, and how many are endangered. And if your alive in 50 years, a pound of Halibut is going to be about 100 dollars because of overfishing.
And you gotta be a straight up retard to think that cutting down the rain forests at the rate we do wont have some sort of impact.

400Z28Racer

iTrader: (4)

otherside's points of view http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=6

Dyno Don

iTrader: (7)

Well damn....I have looked all over, maybe you could direct me to a green house so I can see one
By the way ....ask me if I give a rats a$$.

400Z28Racer

iTrader: (4)

hey that makes us two

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Ken you are all over the map going from one issue to another. Some I agree with you on and others I do not. Global Warming is one I do not. Buy the way Al Gore is selling carbon credits for those of you so inclined.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Remember a lie(man made global warming) is already halfway around the world before the truth has even put its boots on. So yes you will find more articles supporting the notion that man is mainly responsible for global warming. However the truth(from more articles and scientists) are now coming to light and starting to catch up.

Kevin84Z28

iTrader: (3)

They'll just call it a "Gross Polluter" when it puts out more emissions than a Prius and tell you they have $500 bucks for you if you turn it in... And if you have any guns bring those in too for destruction.

Guest

Thanks for proving my point. You have no proof so instead you jump to a different subject.

injdinjn

Ok. lets say we causing extreme environmental harm. What do we do to change that and at what cost.
First we stop ALL imports and exports.
Shut down ALL air, train, boat, vehicle transport.
Stop having more than one kid.
Stop new construction of ALL buildings. If we reduce births we dont need more buildings.
Shut down all manufacturing - it pollutes
No more electricity as ALL power generators harm the environment including hydro electric - they hurt the fish and natural stream flow.
In a nut shell we go back to living like the Indians did 150 years ago. Live off the land, only have biodegradable products, houses made out of mud or animal hide or live in a cave.
It will get cold as cooking and heating fires pollute the air.
Gun control advociates will love it as we will have to go back to bows and arrows and spears and rocks.

Anything less than the above - practiced by every country and person in the world - would be a waste of time.

Right now our labor, tax and environmental laws are chasing every form of manufacturing out of the USA. Its going to China or Mexico where labor and environmental issues are not issues. The pollution those countries cause making products for US consumer use is 50-100 time worse than the pollution those companies caused here. We get Northern Mexicos pollution thru our groundwater and Chinas via the weather patterns.

So until the Greenies can get EVERYONE in the world to comply whats the point. All we are doing by buying green is making some corporation rich at our expense and all our air will still be crap and, if you believe in GW we will all drown in the rising sea waters if we dont freeze to death like they were predicting 15 years ago.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

All I know is, when someone says they have to change their product to make it more Earth-friendly, it ends up costing me more money out of my pocket.

I dont mind driving less, carpooling, leaving the cats on my car like I'm supposed to, and getting companies to handle their waste properly. But when these measure start driving business out of California and out of the United States, taking jobs with them, where do we draw the line? Are you willing to pay $60,000 for a car that produces zero emissions? Or will you buy the $30,000 car because that's what you can afford? Are you willing to go without a raise because your company has to spend $10 million to overhaul their production lines to save 1% in emissions?

Yes we can ALL do our little part to make the air better and pollute less. I just have a HUGE problem with government stepping in and FORCING us to comply. Electric cars are great, but what about the plant working harder burning coal and oil to produce that electricity when you recharge it? Compact flourescent bulbs are great, but whoops, they contain mercury that poisons the land and water. MTBE added to our gasoline was great to reduce the emissions, but whoops, that turned out to be a bigger polluter than the exhaust was. You see what a big joke this is?

JulieGTA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
(But maybe in the past, climate change was caused by huge volcanoes and meteors?)

Whenever we talk about the environment, somebody always ends up saying that we'll have to live like cave men to stop pollution. "Eating grass and something squirrels" as I recall from one thread! It isn't all black and white. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care at all.

I think people get defensive when you tell them how they should feel, and I don't like that either. I don't like having the government telling me what to do either... So just do your own research and believe what you want.

On a change of subject:
Try living a day without things made in China! (Or overseas)

Kevin84Z28

iTrader: (3)

I agree 100%, "Going Green" is almost always symbolic anyways and expensive. The trick now for corporations "Going Green" is to hide the cost.

injdinjn

"Try living a day without things made in China!"
(for whatever reason the quote icon doesnt resond)

I would just like to be able to buy something not made in China.
And we cant because the EPA and lack of tariffs has made it more profitable for companies to outsource to China. Increases our National debt, puts people out of work here and why just to move the pollution to another country and put the screws to us here. Sorry no more sympathy for "green" It costs tooooooo much.

injdinjn

And when these companies outsource to China or wherever they dont pass the savings on to us, they keep the prices the same and their shareholders get the "green".

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

I see global warming as a scam created to get more of your money for the government. I wonder how much of the tabacco tax actually went to hospitals and research. I bet it went into the general fund.

injdinjn

The Calif tobacco tax money is not going to where it should be going. The State thieves have passed a law, some time ago, that allows them to "borrow" money earmarked for item A and use it to finance item B. Of course they always manage to leave out when they plan on paying it back.

The people getting the lions share of the GW scam is big energy producing companies and schools and private research companies that are raking in $millions doing research "proving" GW is man made. Of course all their computer similation programs have proven to be crap, but that doesnt stop a runaway train.

BretD 88GTA

That's how the U.S. economy works now, it's a system of instant gratification. People buying shares of stock at $5 each today, want to be able to sell it for $6, $7, $8 a share on E-Trade tomorrow. They don't care who gets screwed in the process so long as they make a quick buck.

It keeps companies busy trying to make sure their share price is constantly increasing. How do they do that? Drop their U.S. work force little by little and out source to India, China or Mexico where people work for $2/hr. and make a good living in their country at that rate. They also don't have to provide any health care.

That's how we also end up with Enron type companies cooking their books and the Dot Com bust. A good chunk of the "Dot Com" companies had nothing in reality. It was just a bunch of investment guys making false promises and bogus press releases so they could cut themselves a bunch of stock, artificially drive up the value, then cash out.



On a side note: I did just read something the other day that the U.S. automakers have reached an agreement with the Auto Workers Union, allowing them to now hire non-union U.S. workers so they can compete with the import makers.

injdinjn

That union deal applies to non-line people only like janitors and such.

This AM EB 22 at euclid and harbor the smog ***** had their infrared scanners set up to read passing exhaust gases. The meters were set up about 75 feet past the ramp stop light so every car they measured was under acceleration, and some might not have reached operating temp yet, still pretty cold at 7am today. Cooking their books so they look good. And they had cameras too.

Must be why they are setting the ramp signals so that both lanes dont turn green at the same time, that way the scanners dont confuse the cars being read.

BretD 88GTA

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/n...08040196915918

JulieGTA

I saw the Dreaded Device on the eastbound 22/Fairview onramp today!
Just past the stop light, there were two white canister-shaped cameras/sensors about 1' off ground, on the right hand side shoulder, with a scary looking white van parked nearby! It was only about 30 or 40 feet from the stop lights, I had plenty of room. I drove as far to the left and around as I could with an evil face in case they take my picture!
I forgot to give it the finger... I didn't actually see anyone in the van.

Just install exhaust tubes that point away from the shoulder. LOL

I complained to my friend and she says they are REALLY going to put in speed-cameras on the 57! Are they REALLY?

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Big brother is getting more intrusive. Signs of the times ahead. If I move out of the state I hope the liberals don't follow me. Please stay in the big brother, big tax state you have created.

injdinjn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/...W3EnEbWsCs0NUE

Oil companies say high prices not their fault.


The best thing to do when you see those portable sniffers is to idle by or put the car in neutral and coast by. That way their device shows very little pollutant output, skews the results our way.
And they are in the van, trust me.

Guest

garbage in=garbage out

Think about it realistically for a minute, and do some research instead of reading articles from proponents of this nonsense, wikipedia (which is a dangerous reference), and other internet sources. And surely stay away from the toot my own horn EPA. But if you want to plot their data (like I already did), go ahead. Plot the global carbon pollution and global temperature vs time (year) and you will find NO CONNECTION between the two of any sort. None. Thats the real problem, you have idiots and greedy 'scientists' telling you that there's a connection and an issue, when there's not. Its a lie. I've said a million times I have no issue with living cleaner but I will not do it under advice of liars. And thats what they are.

Anyway, go do some genealogy. Yea, thats right. If your family does not work, use someone elses. Why? Well you will find out that even well into the 30's that the data reported to the census bureau was anything but accurate. I have wrong birthdates, years, wrong names, wrong number of siblings, parents, housemembers, and just about any other piece of data you can come up with. And its inconsistent as hell. Why? Well, do you think they really cared? Both the people collecting the information, and the people reporting it. There was no reason to be accurate, so... who cares?

I have no doubts any temperature records prior to probably 1960ish are totally worthless on the data accuracy scale that they're being assigned to today. Even if we go to the earliest presumed accurate data you're talking 1850's, and there was no pollution log of any sort. That didnt really come around until the 1980's with any sort of completeness across the globe. So they're basing their conclusion on 30-40 years of data (tops) on a planet thats been around 4,600,000,000 years. How accurate do you suppose 30-40 years of data is across that entire lifespan? Not much. I even question how accurate what we get today is, especially pollution levels. Thats a stretch to determine, at best. So really the data is junk, and even if you called it ok, there's not enough of it to make an accurate conclusion anyway. Can you infer something from it? Sure. And if you were to do as I suggested, you'd find no link. Its a pure guess, with no basis in fact whatsoever.

This 'problem' is a lot bigger than the idiots in this country make it out to be, too. Its a bigger problem because everything these so-called environmentalists do creates an even bigger problem than we had to start with. Take whats going on now for instance. You're close, go drive to San Pedro. How much pollution occurred just in transport? We used to build things across the midwest (near the center of our country) for at least a fair bit of our items (some were even more local) and the transport distance was a LOT less than today. You're talking probably an average of 500 miles then to 5000+ miles now, using the same fuels, at the same lousy efficiency. Thats 10x as much pollution, minimum. Then the EPA started regulating things, and chased production to Mexico, Canada, and mostly China. So take Mexico and China as an example, what pollution controls do they have? For a long time we were mostly self-policing, and did better than China and Mexico are doing now. So we're consuming probably 100x what we did, say, 50 years ago, we're creating 10x as much pollution in transport (and you know thats more because of the increase in production and supply) and then you have the variable of how much more pollution is being created from building these items in a place where they just dont care. So the EPA says hey we're awesome we lowered domestic pollution 1000%. Yea, wonderful. You lowered it 1000% here, and raised it 10000% there. Swell. Great move.

You really want to do your environment a favor? Seriously, start by looking at what you're buying. If its made in China and you dont absolutely need it, dont buy it. Try to buy something local or just dont get anything. Less pollution in manufacturing in a country that has no controls (and certainly we have no control over what they pollute), less transportation pollution, less use of resources, less junk you're going to throw away in 2 years, and more money in your wallet. And stop reiterating the lies of the idiots that claim there is such a thing as manmade global warming. Tell people to clean up their act because its the right thing to do, not because some figurehead worth a few billion from selling his lies said so.

injdinjn

This is what things like Global Warming hysteria spawn

Nothing like increasing your tax base via crapolia

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/s...nup=1&mbid=yhp

Imadude_134

iTrader: (9)

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...7040802?kw=ist



Once the Cali officials get ahold of this report... I dont see many good things on the horizon

Guest

Oh I'm sure they already have their hot little hands on it. I'd be more worried about the EPA, they pressure states into cleaning up by threatening pulling federal funding unless they act (read:act like) they are cleaning things up. I noticed in the co2 emissions blowup JPG that Indianapolis is convieniently partially obscured by the C in Columbus (Ohio) and surely Purdue (in Indiana) did not intentionally obscure the largest pollutant area in their state. Anyway... thats your federal grant tax dollars at work! Oops, did I just link the feds and the EPA to a report published by a federally and state funded university? Surely its totally accurate and unbiased, what with all the computer generated assumptions.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Things are going to get a lot worse over the next 4 years and most likely 8. The degree of how worse will be if McQueeg or one of the Democrats gets in office. If McQueeg gets to be the president things will be bad enough. If one of the Democrats gets to be president this country will take a serious turn to the left.

injdinjn

The sniffers were on the Magnolia on ramp to the EB 22 this am.
They must like those left lane then right lane ramp lights.
Its interesting how they tape cardboard over the windows of the van so no one can see in.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

I still dont see how CO2 is a bad thing. CO2 is what plants breathe in, and they breathe out oxygen, which is what we breathe in. More CO2 means healthier plants, doesnt it? Or is it because of the "disappearing rainforest" that isnt using up the extra CO2?

JulieGTA

Scientist measured the CO2 levels in ancient ice deposits from millions of years ago and found that it is related to climate change.
How it is related is debatable. I guess we'll find out.

I have to say though, that the idea that the government is making up global warming (instead of scientists) to scare people into buying new technology is interesting. After all the scientists dont have anything to gain from it? Meanwhile it is the taxpayers that suffer.

BretD 88GTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

"Tawk amungst ya-selves"

injdinjn

One item he left out, was that the costs and depression in upper A also are in lower A. So at the end you might be able to breathe but regulations and cost will keep you from doing anything else which would probably include growing your own food. Basically either case in column a is the same result.

If we could see the future it wild help. But these computer simulations that dont work make me a skeptic.

I see the GW folks like the guy on the corner with the sign the world is ending.

Its kinda like believing in the hereafter. Does it exist will I get 14 virgins for blowing myself and others up. Dont know until you get there, then you find out if going to church and donating paid off or you would be just the same as if you played golf every sun.

Personally, if its not gonna happen in 10 -15 years I really dont give a dump.

Guest

Actually scientists do benefit. Research where all the government grants go. They get a TON of money.

BretD 88GTA

A little off this topic, but still could affect our driving. And if it turns out to be true chould bring some relief:
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...news2.13s.html

injdinjn

More rich Indians maybe.

Thats interesting in light of Exxon-Mobiles statement that they have no plans on increasing production for the next 5 or more years.

Bull

iTrader: (5)

Plus, most of North America was a glacier, and there was a land bridge connecting N. America to Asia for what are now the Native Americans to walk across from Asia. The ice is now melted and the resulting water covered that land bridge under the Bering Sea. Maybe the cavemen were causing a lot of greenhouse gas emissions

injdinjn

All that raw unseasoned red meat fresh off the hoof.

BretD 88GTA

Actually, it's ranchers that could benefit since that's who occupies most of that area.

My grandfather kept the oil rights to his property in North Eastern Montana, which sits on part of this oil field. The rights were pased along to my mom and aunts/unlces (11 kids total). Only 4 left — my mom and 3 aunts.

Currently, the rights would get split between the four with no option to pass on to any kids. Down the road, the last one left inherits all the rights and can then pass it on.

injdinjn

Its amazing how 1 or 2 of those black grasshoppers can change your life.

Years ago I knew a Oklahoma indian, she received a nice little check every month.
Bradford St in Yorba Linda is named after the Bradford family and they still have a handful of those little pumpers.

BadAssIROC

injdinjn

Somewhat of a victory. Sounds like they are going to do a end run thru the DMV.

Wills91RS

Awesome news, glad it failed!!!

Trying to say old cars getting smog will help the climate is so stupid. My brother has a 64 impala, and like most studies have shown, he only drives it like max 3 times a month just like most people with old hot rods. And that's only during the spring and summer months, once the rain comes he is all done.

I love how liberals are always for keeping jobs in America and against trade. Freaking unions are worse and have all the liberals bought and paid for. Yet at the same time all they want to do is tax the sh*t out of us, and the EPA is basically going to ruin American car company's and cause us all to drive around in 2 seater piles of death traps. How is all of this going to keep the economy strong and help American jobs. The government is driving American jobs out of this country by taxing corporations and regulating the crap out of them!

Want to fix gas prices, DRILL in our own country, like the protected oil fields in Alaska. There is proof that we can do what's called slant drilling there and do NO evironment damge and have NO impact at all on the wildlife either. We can also do more off shore drilling, but of course liberals are keeping us from doing all of this. Let me ask you this, even if gas prices stayed the same from drilling in our country, wouldn't you rather support American jobs and help our economy then be supporting stupid OPEC...?

It's not just democrats who are the problem, republicans are getting just as bad. Bush has been a HUGE disappointment to me, and I voted for him both times.

IrocmyIroc88

Or how the artic regions were once rain forest like hawaii, and going green is where the money is at. Those new light bulbs that one brilliant californian politician wants to mandate that they are the only ones being sold are fully of the deadly toxic mercury. true they last longer but they need a special recycling facility to properly dispose of them. And its not cheap to recycle and who owns these recycle plants? the politicians who urged to go green.


I know its irrelevent but who saw the simpson's movie? The main antagonist was from the EPA enviromental protection agency. And he wanted to stop pollution by using his company's products!

But back to the point why do politicians urge these new intiatives for better enviroment protection? Money 4 themselves and a better public image.

89 TA

As someone once said, "I'm not a smart man!" So maybe someone can explain to me whats the point of making a "clean" running diesel motor that gets horrible mileage? The 2007 motors might be clean but they are only getting about 2/3 of the mileage than the motors they replaced.

injdinjn

http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/StdPage....ck/doineed.htm


Remote sensing pilot study final report Mar 2008 ver 15 178 pages

Interesting reading

Basically remote sensing doesnt work and roadside testing is inconsistant with referee testing (done on different days). This report, section 9, actually states that inconsistancies in the vehicle and environment during testing can effect the results.

Anyone care to bet that the CARB ignores this report.

Wills91RS

You are totally right man! It's all about money and public image. Like you said it's interesting how they want us to use these new light bulbs with mercury in them. It's kinda the same with hybrids, nice idea and yes they are great on mpg, but they have been proven to pollute more then a freaking hummer over it's lifetime because of the damn special batteries in the hybrids having to be disposed of in a special way.