Is all the "fuel saving" tech really worth it in the long run?

[carymccarr]

The "97% of climate scientists agree" and "the science is settled!" scam has been debunked long ago. Try again.

The Climate Change industry is a 400-billion dollar a year INDUSTRY with some of the World's most powerful banks and corporations heavily invested in it financially. These heavy hitters are expecting a return on their investment and will peddle whatever b.s. needs peddling in order to do so. They have the main stream media pundits in their pockets, as well as most governments (who in turn finance the academia via research grants).

They also know that fear of impeding doom is a great motivator and it sure as hell seems to be working in your case!


Here's a good argument as to why it's a scam... because the OWNERS of this planet made it up, so they can drain your retirement fund (and your kids' as well) :

Gotta wonder why some people fight so hard against science and think it’s ok to poison the air and land.

Strange position to take.

 

[Trainmaster]

Gotta wonder why some people fight so hard against science and think it’s ok to poison the air and land.

You can't really believe this, can you? Only a fool would want to poison the air and land, but as always, the evil of the global warming debate is in the details. And that's why the public debate is a good one. A middle ground of regulation, control, ecology and acceptance of "scientific theory" has to be established. Anyone who doesn't see that a cause run rampant can be used to justify confiscation, taxation and censorship needs lessons in history. On the other hand, history teaches us the outcomes of unchecked polluting.

No, I don't throw my garbage out my second floor windows, and I'm happy that the City of New York stopped dumping its sewer sludge by the boatload off our beaches. But I respect the autonomy of our Nation, and disdain any attempt to permit taxing or control of Americans by some foreign body with a horrendous socialist track record.

Only the open exchange of information and debate will reveal the truth, and and one side fights to stifle that information or speech, their cause becomes suspect to those who still strive for enlightened opinions.

 

[carymccarr]

You can't really believe this, can you? Only a fool would want to poison the air and land, but as always, the evil of the global warming debate is in the details. And that's why the public debate is a good one. A middle ground of regulation, control, ecology and acceptance of "scientific theory" has to be established. Anyone who doesn't see that a cause run rampant can be used to justify confiscation, taxation and censorship needs lessons in history. On the other hand, history teaches us the outcomes of unchecked polluting.

No, I don't throw my garbage out my second floor windows, and I'm happy that the City of New York stopped dumping its sewer sludge by the boatload off our beaches. But I respect the autonomy of our Nation, and disdain any attempt to permit taxing or control of Americans by some foreign body with a horrendous socialist track record.

Only the open exchange of information and debate will reveal the truth, and and one side fights to stifle that information or speech, their cause becomes suspect to those who still strive for enlightened opinions.

Frankly I’m still waiting for everyone to get out all of their right wing fear mongering talking points so we can finally get to a real conversation about how we keep people from dumping toxins into the air and water as our population swells. Something which has slid backwards over the last two years. And despite people stomping their feet, the scientific evidence that dumping poison into the air and waterways is bad is indeed settled science.

The thread is about saving energy and whether it’s worth it, not a game of ‘who is the craziest uncle at thanksgiving’.

So dear posters, when you’re done posting crazy YouTube videos and erroneously blaming China and the UN for all of your woes...what do YOU suggest if CAFE isn’t part of the answer?

 

[Trainmaster]

From BBC, quoted on Wikipedia as fact:

A single cow can belch up to 500 litres of methane every day. Multiply that by the 1.5 billion cattle we have on our planet and that's a lot of gas. And it has a vast environmental impact because methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

"Established Science." ...Bwahahahahaha!

"Scientists" have a major problem with credibility.
Kooks.

 

[carymccarr]

From BBC, quoted on Wikipedia as fact:

"Established Science." ...Bwahahahahaha!
Kooks.

So are you agreeing with scientists that one of our biggest environmental impacts is from our meat based diet (300+ MILLION TONS annually)? Or are you suggesting dumping methane into the atmosphere is a good thing? Not sure what you’re agreeing/disagreeing with. Sounds like more deflection from the core issue.

Either way, thats more of a cafe issue than a CAFE issue but ok...

 

[JExpedition07]

Or you land on the moon before your rivals. ;-)

You cannot be seriously trying to compare the U.S. Space program with access to billions in funds during a space race to an average consumer making fixed $45,000 a year affording an $80,000 overpriced car because of forced retooling/ massive product changes. Come on, that’s CNN stuff. I guess if you want to collapse the auto industry again we can do that. How many people do we want to put out of work and how many companies do we want to bail out this time?

 

[TobyU]

Gotta wonder why some people fight so hard against science and think it’s ok to poison the air and land.

Strange position to take.

Some people just aren't as proactive about it as others. What they do is wait until there's a really really big problem then they do something about it or at least they want to. I'm not saying which way is better but that seems to be two trains of thought on the issue. Other people simply figure Mother Earth will take care of herself or they figure they will have clean enough conditions for themselves and or their living children as long as they will personally need it so they really don't care what's left after they are done with it.
I fully see and can appreciate all sides to the argument whereas people who are very environmentally conscious and Earth friendly can't see the other side and usually just demonize others as bad people for not doing things the way they have decided to go.

 

[carymccarr]

You cannot be seriously trying to compare the U.S. Space program with access to billions in funds during a space race to an average consumer making fixed $45,000 a year affording an $80,000 overpriced car because of forced retooling/ massive product changes. Come on, that’s CNN stuff. I guess if you want to collapse the auto industry again we can do that. How many people do we want to put out of work and how many companies do we want to bail out this time?

The American auto industry collapsed because they DIDNT innovate quickly enough and they refused to listen to the consumer.

Not because they were ‘forced’ to innovate.

Do you watch CNN? I don’t watch them. But from what I read on fox I’m REALLY not supposed to like them.

 

[carymccarr]

they figure they will have clean enough conditions for themselves and or their living children as long as they will personally need it so they really don't care what's left after they are done with it.

You’re welcome to ‘appreciate and respect that view’.

Seems pretty selfish to me.

 

[JExpedition07]

The American auto industry collapsed because they DIDNT innovate quickly enough and they refused to listen to the consumer.

Not because they were ‘forced’ to innovate.

Do you watch CNN? I don’t watch them. But from what I read on fox I’m REALLY not supposed to like them.

Did they collapse because of lack of innovation to the automobile? Or did they collapse because of poor management practices and poor customer service practices coupled with poor manufacturing efficiencies? I seem to recall the later. Toyota had no problems and they are far behind domestics in innovation and rolling out new technologies (one of the slowest). That blanket statement is like saying the earth is flat because you don’t feel like you’re driving around a spherical object.

 

[carymccarr]

Did they collapse because of lack of innovation to the automobile? Or did they collapse because of poor management practices and poor customer service practices coupled with poor manufacturing efficiencies? I seem to recall the later. Toyota had no problems and they are far behind domestics in innovation and rolling out new technologies (one of the slowest). That blanket statement is like saying the earth is flat because you don’t feel like you’re going around a sphere.

They lacked innovation and the ability to compete DUE to poor management practices and poor customer service practices coupled with poor manufacturing efficiencies.

Toyota has been an innovation pioneer since the beginning. In the late 60’s early 70’s it designed their Corinna specifically for the US market and sold tens of thousands of them at a low cost and included many features only found in vehicles costing much more at the time (air conditioning and auto trans for example). Today they have the best selling hybrid on the market and just introduced a hydrogen car...and this isn’t even touching on the disruptive innovation the Lexus brought to the market in 1988. Just because the sequoia is a vestige of a bygone era doesn’t mean the company is.

Do you watch CNN?

 

[carymccarr]

That blanket statement is like saying the earth is flat because you don’t feel like you’re driving around a spherical object.

Or like saying that pollution isn’t an issue because garbage no longer washing up on your beaches or because China has pollution too.

 

[JExpedition07]

Or like saying that pollution isn’t an issue because garbage no longer washing up on your beaches or because China has pollution too.

I never said that, now you’re putting words into other people’s mouths? Huh so that’s how this stuff starts.

 

[JExpedition07]

They lacked innovation and the ability to compete DUE to poor management practices and poor customer service practices coupled with poor manufacturing efficiencies.

Toyota has been an innovation pioneer since the beginning. In the late 60’s early 70’s it designed their Corinna specifically for the US market and sold tens of thousands of them at a low cost and included many features only found in vehicles costing much more at the time (air conditioning and auto trans for example). Today they have the best selling hybrid on the market and just introduced a hydrogen car...and this isn’t even touching on the disruptive innovation the Lexus brought to the market in 1988. Just because the sequoia is a vestige of a bygone era doesn’t mean the company is.

Do you watch CNN?

Occasionally. Maybe once a month or so for a bit. I don’t agree with their bias but I like to get viewpoints from everywhere. I disagree, sure Toyota innovated back in the sixties. Are you stuck there? I’m looking at the 1990s and beyond. 90% of their passanger vehicles have been behind the rest of the market pre market collapse and that includes the domestics. The difference is management and efficiency.

 

[carymccarr]

I never said that, now you’re putting words into other people’s mouths? Huh so that’s how this stuff starts.

I didn’t say you said it.

Nobody said the world was flat either.

 

[carymccarr]

90% of their passanger vehicles have been behind the rest of the market pre market collapse and that includes the domestics. The difference is management and efficiency.

They have had the number one selling vehicle for almost two decades.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[carymccarr]

Occasionally. Maybe once a month or so for a bit. I don’t agree with their bias but I like to get viewpoints from everywhere. I disagree, sure Toyota innovated back in the sixties. Are you stuck there? I’m looking at the 1990s and beyond. 90% of their passanger vehicles have been behind the rest of the market pre market collapse and that includes the domestics. The difference is management and efficiency.

I can’t watch them unless something just blew up and I want reliable on the ground reporting...both Fox and CNN do a decent job at that. The minute that crisis is over both go immediately back to attacking/defending whatever the opposing political party did that day.

Between CNN and Fox is amazing that anyone can still think for themselves.

 

[TobyU]

You’re welcome to ‘appreciate and respect that view’.

Seems pretty selfish to me.

Appreciate and respect are two different things to me. I said I can appreciate the view....it I want to.

I don't automatically condemn, dislike, or talk down to people who happen to see the world differently from my view. I may at a later time. If I want to.

 

[TobyU]

The American auto industry collapsed because they DIDNT innovate quickly enough and they refused to listen to the consumer.

Not because they were ‘forced’ to innovate.

Do you watch CNN? I don’t watch them. But from what I read on fox I’m REALLY not supposed to like them.

I feel they are still not listening to the consumer enough...or maybe if is just a certain group of possible consumers they are not listening too. You can't cater to everyone, but I think they think they can.

 

[carymccarr]

I feel they are still not listening to the consumer enough...or maybe if is just a certain group of possible consumers they are not listening too. You can't cater to everyone, but I think they think they can.

It’s like you purposefully try to contradict yourself lol