OT - Can we finally call it BS and move on

[Pacfanweb]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

I’m with you!
If eight years of George Bush didn’t drive a stake through the metastasized turd known as the GOP, then Fort Lauderdale under water most certainly will do the trick.
Full disclosure -I’m not a climatologist.
I won’t pretend to tell you I made it any further than 5 minutes into ‘An inconvenient Truth.’
What I do know is, if we can wean ourselves off carbon without too great an expense to consumers and industry, that is a good thing.

I would agree that is a good thing, but the REAL "Inconvenient Truth" is, that is absolutely impossible.

In exactly NONE of our lifetimes will we see any society on Earth "weaned off of carbon". There isn't any technology available, around the corner, or even on the drawing board, that exists to help us do so.

So getting all pumped up about it isn't going to solve anything.....it's just not going to happen. None of us, and none of our grandchildren even, will live to see a non-oil/carbon based society.

[The Sushi Hunter]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

I’m with you!
If eight years of George Bush didn’t drive a stake through the metastasized turd known as the GOP, then Fort Lauderdale under water most certainly will do the trick.
Full disclosure -I’m not a climatologist.
I won’t pretend to tell you I made it any further than 5 minutes into ‘An inconvenient Truth.’
What I do know is, if we can wean ourselves off carbon without too great an expense to consumers and industry, that is a good thing.

Next time you need to be rushed to the hospital WALK yourself there and look at it as "weaning" yourself off carbon. Matter of fact, when and if you get there, have them keep you in the parking lot so you don't take up any electricity or airconditioning, another way to wean you off carbon.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Next time you need to be rushed to the hospital WALK yourself there and look at it as "weaning" yourself off carbon.

Right.
Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.
You are a typical ignorant Republican asshole.
In fact, electrified transit systems and automobiles pre-dated internal combustion cars in this country.

Matter of fact, when and if you get there, have them keep you in the parking lot so you don't take up any electricity or airconditioning, another way to wean you off carbon.

As if electricity can’t be generated by non-carbon sources like nuclear and wind?
Denmark, for starters, uses over 20% wind.
France's electricity is some 80% non carbon.
Last I checked, people weren’t flatlining in ER rooms across the country.
Just what the hell are you talking about?

Andrew - That's it.
Wipe away the HTML code, turn off the lights, and start over.
This place has turned into Sodom and Gommorah and deserves to be destroyed.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Next time you need to be rushed to the hospital WALK yourself there and look at it as "weaning" yourself off carbon.

Right.
Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.
You are a typical ignorant Republican asshole.
In fact, electrified transit systems and automobiles pre-dated internal combustion cars in this country.

Matter of fact, when and if you get there, have them keep you in the parking lot so you don't take up any electricity or airconditioning, another way to wean you off carbon.

As if electricity can’t be generated by non-carbon sources like nuclear and wind?
Denmark, for starters, uses over 20% wind.
France's electricity is some 80% non carbon.
Last I checked, people weren’t flatlining in ER rooms across the country.
Just what the hell are you talking about?

Andrew - That's it.
Wipe away the HTML code, turn off the lights, and start over.
This place has turned into Sodom and Gommorah and deserves to be destroyed.

Nuclear energy? Really you don't say. If there is no more carbon, you'd move on to trying to shut down the nuclear power plants. Why? Cause you always need something to bitch about regardless.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Nuclear energy? Really you don't say. If there is no more carbon, you'd move on to trying to shut down the nuclear power plants. Why? Cause you always need something to bitch about regardless.

No, I’ve never been in favor of nuclear power.
I am, however, willing to give credit to countries that are at least trying something, ANYTHING, to become energy independent.
Even Swift Boat financier and Republican hack extraordinaire, T Boone Pickens, realizes getting off carbon should be a non-partisan goal.
This is opposed to “patriotic Americans” such as yourself, who are content to keep subsidizing Middle Eastern terrorism.

[Monker]

And don't forget the Ozone hole crisis in the late 80's. It was going to destroy the entire food chain.

Oh gawd, I remember doing a PTA play in 3rd grade about that. We had to paint our faces red and they said by the time we were grown ups we couldn't go outside because the sun would kill us. So the human race would recreate society underground or some bullshit.

That hole kinda healed up too, didn't it?

No, it didn't.

It expands and retracts. It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with aerosol cans.

Again, this is just wrong. Freon and the propellants in aerosol cans destroy ozone. That is just a fact. There was no 'hole' to expand and contract until our recent history.

[Monker]

The earth is going to change, no matter what we do....and the fear tactics being thrown at us are way past the stage of being annoying. Start hurting the economy with some of this nonsense, and trust me, things will get very ugly.

That is true...But, to believe that mankind is unique on this planet in that we do not have an impact on our environment is completely assinine and the most arrogant opinion imaginable.

It's very simple, more greenhouse gasses cause more of a greenhouse effect. That is just the way it is.

[Pacfanweb]

Wind power doesn't work, without an equal amount of another source of power for backup. And that source has to be running 24/7. Because the wind isn't always blowing, and there is no way to store much of the power the turbines generate.

You always have to have another source of power running for when the wind stops. So what's the point of cluttering up the landscape with those ugly, deafening turbines? Yes, they are very loud. Nobody wants to live near to ONE, much less hundreds.

Nuclear, I'm all for. But it takes YEARS to build a nuke plant. Fine, let's get cracking.


As far as alternate energy research.....go for it. Just don't tell me how I need to switch NOW, or the world is going to end. It's not. It's not even close.

Besides.....who is there to say that global warming, if it happens, is bad? Who are we to say what the ideal temperature is, worldwide? It's been hotter, it's been colder, the world is still here.

[Pacfanweb]

And don't forget the Ozone hole crisis in the late 80's. It was going to destroy the entire food chain.

Oh gawd, I remember doing a PTA play in 3rd grade about that. We had to paint our faces red and they said by the time we were grown ups we couldn't go outside because the sun would kill us. So the human race would recreate society underground or some bullshit.

That hole kinda healed up too, didn't it?

No, it didn't.

It expands and retracts. It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with aerosol cans.

Again, this is just wrong. Freon and the propellants in aerosol cans destroy ozone. That is just a fact. There was no 'hole' to expand and contract until our recent history.

Tell you what, get me some satellite imagery from back around the US Civil War in the mid-1800's and let's compare it to today's, and we'll see if there was a temporary, seasonal thinning of the ozone layer back then like there is now.

edit: BTW, it's the CFC's in freon and aerosol cans that destroy ozone. Did you know that volcanos have put out FAR more CFC's than mankind has even dreamed about? And the ozone is still there.
Why? Because sunlight creates ozone. There has ALWAYS been thinning of the ozone at the poles in their winters, because there is very little sunlight there during the winter. It comes right back when the sun comes back.

[Monker]

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want to pay any more than my fair share, but roads and bridges don't pay for themselves. Scientists can't invent new ways of living cheaper with no money to back them.

I do. I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.

[RedWingFan]

And don't forget the Ozone hole crisis in the late 80's. It was going to destroy the entire food chain.

Oh gawd, I remember doing a PTA play in 3rd grade about that. We had to paint our faces red and they said by the time we were grown ups we couldn't go outside because the sun would kill us. So the human race would recreate society underground or some bullshit.
That hole kinda healed up too, didn't it?

No, it didn't.

It expands and retracts. It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with aerosol cans.

Again, this is just wrong. Freon and the propellants in aerosol cans destroy ozone. That is just a fact. There was no 'hole' to expand and contract until our recent history.

http://www.dailytech.com/Ozone+Hole+Shr ... le9161.htm
"It is significant to note that the ozone hole fluctuates greatly each year."
If what we're doing is so damaging, then it would be depleted consistantly year after year. That's not the case. I don't think visual evidence has ever shown a complete ozone layer. It's almost as if God designed it as kind of a release valve for the planet, to release gas when it needs it. The same reason there are big holes in the tops of volcanoes.

[Pacfanweb]

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want to pay any more than my fair share, but roads and bridges don't pay for themselves. Scientists can't invent new ways of living cheaper with no money to back them.

I do. I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.


And that would lead to exactly what someone posted earlier:

Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.

Maybe we wouldn't be powering cars with our feet, but it would absolutely lead to very small, unsafe cars. And essentially a lack of choice for people.

Not the government's role at all. If you want us not to be dependent on foreign oil, then let's drill for our own. We have more than they do. We just need to go and get it.

[RedWingFan]

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want to pay any more than my fair share, but roads and bridges don't pay for themselves. Scientists can't invent new ways of living cheaper with no money to back them.

I do. I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.

Yeah and costing how many more thousands of deaths on the roads? Screw them, force them into tin foil cars! It has to be done!

[Monker]

If what we're doing is so damaging, then it would be depleted consistantly year after year. That's not the case. I don't think visual evidence has ever shown a complete ozone layer. It's almost as if God designed it as kind of a release valve for the planet, to release gas when it needs it.

Aerosol propellents changed and freon is no longer used to charge newer air conditioners. So, yeah, I would not expect it to change much NOW.

God also gave people, well MOST people, brains and charged them to be stewards over this planet...not to just run about doing whatever they want to and not considering the consequences.

[RedWingFan]

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want to pay any more than my fair share, but roads and bridges don't pay for themselves. Scientists can't invent new ways of living cheaper with no money to back them.

I do. I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.


And that would lead to exactly what someone posted earlier:

Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.

Maybe we wouldn't be powering cars with our feet, but it would absolutely lead to very small, unsafe cars. And essentially a lack of choice for people.

Not the government's role at all. If you want us not to be dependent on foreign oil, then let's drill for our own. We have more than they do. We just need to go and get it.

I'm sure monker rides in a vehicle powered by his multi-colored propellor cap.

[RedWingFan]

If what we're doing is so damaging, then it would be depleted consistantly year after year. That's not the case. I don't think visual evidence has ever shown a complete ozone layer. It's almost as if God designed it as kind of a release valve for the planet, to release gas when it needs it.

Aerosol propellents changed and freon is no longer used to charge newer air conditioners. So, yeah, I would not expect it to change much NOW.

God also gave people, well MOST people, brains and charged them to be stewards over this planet...not to just run about doing whatever they want to and not considering the consequences.

God also gave people, well MOST people, brains and the appreciation of free will. Some are like you and long to be hearded like a sheep, shaved and slaughtered at some one elses whim.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.

How is elected officials voting to raise the gas tax comparable to Parliament issuing the stamp tax etc, back when the colonies had NO representation?
Not the same thing at all.
Also, founders like Thomas Paine were in favor of tax funded schools, old age pensions etc.

Not the government's role at all.

You could also argue that it wasn't the govt's role to intervene in industry in WW2 and shift from building cars to building tanks and bombers.
Of course, in doing so, you'd also make the case that our national anthem should rightfully be Deutschland über alles.

[Monker]

http://www.dailytech.com/Ozone+Hole+Shr ... le9161.htm
"It is significant to note that the ozone hole fluctuates greatly each year."
If what we're doing is so damaging, then it would be depleted consistantly year after year. That's not the case. I don't think visual evidence has ever shown a complete ozone layer. It's almost as if God designed it as kind of a release valve for the planet, to release gas when it needs it. The same reason there are big holes in the tops of volcanoes.

And, BTW, the very article you quote above also says this:

Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already. This year's ozone hole was less centred on the South Pole as in other years, which allowed it to mix with warmer air, reducing the growth of the hole because ozone is depleted at temperatures less than -78 degrees Celsius.

I also found this from NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... overy.html

The model accurately reproduces the ozone hole area in the Antarctic stratosphere over the past 27 years. Using the model, the researchers predict that the ozone hole will recover in 2068, not in 2050 as currently believed.

"The Antarctic ozone hole is the poster child of ozone loss in our atmosphere," said author Paul Newman, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. And lead author of the study. "Over areas that are farther from the poles like Africa or the U.S., the levels of ozone are only three to six percent below natural levels. Over Antarctica, ozone levels are 70 percent lower in the spring. This new method allows us to more accurately estimate ozone-depleting gases over Antarctica, and how they will decrease over time, reducing the ozone hole area."

International agreements like the Montreal Protocol have banned the production of most chemicals that destroy ozone. But the researchers show that the ozone hole has not started to shrink a lot as a result. The scientists predict the ozone hole will not start shrinking a lot until 2018. By that year, the ozone hole's recovery will make better time.

Point is : This studies MAN MADE chemicals in our atmosphere which destroy the ozone....not a naturaly occuring process.

[Monker]

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.

No, I have an anti-middle east point of view. I feel this country should have as little to do with that part of the world as possibler.

This country is very hypocritical on its vices. On one hand people like you point to tea parties but want to force people to not smoke pot, or do other drugs, or prostitution. You say government should stay out of lives but want it to step in when it comes to abortion. You say people have free will...but want to limit a persons choice to a same sex marriage. That is full of hypocrisy.

It is a matter of national securty and $2/gallon tax is one way to fund it...and I would fully support it.

Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.

And, this is not true. There are already fully electric cars coming soon. Even a Jeep Wrangler. I don't think that is a "Fred Flintstone" car. You are just making stuff up as you go.

Maybe we wouldn't be powering cars with our feet, but it would absolutely lead to very small, unsafe cars. And essentially a lack of choice for people.

Again, not true at all. You should be able to power a semi-truck with natural gas. And, as I said, the tech is already there for fully electric SUV's. It does NOT limit people's choice.

Not the government's role at all. If you want us not to be dependent on foreign oil, then let's drill for our own. We have more than they do. We just need to go and get it.

This is also absolutely not true.

[Monker]

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want to pay any more than my fair share, but roads and bridges don't pay for themselves. Scientists can't invent new ways of living cheaper with no money to back them.

I do. I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.


And that would lead to exactly what someone posted earlier:

Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.

Maybe we wouldn't be powering cars with our feet, but it would absolutely lead to very small, unsafe cars. And essentially a lack of choice for people.

Not the government's role at all. If you want us not to be dependent on foreign oil, then let's drill for our own. We have more than they do. We just need to go and get it.

I'm sure monker rides in a vehicle powered by his multi-colored propellor cap.

Nope...But, I've made up my mind that the next car I buy will NOT be powered by gasoline.

[Pacfanweb]

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.

How is elected officials voting to raise the gas tax comparable to Parliament issuing the stamp tax etc, back when the colonies had NO representation?
Not the same thing at all.
Also, founders like Thomas Paine were in favor of tax funded schools, old age pensions etc.

Not the government's role at all.

You could also argue that it wasn't the govt's role to intervene in industry in WW2 and shift from building cars to building tanks and bombers.
Of course, in doing so, you'd also make the case that our national anthem should rightfully be Deutschland über alles.

Let's see....voting to raise a gas tax, for the sole reason of making gas more expensive so people won't buy it? That is a role of the government, which is the biggest consumer of oil?

And government didn't "intervene" in industry, so much as it simply started ordering equipment that it knew was going to be needed in the upcoming war. Still, not the same thing as raising the tax on an item simply so people will use less of it. Ordering all the military hardware helped people, by creating jobs and providing the USA with much of the equipment we needed to fight the war.....or in the case of the Navy, at least having most of it under construction already by the time of Pearl Harbor. You don't think we started building the fleet that won the Pacific after Pearl Harber, do you? It was already being built.
I don't see that as "intervening". I see that as a national emergency.

And tax-funded schools? What a joke. Schools around here are firing and cutting back, while well-run private schools are expanding. Yep, the government is efficient at everything they do, so let's ask them to do even more!

[Monker]

Let's see....voting to raise a gas tax, for the sole reason of making gas more expensive so people won't buy it? That is a role of the government, which is the biggest consumer of oil?

That is not what *I* said. There are MANY reasons for a gas tax...only one of them is to turn people off towards gasoline.

[Pacfanweb]

Let's see....voting to raise a gas tax, for the sole reason of making gas more expensive so people won't buy it? That is a role of the government, which is the biggest consumer of oil?

That is not what *I* said. There are MANY reasons for a gas tax...only one of them is to turn people off towards gasoline.

I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

That is your quote. You want higher prices to force the rest of the things in your post.

[Pacfanweb]

Then you have an anti-American point of view. It is totally against everything America was founded on to have the government essentially force people to do something like this by imposing economy-crippling taxes.

No, I have an anti-middle east point of view. I feel this country should have as little to do with that part of the world as possibler.

This country is very hypocritical on its vices. On one hand people like you point to tea parties but want to force people to not smoke pot, or do other drugs, or prostitution. You say government should stay out of lives but want it to step in when it comes to abortion. You say people have free will...but want to limit a persons choice to a same sex marriage. That is full of hypocrisy.

Um, America gets about 17% of its oil from the Middle East.

We are not dealing with a matter of national security here. There is plenty of oil to last for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I'm all for researching new methods of power, but we're in good shape right now. Coal is how we get the majority of our electricity, and there's plenty of that, too.

Because having car companies diversify into hybrids and the like, automatically means relying on Fred Flintstone cars and pogo sticks.
And, this is not true. There are already fully electric cars coming soon. Even a Jeep Wrangler. I don't think that is a "Fred Flintstone" car. You are just making stuff up as you go.

Guess where those "fully electric" cars get their battery power from? Oh, and there is not a fully-electric Jeep...it's a gas/electric hybrid. Oh, and the carbon footprint over the LIFETIME of a Prius is more than that of a Hummer. Yeah, you read that right. From manufacturing to disposal, the Prius is worse than a Hummer. Look it up.

Again, not true at all. You should be able to power a semi-truck with natural gas. And, as I said, the tech is already there for fully electric SUV's. It does NOT limit people's choice.

Don't know much about engines, do you? There is a reason all semi-trucks are diesel-powered. For a propane or even regular gas engine to power one would use FAR more fuel, and it still wouldn't have anywhere near the torque. Don't you think people a lot smarter than both of us have thought about this already?

Not the government's role at all. If you want us not to be dependent on foreign oil, then let's drill for our own. We have more than they do. We just need to go and get it.

This is also absolutely not true.

I assume you're talking about my saying the US has more oil.....and you are wrong. We do. Google "us oil reserves", and tell me what you come up with.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Let's see....voting to raise a gas tax, for the sole reason of making gas more expensive so people won't buy it? That is a role of the government, which is the biggest consumer of oil?

That is not “the sole reason” for it.
First, gas taxes already go toward infrastructure and public transportation.
As in Europe, some of it would go towards renewable energy.

And government didn't "intervene" in industry, so much as it simply started ordering equipment that it knew was going to be needed in the upcoming war.

“Ordering equipment” that, up to that point, Michigan had NEVER mass produced before.
You make it sound as if the auto-industry was always on-standby to produce munitions.
They were not.
Throughout most of WW1, War Dept. contracts went to the army.

Ordering all the military hardware helped people, by creating jobs and providing the USA with much of the equipment we needed to fight the war.....

Wait. I thought government spending doesn’t work.

or in the case of the Navy, at least having most of it under construction already by the time of Pearl Harbor. You don't think we started building the fleet that won the Pacific after Pearl Harber, do you? It was already being built.

Not by auto-manufacturers it wasn't...

I don't see that as "intervening". I see that as a national emergency.

You’re playing semantics games.

And tax-funded schools? What a joke. Schools around here are firing and cutting back, while well-run private schools are expanding. Yep, the government is efficient at everything they do, so let's ask them to do even more!

Uh-huh.
And as for the poor kids who can’t afford a blue ribbon charter school education, or live in inner cities too far away from them?
Oh right, let’s use vouchers – which are paid for by the taxpayer anyway!

[Monker]

Let's see....voting to raise a gas tax, for the sole reason of making gas more expensive so people won't buy it? That is a role of the government, which is the biggest consumer of oil?

That is not what *I* said. There are MANY reasons for a gas tax...only one of them is to turn people off towards gasoline.

I would support a $2/gallon (at LEAST) federal gas tax to force higher gas prices, encourage consumers to support electrict or natural gas motors, to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars.

That is your quote. You want higher prices to force the rest of the things in your post.

Yes, it is what I said....and obviously you can't read past a comma. As I said, there are other reasons, "to fund federal grants to companies who are working on those alternative energies, and to fund tax incentives to those who purchase electric cars."

A gas tax doesn't 'force' the above...it funds it.

[Monker]

We are not dealing with a matter of national security here. There is plenty of oil to last for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I'm all for researching new methods of power, but we're in good shape right now. Coal is how we get the majority of our electricity, and there's plenty of that, too.

Yes, it is. Too much of our economy and way of life is dependant on oil. Everything from our daily commute to work, to air travel, to our deployed militar, to how goods are transported about the country. When gas prices go up, inflation follows. When OPEC gets a hair up their but to raise prices, it effects our economy.

Guess where those "fully electric" cars get their battery power from?

From power plants run on foreign oil. Also, as I said in another post, it is in a centralized location where we can better control emissions and better protect the environmnet....even if they are powered by coal.

Oh, and there is not a fully-electric Jeep...it's a gas/electric hybrid.

The gas portion is only used as a back up to charge the battery...just as in the Volt. You go 40 miles on electric only, and then a tiny engine kicks on to keep the battery charged...It is not a hybrid. Hybrids are gasoline engines where the electric is used to give a boost of power when needed.

Oh, and the carbon footprint over the LIFETIME of a Prius is more than that of a Hummer. Yeah, you read that right. From manufacturing to disposal, the Prius is worse than a Hummer. Look it up.

I don't care about a Prius...I don't want a hybrid.

Don't know much about engines, do you? There is a reason all semi-trucks are diesel-powered. For a propane or even regular gas engine to power one would use FAR more fuel, and it still wouldn't have anywhere near the torque. Don't you think people a lot smarter than both of us have thought about this already?

I didn't say propane. I said natural gas.

And, yes, T Bone Pickens is smart enough to have already thought of this, which is why I repeated. The tech is not there right now, but I think it will be - and needs to be.

I assume you're talking about my saying the US has more oil.....and you are wrong. We do. Google "us oil reserves", and tell me what you come up with.

What I come up with is a bunch of propaganda about oil reserves in Colorado and SNOPES discrediting it as exagerations based on outdated surveys and ignoring more recent information.

[Pacfanweb]

As I said, you evidently don't know much about engines. Propane, natural gas, it's still not as good as diesel. One gallon of natural gas has about 60% of the energy as a gallon of diesel, and natural gas comes with its own hazards from burning it. A great case can be made for diesel being cleaner. Not to mention, a lot safer to store and handle.

From power plants run on foreign oil. Also, as I said in another post, it is in a centralized location where we can better control emissions and better protect the environmnet....even if they are powered by coal.

No, from power plants that run on COAL. Or hydro, or nuclear, or natural gas, or something other than OIL. Petroleum power plants make up about 7% of US plants.

The gas portion is only used as a back up to charge the battery...just as in the Volt. You go 40 miles on electric only, and then a tiny engine kicks on to keep the battery charged...It is not a hybrid. Hybrids are gasoline engines where the electric is used to give a boost of power when needed.

The Wrangler is a true hybrid, like the Prius. Its main engine is gas. It can only go 40 miles or so on electric only, but a lot more on the gas engine. Like I said, it has to be recharged by other means. If you want one of those death traps, be my guest. I prefer to go more than 100 miles a day when I need to. That technology has a LONG way to go to be viable for anything other than novelty cars, like the Volt, Prius or the Honda hybrid....which is a complete pile of junk.

And, yes, T Bone Pickens is smart enough to have already thought of this, which is why I repeated.

No, he's not. He's a hustler. He knows a chance to make a buck when he sees it.

The tech is not there right now, but I think it will be - and needs to be.

So you agree. The tech isn't there. Nor is it even close. You can THINK it will be....but you'd be wrong. I agree that research needs to be done, but not in the form of the government forcing it. They can fund private research, but the government rarely actually FIXES anything. The private sector, however, does. That is who needs to be working on new forms of energy, and they are....but again, the days of not relying on oil will not be seen in anyone that's alive today's lifetime, or their children's.

What I come up with is a bunch of propaganda about oil reserves in Colorado and SNOPES discrediting it as exagerations based on outdated surveys and ignoring more recent information.

Ah, Snopes. The be-all, end-all of info. Not. They are good for certain things, political items like this aren't one of them.
Sorry, but you didn't look much. There are HUGE reserves of oil in the USA. We should tap them. Whether it's bigger than Saudi Arabia is irrelevant....there is still PLENTY. We need to go get it. [/quote]

[The_Noble_Cause]

And, yes, T Bone Pickens is smart enough to have already thought of this, which is why I repeated.

No, he's not. He's a hustler. He knows a chance to make a buck when he sees it.

Just to make sure I'm following your reasoning....
You want eco-friendly technology left entirely up to the free market, but when a businessman actually puts something on the table, you dismiss him as a "hustler."
You sound increasingly like a defender of the status quo. Period.

What I come up with is a bunch of propaganda about oil reserves in Colorado and SNOPES discrediting it as exagerations based on outdated surveys and ignoring more recent information.

Ah, Snopes. The be-all, end-all of info. Not. They are good for certain things, political items like this aren't one of them.

I'd argue that Snopes was more fair and balanced during the presidential campaign than all of the media.
Sounds like a cop-out to me

[Monker]

As I said, you evidently don't know much about engines. Propane, natural gas, it's still not as good as diesel. One gallon of natural gas has about 60% of the energy as a gallon of diesel, and natural gas comes with its own hazards from burning it. A great case can be made for diesel being cleaner. Not to mention, a lot safer to store and handle.

Geez, I do know this already. I think you are foolish and myopic to not look at all the alternatives to diesel and gasoline engines.

No, from power plants that run on COAL. Or hydro, or nuclear, or natural gas, or something other than OIL. Petroleum power plants make up about 7% of US plants.

I know this too. As I said, several times now, it is easier to control the emissions from a few thousand 'power plants' then it is to control the emissions from millions of autos. Whether that means cleaner ways of burning coal, or converting to hydro, wind, solar, or nuclear, is irrelvant. My point is we no longer rely on oil and give a portion of the control of our economy to the middle east.

The Wrangler is a true hybrid, like the Prius. Its main engine is gas. It can only go 40 miles or so on electric only, but a lot more on the gas engine. Like I said, it has to be recharged by other means. If you want one of those death traps, be my guest. I prefer to go more than 100 miles a day when I need to. That technology has a LONG way to go to be viable for anything other than novelty cars, like the Volt, Prius or the Honda hybrid....which is a complete pile of junk.

You are wrong on every point in the above. This is the same tech as the Volt. The main engine is electric. The power train is driven by electricy, not gasoline. As I said, the gasoline engine is only there to provide a charge to the battery, once it is low. It is a tiny, tiny engine...like a two cylinder..it couldn't drive the power train if you wanted it to. When the gasolne engine kicks in, it does NOT turn the wheels. It has a ten gallon tank and runs about 400 miles on it.

Hybrid cars are the oppposite, the power train is driven by the gasoline engine...and supplmental power is provided by the battery. It is a completely different technology then the Volt, and other vehicles due to be released for 2010. Mixing the two and trying to label them both as 'hybrid engines' is wrong.

No, he's not. He's a hustler. He knows a chance to make a buck when he sees it.

I think he sees the light and that in 10yrs 'big oil' is going to be 'small oil' and gasoline powered cars are going to be like horse-drawn carriages...very irrelevant.

So you agree. The tech isn't there. Nor is it even close. You can THINK it will be....but you'd be wrong.

People like you were saying the same thing a few years ago about electric cars I would rather believe in the inventiveness and ingenuity of the future then hang on to the status quo for eternity.

I agree that research needs to be done, but not in the form of the government forcing it. They can fund private research, but the government rarely actually FIXES anything. The private sector, however, does. That is who needs to be working on new forms of energy, and they are....but again, the days of not relying on oil will not be seen in anyone that's alive today's lifetime, or their children's.

I did not say the government should go about inventing an electric car. I said a portion of the gas tax should be used for grants to businesses who are doing this research...private sector. I will also go further and say that the military should provide more contracts to companies who can provide electric vehicles....because the military uses a TON of gasoline, a scary amount.

What I come up with is a bunch of propaganda about oil reserves in Colorado and SNOPES discrediting it as exagerations based on outdated surveys and ignoring more recent information.

Ah, Snopes. The be-all, end-all of info. Not. They are good for certain things, political items like this aren't one of them.
Sorry, but you didn't look much. There are HUGE reserves of oil in the USA. We should tap them. Whether it's bigger than Saudi Arabia is irrelevant....there is still PLENTY. We need to go get it.

[/quote]

You asked me to do a search and tell you what I saw...that is what I saw. A bunch of BS about Colorado and among them was Snopes discrediting it.

If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.