[xxllmm4]

It seems like a VERY poorly written article. It has no actual facts or numbers... Just someone says this or that, no proof to back anything up. Whats the point if there are no numbers? They don't even talk about any one fuel.

Jordon

[nissan]

we have had the pattened technology since 1830,but because of the oil men,energy cartel,and government control,the oil will prevail.go to frank.germano.com,scroll down to joe cell.interesting reading.read march issue of automobile magazine,front cover and 7 pages,plus last page.teslamotors.com,interesting site.every time someone makes a car that gets a lot of mpg,they are never heard of again.platnum should be used ahead of the intake,not in a convertor after.

[AntnyL]

Originally Posted by Gr8 '48 bow tie

From the beginning of time on the Earth there have been cycles of ice ages and warming. I wonder how much we can blame on Fred Flintstone, he never used bio-fuel in his Rockmobile and he never used any type of filter over his rockpit stove to keep the air smoke free. I think I remember a science teacher telling me that the Earth is a wobbling mass spinning on its axis as it revolves around the Sun. The wobbling and spinning causes it to tilt to and fro hence warming and cooling. Al Gore is sick.

Al

I'm with you on this issue. There is absolutely NO scientific PROOF whatsoever that human activity has any influence at all on the earth's climate. It is all speculation by politicians with agendas.

Everything that rotates eventually goes out of balance. This is the most likely explanation for environmental changes, in my opinion.

By the way, it's 10 degrees here in NY. Bring me some global warming....now!!

[MARTINSR]

Originally Posted by nissan

we have had the pattened technology since 1830,but because of the oil men,energy cartel,and government control,the oil will prevail.go to frank.germano.com,scroll down to joe cell.interesting reading.read march issue of automobile magazine,front cover and 7 pages,plus last page.teslamotors.com,interesting site.every time someone makes a car that gets a lot of mpg,they are never heard of again.platnum should be used ahead of the intake,not in a convertor after.

You have bought into the conspiracy theory hook line and sinker.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Do you think it is only in America where the oil companies would squash something like a 100 mpg car?

How about Japan and China, how about The Soviet Union, would they have let the oil companies squash this invention?

Do you think that the big auto makers are holding back on their designs because they WANT their cars to get less mpg than the other companies to keep the oil company goons from breaking their legs?

Brian

[BMM]

Im going to get shot for this, but...


Do you all really think the average joe (for example, a car buff sitting on his computer and wrenching on cars), has put as much study and research into climate change as thousands of scientists world wide?

I tend to think they beleive what they are saying, and like any other buisness would not turn away from some financial aid

Sure, the world as we know it may in trouble, and yes, I will not waste energy stupidly. But, I do think stuff happens the way it does, and this is the way we have evolved. No society since the creation of the earth has had the ability to control the earth.

Maybe I'd feel different if it was me who couldn't get water.

[MARTINSR]

I'm with you BMM but there are experts on both sides of this argument.

Brian

[pmeisel]

Every car company would love to be the first to bring a revolutionary improvement to market. If they can, they will, it's all about what people want to buy and how much they are willing to pay.

Remember when seat belts were optional and almost no one bought them?

[knighthawk]

If car manufactors are willing to use the greatest technology, the what happened to the carburator that got 50 mph, and the battery that never wore out ? Both were invented by 'small' people and never heard of since !!!

[MARTINSR]

Originally Posted by knighthawk

If car manufactors are willing to use the greatest technology, the what happened to the carburator that got 50 mph, and the battery that never wore out ? Both were invented by 'small' people and never heard of since !!!

I assume you mean 50 mpg, it is simple, these things NEVER EXISTED!

Brian

[freedom53]

I am a retired farmer who lives in the middle of Canada's main agricultural area. In all the reading and listening I have done it seems to indicate to me that the production of biodiesel and ethanol based fuels is net -energy negative. I know what it takes to produce a bushel of wheat or canola. The fossil fuel energy used is more than is produced. Grain prices are skyrocketing as well as the price of petroleum and all the other inputs. Agricultural chemicals and fertilizer are produced from oil and natural gas as well as a lot of the components (petro-based composites - plastics,rubber,whatever) in everthing that is used for production. Energy is required to press the oil and ferment the grains. Add in energy for transportation to and from the production plant as well as the cost of transporting the aftermath to a facility that can use it (feedlot) and the margins seem to slip as the costs escalate. There is talk of fertilizer reaching over $900/mt from the 300 I last paid about 3 years ago. Also you will all notice an increase in the cost of food products over the next year as the increased production costs trickle down to the consumer. Right or wrong, this is the way I perceive it. BTW, after the last few weeks of snow and windchills in the -40 to -50 range, global warming doesn't look that bad.

[crash70rs]

There is alot more to glabal warming, whether it is natural or casued by man. Just because it is called "warming" doesn't mean everywhere is going to get warmer. On average the global temperature is warmer, but local temps. and weather have other factors such as water temperatures, the jet stream and all the other variables that go into daily weather.
It is my opinion that man is at least partly responsible for the current climate change, not ruling out that is could be natural. But when you think about the impact man has had over the 100 - 50 even 20 years, its hard to ignore the fact the we may have something to do with it. Just look around you neighborhood... how many people/house were there 10 yrs ago.. how about now? Where is the big patch of woods you biked through and hung out in... that right is the new 100,000 sq ft walmart to complement to other 100,000 sq ft. walmart 2 miles away. How about all that traffic on your ride home? Never hit that 5 years ago.
These are all the things i've observed in my short life time, for some of you olders I'd imagine that change is even more dramatic.
It's clear something is happening to the climate, I could only hope it is a natural change which may correct itself, otherwise it'll be a completly different world for generations to come.

[knighthawk]

MartinSr...........I was going to drop this (issue) , but It bothers me, so, here goes... the life time battery was invented by a German, never to be heard of again. 'Stories' of someone bring a car in the garage, bragging about the high milage, carb was removed, as it an experimental one, and regular one put in it's place. A few years ago, a guy out of Texas had designed a carb system that burnd vapors, using a device similar to home humidifier with the foam belt. In the magazine 'Cars and Parts' a while back, was anticle of Don Woods, inventing (designing) a vapor system using a sealed fuel tank, expecting 100 plus mpg. Mother Eath News magazine has story on how to run an engine on wood fumes(Issue # 68 - March/April 1981 ). About 20 Years ago, I worked along side mechanics from 'the old country'..........they also had wood fires or stoves to run their cars. So, this being TRUE, what then happened to all the brillant automotive engineering ????

[Jon]

For me, the article underscores the importance of relying on science as we try to address any existing global energy issues.

The notion that you can measure the exhaust of a vehicle, see that it contains less carbon, and then declare it "green" is ridiculous. You have to analyze the whole system (in this case, the planet), before jumping to conclusions.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by MARTINSR

I'm with you BMM but there are experts on both sides of this argument.

Brian

Tis very true. And everyone likes to point fingers. Those who don't believe GW is a problem say the scientists are driven by money, citing scientists on their side; Environmentalists say scientists on the anti-warming side are funded by the oil companies and car makers.

Jon is absolutley right. Too many people are bandwagon jumpers, and will point out every old car and say it should be trashed and replaced with new eco-friendly models. In fact, our ridiculous province considers '95 or older a' junker' and offers money to have it scraped.

My car may have high emmisions, but all th energy used to make it has had 20 years to level itself against new cars.

[GypsyR]

I'm not sure what to think about all this stuff, but I find it interesting at least.
A few interesting tidbits come to mind.
Lots of talk about "reducing carbon footprints", more efficient cars, different lifestyles, etc. All to marginally reduce one's carbon dioxide output. Seems a bit silly to me. Carbon dioxide production is natural, I exhale it all the time. And yes, no doubt my cars and the people who make the stuff I keep buying produce more than they ought to. But...plants happily absorb carbon dioxide. So I was taught in grammar school. Different plants vary widely on how much dioxide they can absorb. Supposedly the very best carbon dioxide sops are rainforests. I've been hearing about the Amazon being cut down for years, it has yet to stop. Now I'm hearing about logging companies running rampant in the Congo Basin area of Africa. It's estimated that the Congo basin contains 1/4 of the world's rainforest. Shrinking daily. We don't hear much about it though.
So many "politically correct" Americans are becoming overly concerned with going to great effort to microscopically reduce their carbon output while ignoring the ongoing destruction of that which removes all that carbon they are so concerned about.
I don't know, I just don't.
Oh, and it isn't just logging, biofuels are indeed playing a part. Such as in this article for example-Cutting rainforest for biofuel.
Speaking of biofuel, Hummer/GMC has come out with a new ethanol-powered Humvee. If fueled by ethanol made from corn, it's been estimated that the amount of corn required to fill the tank would have enough equivalent caloric content to feed a person for a year. Not at all an accurate or fair comparison, but close enough to make me think. Do I want to drive around in something powered by stuff that starving people around the world need to feed their children? I was all for ethanol a while back but put in such a light it sounds very distasteful. To me anyways.
"Scientific studies". I dunno. Nothing seems to come free these days. Who paid for, excuse me, "sponsored" this or that study? Such and such university? No. Said university received a grant (money) to conduct a study.
An interesting study was one last year that is being referred to nationwide. Even laws are being passed because of it. "Does second-hand smoke cause health problems?"(Or whatever the title. The study claims yes, so we all hear. In the academic world been found to be something of an abomination. Some university professors have said that were this study presented as a student's thesis, not only would it have been rejected, the student would have been summarily expelled from the school.
In short, treated the normally accepted way, the study basically gave results that said second hand smoke couldn't really be blamed for any significant health problems. Evidently a number of people badly wanted the study to say smoke is bad. So they way the data was processed (or whatever) was twisted to produce the desired results. Yeah, fine, smoking is bad for you. Perhaps a different type of study would have had different results. The real point is that the vast majority of us accept the results of this study and use it even as basis for proposing various anti-smoking ordinances. When the study is WRONG.
I don't care about whether it is or isn't, the point is I found out about how this study was twisted to produce results the sponsors of it wanted (paid for). How often do this crap go on? How many of these studies do we hear about that seem sensible enough on the face of it are actually damn lies? Scary. Who to believe. I don't know.
OK this crap doesn't really scare me for myself. I fear for my grandchildren. What sort of world will it all be when they are my age? Is there a darn thing I can do about any of this stuff? If there were, how would I know if I can't trust the information I get. Arrgh!