 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008$4 gas is here yet idiot americans still oppose lower speed limits
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes. But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!! On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but > crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes. > But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!! The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds. DON'T LISTEN TO MADD and other nutty orgs filled with people who have nothing to do but advocate some Neanderthal legislation. > On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be > using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds. All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind resistance, you moron? >> On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind > resistance, you moron? =============== Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH ! > > Trace <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH ! Actually that's the very worst mpg it can get (stopped in traffic). ZERO mpg. Graham > >> On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate, On Apr 23, 11:50 am, "Al Goreon" <Gor...@moron.org> wrote: > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in > messagenews:4b1a7090-c26e-4e83-943a-463ffb343219@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate, But when you are stopped in traffics, it is not 0/0. It is 0 miles/less than 0 gallons of fuel = 0 miles per gallon. Of course if you want to figure mileage as liters per 100 km, it is indeterminate, but that is a problem for the Europeans. Ed > On Apr 23, 11:50 am, "Al Goreon" <Gor...@moron.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The only thing less than zero for fuel use is if somehow your fuel level increased while stopped. We know how likely that is. If stopped while continuing to have the engine running, it's wasted fuel without any progress. > > "Studemania" <midl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - unless you own a hybrid like me that when standing still is on electric and uses no gas. On Apr 23, 10:47 pm, "Ed White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "Studemania" <midl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The only thing less than zero for fuel use is if somehow your fuel level increased while stopped. We know how likely that is. If stopped while continuing to have the engine running, it's wasted fuel without any progress. I mean greater than zero fuel consumed while stopped. Brain engaged, but finger when the other way.... Ed > On Apr 23, 11:50 am, "Al Goreon" <Gor...@moron.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I shut my engine off in long traffic jams - same as I did in the first postwar gas shortge. >> Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -= > >Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate, Yeah, but a car doesn't use 0 gallons of gas at 0mph. Unless it's bone dry to start with. Even a car which isn't runing is losing a teeny little bit of gas through evaporation.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > > > > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but > > > crash rates on highways would drop too No proof of that. > > > meaning lower insurance and taxes. > > > But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Not guaranteed by any means. > Ever hear of wind resistance, you moron? Ever hear of running an engine at less than optimum efficiency, you moron ? Lightly loaded engines are not operating in an efficient regime. Graham >> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No proof of that. It worked in the 70s. There's your proof. > >> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It worked in the 70s. No, it didn't, but it made a lot of money for the manufacturers of radar detectors. > There's your proof. hahahahahahahahah. >>> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >>> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It worked in the 70s. There's your proof. No it didn't. Death *RATE* did not decrease. >>>> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No it didn't. Death *RATE* did not decrease. Yes it did, you fkn liar. As this link shows total highway deaths AND deaths per 100 million vehicle miles took a huge drop in 1974. Nothing like it before or since. Get your facts str8, you hater. http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm >>>>> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm While it is true that the biggest single year to year drop occurred between 1973 and 1974, I don't think you can attribute this totally to the NSL. If you plot the trend from 1957 to 1997 you get a fairly consistent trend downward. There are years were the rate of improvement were greater and years were it was less, but I don't think the change between 1973 and 1974 is statistically significant. How do you explain the large drops in 1958 and 1982? Or the increase in 1977 and 1979? The fatality rate in 2006 was 1.41 fatalities per 100M vehicle miles. It was 3.59 in 1974. You really want to use 1974 as an example of "goodness?" Ed On Apr 24, 12:34 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm You lie. the fatality rate has been declining more or less steadily ever since the first statistics were kept back in the 1930's. Plus there were other factors at work artificially depressing the 1974 stats. This has been discussed many times http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement.traffic/browse_frm/thread/595 1c908f532838/7e7a8b4fc176d060?lnk=gst&q=fatality+rate+statistics#7e7a8b4fc176d06 0 nate > On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > DON'T LISTEN TO MADD and other nutty orgs filled with people who have > nothing to do but advocate some Neanderthal legislation. But let neanderthals promote fossil fuels and Trace and other idiots will kiss their behinds. > On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > DON'T LISTEN TO MADD and other nutty orgs filled with people who have > nothing to do but advocate some Neanderthal legislation. Not true My BMW 330xi gets 33 mpg when driving between 55 and 60 and only 26 when driving between 75 and 80 (although it is much more fun). When I drove through Montana and Wyoming a few months ago, going in the 90s, my mileage was around 22. > On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be > using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds. I doubt if you can find a production car in good original condition that will get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55. The last time the EPA ran this sort of test (1997), they found one car that got 1 mpg better fuel economy at 65 than at 55 - but this car got much better fuel economy at 60 than at 55 or 65 and by 70 mph it was significantly worse than at 55 (1997 Toyota Celica, see http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf ). Lots of people will claim that they get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55, but I wager that if they ran the same route under the same conditions at 55 as they ran at 70, they would get significantly better mileage at 55. Aerodynamic drag becomes the principal factor in fuel consumption as speed increases from 40 to 65 mph. The exact point where aerodynamic drag becomes the most significant factor in fuel economy varies depending on the shape, size, engine efficiency, gearing, etc of various vehicles, however, by the time a vehicle is doing 70, it almost a certainty that aerodynamic drag is by far the most significant factor in fuel economy. I got into this discussion with some friends in a mailing list group and summarized my thoughts at http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id6.html. From http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/tires-auto-parts/car-maintenance/get-the -most-mileage-for-your-fuel-dollars-406/ "Slow down. Aerodynamic drag exponentially increases on the highway the faster you drive. We tested our vehicles' fuel economy at 55, 65, and 75 mph. Driving at 75 mph instead of 65 reduced the Camry's gas mileage from 35 mpg to 30. For the Mountaineer, fuel economy fell from 21 mpg to 18. Slowing down to 55 mph improved the gas mileage by similar margins: The Camry improved to 40 mpg and the Mountaineer to 24 mpg." BUT, I am not suggesting a reversion to the 55 mph speed limit. There are better ways to save fuel than by slowing people down. I believe replacing 25% of the SUVs with passenger cars would save more gas than lowering the speed limit to 55. And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is likely many roads will become parking lots because of the reduced capacity of the roads do to the lower speed limits. If you think driving 70 eats fuel, just compare that to stop and roll traffic.... Ed >> The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get >> their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >becomes the principal factor in fuel consumption as speed increases from 40 >to 65 mph. The problem is EPA tests are not real world traffic. In real world traffic I find fuel economy varies most by the amount of congestion incountered. A constant 85mph yields far better fuel economy than the congestion of a 45mph construction zone. To force people to obey or even put up lower speed limits and have just a few obey them will cause more congestion. More clumps, more slow downs, earlier onset and longer durations for stop and go traffic.... Lower fuel economy. As I have pointed out time and time again, it's a simple input rate, storage term, output rate situation. If vehicles are slowed on the road they will build up on the road (storage term). The speed limit on the expressway doesn't change the rate vehicles enter it, it only changes the rate at which they leave it. Like a sink with a lower 'speed limit' on the drain, the water builds up. >>> The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to >>> get [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > limit' > on the drain, the water builds up. You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at least meant to - "And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is likely many roads will become parking lots because of the reduced capacity of the roads do to the lower speed limits. If you think driving 70 eats fuel, just compare that to stop and roll traffic...." Ed > You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at least meant > to - "And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is likely > many roads will become parking lots because of the reduced capacity of > the roads do to the lower speed limits. If you think driving 70 eats > fuel, just compare that to stop and roll traffic...." So, where did you download your degree in traffic engineering? >> You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at least meant >> to - "And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is likely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, where did you download your degree in traffic engineering? I don't need a degree to express my opinion. I lived through the stupid 55 mph NSL once, I don't want to re-live that particularly stupid idea again. Ed >>> You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at >>> least meant to - "And of course, if we drop the speed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > through the stupid 55 mph NSL once, I don't want to > re-live that particularly stupid idea again. It would be nice if the cops did their job like they have done far to little before. I was pulled over one time many years ago for not using my turn signal and I deserved it. It was called "failure to secure in changing lanes". Now I see this going on all the time. I am cut off many times each day on rte 93 north and one day I will not be able to get out of the way in time. I used to see a black Mustang that patrolled that highway and many knew of it. This is not the case these days. Why are the cops failing to protect and serve? Enforce the existing laws before they make new ones. > >>> You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at > >>> least meant to - "And of course, if we drop the speed [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > knew of it. This is not the case these days. Why are the cops failing to > protect and serve? Enforce the existing laws before they make new ones. It seems that enforcement priorities have shifted to speed and DUI at the expense of all else. nate > On Apr 28, 10:05 am, "Smirnoff" <Unli...@unlisted.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It seems that enforcement priorities have shifted to > speed and DUI at the expense of all else. Sad but true. There are few places where a cop can even pull someone over during rush hour anyway. Much easier and profitable to work the night shift and stop drunks all night long. I guess we have all seen the clips of the cops that get hit trying to deal with a speeder. >I don't need a degree to express my opinion. I lived through the >stupid 55 mph NSL once, I don't want to re-live that particularly >stupid idea again. We are going to see a lot of stupid 1970s ideas return. We are already seeing: 1) The bad result of federal reserve interference means giving the fed even more power. 2) Pumping money into the system.... inflation. 3) CAFE (increased) 4) emissions... this time CO2 for the global warming scam. Can a NMSL along with wage and price controls to deepen the depression be far behind? >>I don't need a degree to express my opinion. I lived >>through the stupid 55 mph NSL once, I don't want to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can a NMSL along with wage and price controls to deepen > the depression be far behind? Are you against emission control? If so why? If there were not a GW scam would you be willing to go along with the same ideas to cut back on pollution? >>>I don't need a degree to express my opinion. I lived >>>through the stupid 55 mph NSL once, I don't want to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Are you against emission control? If so why? Cute. CO2 is not toxic it is not harmful. Emission controls are for harmful chemicals. > If there were not a GW scam >would you be willing to go along with the same ideas to cut back on >pollution? CO2 is not pollution. If you think it is, stop breathing. > In article > <EemRj.3478$lU5.324@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > CO2 is not pollution. If you think it is, stop breathing. I was not trying to be a wise guy. I appreciate your response and agree. I might add that it is not possible to breath in CO2. That is the gas that forces you to exhale. It also accumulates in the atmosphere and adds to the greenhouse effect. That can result in pollution of a non poisonous nature. Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being used? To much vapor? >> In article >> <EemRj.3478$lU5.324@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >might add that it is not possible to breath in CO2. That is the gas that >forces you to exhale. Humans produce CO2 by breathing. If it is bad, then we should all stop breathing. > It also accumulates in the atmosphere CO2 is both added and subtracted from the atmosphere. Only a difference in rates changes how much is in the atmosphere at any given time. > and adds to the greenhouse effect. There is no evidence to support that. Correlation != Causation. Even the correlation is suspect for various reasons the main one being that temp increase lagged behind CO2 increase. Solar energy has a stronger correlation with global temperature anyway. > That can result in pollution of a non poisonous nature. >Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being used? To much vapor? Steam engines are no longer used much because of their operational needs. > In article > <n2nRj.3487$lU5.36@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > in rates changes how much is in the atmosphere at any > given time. Exactly. Now how much is extracted from the earth that has been there for millinons of years by burning fuels? >> and adds to the greenhouse effect. > > There is no evidence to support that. Correlation != > Causation. Even the correlation is suspect for various > reasons the main one being that temp > increase lagged behind CO2 increase. Lag is expected. It takes time to build up and the effects are seen by melting ice quicker than ever predicted. > Solar energy has a stronger correlation with global > temperature anyway. IOW the sun does it anyway so why bother to stop any CO2 emission. >> That can result in pollution of a non poisonous nature. >>Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > operational > needs. The answer is that the fuel used to heat the steam is also toxic. Just like that of the Internal combustion engine. >> CO2 is both added and subtracted from the atmosphere. >> Only a difference >> in rates changes how much is in the atmosphere at any >> given time. >Exactly. Now how much is extracted from the earth that has been there for >millinons of years by burning fuels? How much is there from 6,000,000,000 people breathing? >>> and adds to the greenhouse effect. >> >> There is no evidence to support that. Correlation != >> Causation. Even the correlation is suspect for various >> reasons the main one being that temp >> increase lagged behind CO2 increase. >Lag is expected. It takes time to build up and the effects are seen by >melting ice quicker than ever predicted. Opps I wrote that backwards the CO2 increase lagged behind the temp increase. >> Solar energy has a stronger correlation with global >> temperature anyway. >IOW the sun does it anyway so why bother to stop any CO2 emission. If we are going to go ape sh.t about a correlation, we might as well pick the stronger one. >>> That can result in pollution of a non poisonous nature. >>>Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The answer is that the fuel used to heat the steam is also toxic. Just like >that of the Internal combustion engine. Steam can be produced by many method, only heat is required. It has nothing to do with the fuel. You can run a steam engine from solar power if you want. Take a charged battery to run an electric heating element and heat the boiler. > In article > <zOnRj.3495$lU5.1209@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How much is there from 6,000,000,000 people breathing? It's not about breathing. It's about the CO2 that is being released from the ground. The effects are the rise in temperature and melting of ice. >>>> and adds to the greenhouse effect. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > behind the temp > increase. You obviously need more practice. >>> Solar energy has a stronger correlation with global >>> temperature anyway. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > might as well > pick the stronger one. A stronger ape? You are the one that gets his correlation backwards. >>>> That can result in pollution of a non poisonous nature. >>>>Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > heating element > and heat the boiler. Do the same with an internal combustion engine. Stop burning fossil fuels. That will result in less CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. Thus reducing the effects of global warming. >> How much is there from 6,000,000,000 people breathing? >It's not about breathing. It's about the CO2 that is being released from the >ground. CO2 is CO2, source is not relevant. > The effects are the rise in temperature and melting of ice. Correlation != causation. BTW: Ice is melting in some regions, growing thicker in others. >> Opps I wrote that backwards the CO2 increase lagged >> behind the temp >> increase. > You obviously need more practice. You never made an error? grow up. >>>IOW the sun does it anyway so why bother to stop any CO2 >>>emission. >> If we are going to go ape sh.t about a correlation, we >> might as well >> pick the stronger one. > A stronger ape? You are the one that gets his correlation backwards. A correlation can't be backwards. Duh. But yeah, stick on that error I made, it's all you got. >>>>> That can result in pollution of a non poisonous nature. >>>>>Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> heating element >> and heat the boiler. >Do the same with an internal combustion engine. Um no. It's pretty clear you have no grasp of how either ICE's or steam engines function. > Stop burning fossil fuels. It is quite clear now that hydrocarbons formed with the solar system or are being formed internally by planetary bodies. It's only a matter of time before it's clear that only some hydrocarbons are fossil in nature. >That will result in less CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. Thus >reducing the effects of global warming. Again, Correlation is not causation. There is a weak correlation between temp and CO2. That's it. The temp increase happens first which even makes it weaker. There is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 will do anything. Well it will do one thing, it will empower a wealthy elite to take total control over our lives. > In article > <ckpRj.3517$lU5.3242@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > BTW: Ice is melting in some regions, growing thicker in > others. Show someone that says "oh look. There are massive bodies of Ice that was not here 10 years ago". I happen to believe the non political accounts of the scientists that have been visiting areas for decades to study the animals that all agree that the ice is melting at an alarming rate. They refer to it as global warming. I watch these documentaries regularly. They have nothing to gain by what they say. They do their research and draw their scientific conclusions. You are the usenet poster that probably hates Al Gore. >>> Opps I wrote that backwards the CO2 increase lagged >>> behind the temp [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that error I > made, it's all you got. You are the one that has nothing. There is an overwhelming consensus that GW does exists and man can slow it down. In new global warming special, Fox News interviews scientists with industry ties, records of misinformation http://mediamatters.org/items/200605190003 Good luck. >>>>>> That can result in pollution of a non poisonous >>>>>>nature. Is this not why there are no longer steam [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > elite to take total > control over our lives. >> In article >> <ckpRj.3517$lU5.3242@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Show someone that says "oh look. There are massive bodies of Ice that was >not here 10 years ago". *sigh* antarctica's ice is getting thicker. > I happen to believe the non political accounts of >the scientists that have been visiting areas for decades to study the >animals that all agree that the ice is melting at an alarming rate. Some ice is. Some isn't. > They refer to it as global warming. The political types do. > I watch these documentaries regularly. That might be your problem. > They >have nothing to gain by what they say. They do their research and draw their >scientific conclusions. Science is not pure. It's political. If you do not reach 'global warming' conclusions you can watch your funding dry up and you'll be a political outsider. > You are the usenet poster that probably hates Al Gore. You mean the hypocrite elitiest Al Gore who works for those who would have the power under the 'save the earth' schemes? >>> A stronger ape? You are the one that gets his >>> correlation backwards. >> >> A correlation can't be backwards. Duh. But yeah, stick on >> that error I >> made, it's all you got. >You are the one that has nothing. There is an overwhelming consensus that GW >does exists and man can slow it down. The consensus was shown to be a lie when people on the list turned out not to believe the GW religion. >In new global warming special, Fox News interviews scientists with industry >ties, records of misinformation >http://mediamatters.org/items/200605190003 >Good luck. Fox News.... lol. I'm sorry I am not going to turn over my life to your high priests because they are telling me a monster is going to eat the sun. sure, the whole presentation is a lot slicker here in the 21st century but the theme is the same. Control. It's a scam that is thousands of years old. Look at their so-called solutions. Examine them. Even if we are to believe that GW is caused by CO2, their solutions fail to address it. It only adds to their power. First it was to limit CO2 from the 'west', which only shifted manufacturing to places like China. So instead of having sensible emission controls on toxins, there are none at all. The congestion taxes that bring about more wasted fuel, the ethanol mandate that burns more oil, it goes on and on. One counter productive 'solution' after another even if you accept the basis! It's a SCAM. > In article > <lfqRj.3535$lU5.1466@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > *sigh* antarctica's ice is getting thicker. The only problem with some ice getting thicker is that it does not get as compressed. The ice melting now is millions of years old. There is no way any new ice can replace what is being lost. You assumption otherwise are foolish. Nice try though. NEXT............... Who has said this? >> I happen to believe the non political accounts of >>the scientists that have been visiting areas for decades [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That might be your problem. What makes you think that listening to non political ideas are wrong? They have no vested interest in anything they say. Maybe you should also look farther than usenet kook posts. >> They >>have nothing to gain by what they say. They do their [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > productive 'solution' after another even if you accept > the basis! It's a SCAM. >> In article >> <lfqRj.3535$lU5.1466@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >> *sigh* antarctica's ice is getting thicker. >The only problem with some ice getting thicker is that it does not get as >compressed. LOL. it gets compressed from the weight above it... thicker = more compression. > The ice melting now is millions of years old. No. Sea ice forms and melts each year. Now I realizing your true believers may be making a play on words regarding the ice being squeezed out the end of a glacier that is melting, but that process goes on CO2 or not. But even with what melting there is going on that in no way means CO2 is responsible. > There is no way >any new ice can replace what is being lost. > You assumption otherwise are foolish. You need to stop listening to the talking heads and start thinking. > Nice try though. >NEXT............... >Who has said this? lol. >>> I happen to believe the non political accounts of >>>the scientists that have been visiting areas for decades [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> That might be your problem. >What makes you think that listening to non political ideas are wrong? They >have no vested interest in anything they say. Maybe you should also look >farther than usenet kook posts. If you think what you see on TV isn't biased and not political you are a fool. > In article > <p8rRj.3542$lU5.1577@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > political you are a > fool. You are the fool that is completely clueless. The documentaries I am referring to mention GW in passing and never mention causes. The ice that is melting is not new ice that forms every year but very old ice that has not melting in many centuries. This is how long it has taken to become compressed. New ice forming is the ice you are referring to that never gets compressed and melts away each year. Glaciers melting are very old and are also receding at an alarming rate. Ice melts much faster then it is being formed. Did you ever see ice falling up towards the top of the cap as fast as it melts away? Ice that melts now has not been water in thousands of years. This exposes water that becomes warmed that has not reached those temperatures before. You seem to think that ice is ice and the freezing water ways that are seasonal are the same as glaciers. Sorry. Wrong. How high does your new ice become? No where are high as any glassier that is for sure. >You are the fool that is completely clueless. Sorry, you are not fully informed. > The documentaries I am >referring to mention GW in passing and never mention causes. Yet you are arguing that it is CO2. Note, I have not said anything about the cause of some parts of the world getting warmer, although the best correlation I have seen is solar. > The ice that >is melting is not new ice that forms every year but very old ice that has >not melting in many centuries. What the TV keeps jabbering about is the artic sea ice. Greenland... planes land on the glacier in the 1940s... as of 10 years ago they were 250ft below the surface. Then the TV points to ice that is at the edge of the glacier. Sure, it might be old ice pushed out to the end, but that's all it is. That's how glaciers work. The propoganda does things with the facts to achieve a goal, same thing with the pictures of the polar bears on hunks of ice. Polar bears swim and actually have been growing in population... but those TV documentaries don't tell you that. > This is how long it has taken to become >compressed. It's one layer on top of the next. > New ice forming is the ice you are referring to that never gets >compressed and melts away each year. The antartic ice is getting thicker year over year. You're wrong. > Glaciers melting are very old and are >also receding at an alarming rate. So they say. > Ice melts much faster then it is being formed. Not sure what you are trying to say here. > Did you ever see ice falling up towards the top of the cap as fast >as it melts away? Nonesense. >Ice that melts now has not been water in thousands of years. Some of it maybe. So what? It doesn't prove your CO2 case. > This exposes water that becomes warmed that has not reached those >temperatures before. Lol. I suggest you get some basic science under your belt. Here's a hint... if wasn't water VAPOR at one time it would not be there. > You seem to think that ice is ice and the freezing >water ways that are seasonal are the same as glaciers. Sorry. No. You have a comprehension problem. > Wrong. How >high does your new ice become? No where are high as any glassier that is for >sure. *sigh* You are not making a case to control every detail of our lives under the guise that CO2 is harmful. > In article > <vOtRj.3556$lU5.3297@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > although the best > correlation I have seen is solar. Sure it is the sun. Like a forest fire where the damage is caused by the flames. Like lightning striking a building that is not properly grounded. If you know this is going to happen than man can act before it is to late. I would not blame the lightning like you seem to be willing to do. "Oh well, you can't stop lighting and those loons now want me to pay money to install a lighting rod." >> The ice that >>is melting is not new ice that forms every year but very >>old ice that has not melting in many centuries. > > What the TV keeps jabbering about is the artic sea ice. You are refering to the political aspect that you seem to hate. The facts are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. I have never seen any area that someone visits and comments on the huge masses of ice that make the world safer. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between the politics and the reality of the effects. > Greenland... > planes land on the glacier in the 1940s... as of 10 years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the end, but > that's all it is. That's how glaciers work. I seriously think you are incapable of researching with an open mind. There are debates on going but you already have your mind made up. I choose to believe the ones that have no ploitical agenda. The > propoganda does things > with the facts to achieve a goal, same thing with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tell you > that. Maybe you can provide a link to that growth. Their food is becoming scarce. >> This is how long it has taken to become >>compressed. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So they say. Do you have cites that indicate different? >> Ice melts much faster then it is being formed. > > Not sure what you are trying to say here. Ice melts faster than it freezes. This is obvious by less ice where it has been for centuries. Land is being displaced and homes and vilages are disapearing. I have not heard of any being build where there have never been any before. >> Did you ever see ice falling up towards the top of the >> cap as fast >>as it melts away? > > Nonesense. It takes far longer for glasiers to form then it takes to melt. >>Ice that melts now has not been water in thousands of >>years. > > Some of it maybe. So what? It doesn't prove your CO2 case. What would your explanation be? >> This exposes water that becomes warmed that has not >>reached those temperatures before. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hint... if wasn't water VAPOR at one time it would not be > there. Not sure if I follow you here. Ice melting exposes the sea to the sun and heats. These are areas of the sea that have not been exposed for centuries. >> You seem to think that ice is ice and the freezing >>water ways that are seasonal are the same as glaciers. >>Sorry. > > No. You have a comprehension problem. Then explain what I have claimed as being wrong. Seasonal ice is not the same as ice melting and not being replaced. >> Wrong. How >>high does your new ice become? No where are high as any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of our lives > under the guise that CO2 is harmful. So this is your problem. You think people are trying to control you. You sound like a cigarette smoker or someone that does not want someone to tell you to fasten your seat belt. >> although the best >> correlation I have seen is solar. > Sure it is the sun. Like a forest fire where the damage is caused by the > flames. Like lightning striking a building that is not properly grounded. If > you know this is going to happen than man can act before it is to late. I > would not blame the lightning like you seem to be willing to do. "Oh well, > you can't stop lighting and those loons now want me to pay money to install > a lighting rod." LOL. You're not proving the case for CO2 being the cause. You're blathering the same old 'security' line for taking control over people's lives. > >> The ice that >>>is melting is not new ice that forms every year but very >>>old ice that has not melting in many centuries. >> >> What the TV keeps jabbering about is the artic sea ice. > You are refering to the political aspect that you seem to hate. That's what global warming is, political. > The facts > are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. A political statement. IE Al Gore's 'the debate is over' > I have never seen any area > that someone visits and comments on the huge masses of ice that make the > world safer. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between the politics > and the reality of the effects. There is nothing man can do to change the output of the sun. If you look at history warm periods = good, cold periods = bad. What is worth a concern is that the sun has suddenly decided to stay sun spot free. >> Greenland... >> planes land on the glacier in the 1940s... as of 10 years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> the end, but >> that's all it is. That's how glaciers work. > I seriously think you are incapable of researching with an open mind. There > are debates on going but you already have your mind made up. I choose to > believe the ones that have no ploitical agenda. My mind is open, that's why I am not on the popular band wagon spouting back what the TV says like you. > The >> propoganda does things [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> tell you >> that. > Maybe you can provide a link to that growth. I did the last time this came up. Google it yourself. > Their food is becoming scarce. Bullshit. >>> This is how long it has taken to become >>>compressed. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > Do you have cites that indicate different? Alarming is a matter of OPINION. >>> Ice melts much faster then it is being formed. >> >> Not sure what you are trying to say here. > Ice melts faster than it freezes. The rate of phase change is variable depending on conditions. > This is obvious by less ice where it has > been for centuries. Land is being displaced and homes and vilages are > disapearing. I have not heard of any being build where there have never been > any before. The world isn't static. hate to break that to ya. >>> Did you ever see ice falling up towards the top of the >>> cap as fast >>>as it melts away? >> Nonesense. > It takes far longer for glasiers to form then it takes to melt. Nonsense. Rate of both is dependent upon prevailing conditions. They aren't going to melt very fast at 32.00000000000000000000000001 deg F and they will form quite fast if it's snowing 24 inches a day. >>>Ice that melts now has not been water in thousands of >>>years. >> >> Some of it maybe. So what? It doesn't prove your CO2 case. > > What would your explanation be? Solar output along with other conditions given where the solar system is in the galaxy. It's cycles layered on cycles. >>> This exposes water that becomes warmed that has not >>>reached those temperatures before. >> Lol. I suggest you get some basic science under your >> belt. Here's a >> hint... if wasn't water VAPOR at one time it would not be >> there. > Not sure if I follow you here. Ice melting exposes the sea to the sun and > heats. These are areas of the sea that have not been exposed for centuries. You just babble one TV phrase after the next randomly. this is pointless. >>> You seem to think that ice is ice and the freezing >>>water ways that are seasonal are the same as glaciers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then explain what I have claimed as being wrong. Seasonal ice is not the > same as ice melting and not being replaced. Sea ice varies depending on the warmth of the summer and the chill of the winter and the prevailing winds and weather patterns. It's not as fixed as the TV makes it out to be. >>> Wrong. How >>>high does your new ice become? No where are high as any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sound like a cigarette smoker or someone that does not want someone to tell > you to fasten your seat belt. Why do you need to tell people how to live? Why? What business is it of yours? I don't smoke and I wear a seat belt but is not my concern if you smoke 20 packs a day. Just because you and your ilk manufacture some nonsense about CO2 doesn't give you all the right to start telling everyone how to live. >>> although the best >>> correlation I have seen is solar. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You're blathering the same old 'security' line for taking > control over people's lives. I guess you are beyond hope and will listen to no soirce that says you are wrong. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41297 You appear to have other issues not even related to climate change. Good luck with that. >> >> The ice that >>>>is melting is not new ice that forms every year but very [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's what global warming is, political. Some of it may be. >> The facts >> are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. > > A political statement. IE Al Gore's 'the debate is over' Who cares about what Al Gore says. It is clear that you think HE is the problem and if he went away so would GW. >> I have never seen any area >> that someone visits and comments on the huge masses of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > periods = bad. What is worth a concern is that the sun > has suddenly decided to stay sun spot free. If it is the sun alone that is causing GW then what has changed? Is the sun being turned up and down at various times? IS the sun pissed at humans and is just screwing with everyone? >>> Greenland... >>> planes land on the glacier in the 1940s... as of 10 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My mind is open, that's why I am not on the popular band > wagon spouting back what the TV says like you. You rather rely on the republicans and the oil companies to tell you that everything will be all right if Al Gore just shuts his mouth? >> The >>> propoganda does things [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> don't tell you >>> that. According to whom? Maybe you can supply a few sources. Find more than ONE biologist that says the polar bear population is increasing. >> Maybe you can provide a link to that growth. > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > about CO2 doesn't give you all the right to start telling > everyone how to live. What has been manufactured is the few that disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists that claim GW is a threat. >> LOL. You're not proving the case for CO2 being the cause. >> You're blathering the same old 'security' line for taking >> control over people's lives. > I guess you are beyond hope and will listen to no soirce that says you are > wrong. I am growing tired of you spewing forth what the television told you. Grow a clue. > http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41297 Your news story is based on the blather of a "biodiversity policy analyst". Geebus. That's politics! > You appear to have other issues not even related to climate change. Good > luck with that. No sir, you have the problem. I am not putting up with insults from an idiot like yourself. Here, grow a clue and read some real science, not some reporter repeating what a "biodiversity policy analyst" said. Sadly I cannot find the report that detailed all the polar bear populations as growing, shrinking, stable, or unknown. Never mind... just found it. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ Stable 45%. Unknown 25%. increasing 14%. decreasing 16%. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml "In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today." Here it is in a form more your speed: http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12694 >>> The facts >>> are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Who cares about what Al Gore says. It is clear that you think HE is the > problem and if he went away so would GW. Ya know what, I don't have the time for your idiotcy any longer. You bring something up then do this... you insult, you babble, go back to your TV. <sniP> > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ > > Stable 45%. Unknown 25%. increasing 14%. decreasing 16%. I forgot the killer.... "Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures." Gee... polar bears, like other mammals prefer warmer weather... whata shocker! If things keep warming maybe it will be time to grow grapes in the UK again! >> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If things keep warming maybe it will be time to grow > grapes in the UK again! Polar bears prefer food first. If what they eat is in the colder areas that is where they want to be and need to be. The people that study those animals are all saying they are in danger. They are not running for office to I will believe them before someone that fears being controlled and hates Al Gore. It is your right wing leaders that you should fear if control is you problem. Maybe you care to debate those issues. >>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Polar bears prefer food first. If what they eat is in the colder areas that > is where they want to be and need to be. The population grows and shrinks based on food supply. Areas that got colder saw a decline in population while areas that got warmer saw an increase. Where was there more food? Sure they might eat more of B than of A where it's warmer, but obviously warmer means better overall eating. > The people that study those animals > are all saying they are in danger. They are not running for office to I will > believe them before someone that fears being controlled and hates Al Gore. > It is your right wing leaders that you should fear if control is you > problem. I just showed you the actual data is that polar bears are doing just fine as a whole as far as a those who study them can tell. Of course people who 'study them' say there is a problem, no problem means no funding. Duh. It's just like government sponsored climate research, you have to show there is a problem to get the grants. Show that it isn't caused by man and watch your government funding dry up.... then you have to get it from 'corporations' which means that people like you will call it biased, as if government isn't a self-serving institution of its own. > Maybe you care to debate those issues. Maybe you should grow a clue and realize its government that funds much of the research. Oh that's right, I'm 'paranoid' because I think that government has a self-interest as an institution just like a corporation does. >>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ >>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > self-interest as an institution just like a corporation > does. SIOW you think there should be no studies of anything as there would never be any real objective views. This means that anything you show is no more reliable that anything I point to. Lets just have everyone pack up everything and send them on their way like all studies of disease and medicine. There are people that study many things and the study of polar bears is just a small portion of what they do. If there is a decline in any animal populations in particular it matters not. You seem to be limited in your knowledge of scientific studies. There is no agenda to show anything one way or the other. >>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> self-interest as an institution just like a corporation >> does. > SIOW you think there should be no studies of anything as there would never > be any real objective views. Nothing of the sort. Damn you have a reading comprehension problem. Grow a clue. > This means that anything you show is no more > reliable that anything I point to. Lets just have everyone pack up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your knowledge of scientific studies. There is no agenda to show anything > one way or the other. I see you don't want your religion questioned. This is pointless. >>>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/ >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Nothing of the sort. Damn you have a reading > comprehension problem. Grow a clue. Who do you want doing the studies? Where are the ones that truly have no political involvement? Show me the scientist you think don't get funded by anyone. You have made no points with your reply. Maybe you can clue me in and provide something about your claims. Your cite is no different than any other. A "newsbuster"? You grow a clue. >> This means that anything you show is no more >> reliable that anything I point to. Lets just have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I see you don't want your religion questioned. This is > pointless. I have no reason to want religeon quesioned. I don't get involed in fairy tales. >>> LOL. You're not proving the case for CO2 being the >>> cause. You're blathering the same old 'security' line [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am growing tired of you spewing forth what the > television told you. Grow a clue. The TV has told me nothing fool I don't get a political opinion from and TV documentaries so called news shows. >> http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41297 > > Your news story is based on the blather of a > "biodiversity policy analyst". Geebus. That's politics! It is impossible to get any information online that is not politically motivated. >> You appear to have other issues not even related to >> climate change. Good luck with that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and read some real science, not some reporter repeating > what a "biodiversity policy analyst" said. Observations that you claim you don't want to be controlled with no examples shows paranoia. > Sadly I cannot find the report that detailed all the > polar bear populations as growing, shrinking, stable, or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12694 There are many areas that show polar bear populations decreasing and few that show any increase. The areas that show a decline needs to be adressed. >>>> The facts >>>> are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. >>> >>> A political statement. IE Al Gore's 'the debate is over' So it IS your hate for a Al Gore and you are the one that has a political agenda. Thanks for proving that. >> Who cares about what Al Gore says. It is clear that you >> think HE is the problem and if he went away so would GW. > > Ya know what, I don't have the time for your idiotcy any > longer. You bring something up then do this... you > insult, you babble, go back to your TV. Your fear of Al and your paranoia of being some how controlled show you don't have much of a clue. Thanks for playing. > It is impossible to get any information online that is not politically > motivated. Interesting perspective... ----- - gpsman >>>> LOL. You're not proving the case for CO2 being the >>>> cause. You're blathering the same old 'security' line [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> I am growing tired of you spewing forth what the >> television told you. Grow a clue. > The TV has told me nothing fool I don't get a political opinion from and TV > documentaries so called news shows. Obviously you do and admitted it already. >>> http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41297 >> >> Your news story is based on the blather of a >> "biodiversity policy analyst". Geebus. That's politics! > It is impossible to get any information online that is not politically > motivated. lol. but your 'TV' documentaries are scientific. Look dumbass, you presented information from a POLICY ANALYST as science. >>> You appear to have other issues not even related to >>> climate change. Good luck with that. >> No sir, you have the problem. I am not putting up with >> insults from an idiot like yourself. Here, grow a clue >> and read some real science, not some reporter repeating >> what a "biodiversity policy analyst" said. > Observations that you claim you don't want to be controlled with no examples > shows paranoia. Geebus, open your eyes. I've presented tons of examples over the years. What do you think these congestion taxes, these tracking systems, all these licensing and credit schemes and government approvals in the name of 'global' warming are? They are controls on our lives. We won't even have a choice in light bulbs in a few years because of government's controls for global warming. The whole thing is about giving up control of our lives, our liberty to government bodies so they can 'save' us from 'global warming climate change'. >> Sadly I cannot find the report that detailed all the >> polar bear populations as growing, shrinking, stable, or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There are many areas that show polar bear populations decreasing and few > that show any increase. The areas that show a decline needs to be adressed. Wrong. See above cite. >>>>> The facts >>>>> are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. >>>> >>>> A political statement. IE Al Gore's 'the debate is over' > So it IS your hate for a Al Gore and you are the one that has a political > agenda. Thanks for proving that. lol. I don't hate him. He makes a slick presentation and dumbasses like you fall for it. >>> Who cares about what Al Gore says. It is clear that you >>> think HE is the problem and if he went away so would GW. >> Ya know what, I don't have the time for your idiotcy any >> longer. You bring something up then do this... you >> insult, you babble, go back to your TV. > Your fear of Al and your paranoia of being some how controlled show you > don't have much of a clue. Thanks for playing. This coming from someone who thinks the babblings of a 'policy analyst' are science. >>>>> LOL. You're not proving the case for CO2 being the >>>>> cause. You're blathering the same old 'security' line [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Obviously you do and admitted it already. I have not. I d said I don't view politically motivated documentaries posing as new stories. You are unable to tell the difference from nature shows that have no political agenda. Your claims of funding cut off are unreal. >>>> http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41297 >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dumbass, you presented information from a POLICY ANALYST > as science. Once again, all "scientific' studies are not about politics. You are clearly the dumb a.s here. Why don't you go live in a cave where you belong? >>>> You appear to have other issues not even related to >>>> climate change. Good luck with that. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Geebus, open your eyes. I've presented tons of examples > over the years. I have no idea what you have presented over the years. What do you think these congestion taxes, > these tracking systems, all these licensing and credit > schemes and government approvals in the name of 'global' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > liberty to government bodies so they can 'save' us from > 'global warming climate change'. If you want freedom you will not find it in a democracy. You consent to control when you live in this country. There have not been any changes in the light bulb in many years. It is about time we find more efficient way to supply light. We can't use leaded fuel any more and we have to pay more for not adding lead. Do you object to this too? Get used to it. Climate change is here to stay and all your complaining will not stop any attempts to save energy. You hate the idea because you think it is only someone is trying to fool everyone and thus no measures to conserve should be taken. >>> Sadly I cannot find the report that detailed all the >>> polar bear populations as growing, shrinking, stable, or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in >>> the mid-1980s to 2,100 today." Error 404 Sorry, the page you have requested is not available Please try again later This error message may occur for a number of reasons: We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date You may have followed a link from another web site that contains an incorrect or out of date URL (web page address) You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site. >>> Here it is in a form more your speed: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wrong. See above cite. How is this guy any different than any sources anyone offers? He is a business man that makes his living. He is a "news buster". That should tell you something. I have read that smoking is not harmful. Some say it helps you. Should I start smoking? >>>>>> The facts >>>>>> are obvious by those that don't have an agenda. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lol. I don't hate him. He makes a slick presentation and > dumbasses like you fall for it. Where does it say that I agree with Al Gore. You are the dumb a.s here. I first heard of GW before Al was anywhere to be found. It makes sence to me. There was little politics involved then. Now it is all an uproar and people like you make more out of it. >>>> Who cares about what Al Gore says. It is clear that you >>>> think HE is the problem and if he went away so would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This coming from someone who thinks the babblings of a > 'policy analyst' are science. You have produced babbling of your own that show nothing. > I was not trying to be a wise guy. I appreciate your response and agree. I >might add that it is not possible to breath in CO2. That is the gas that >forces you to exhale. It's certainly possible to breathe in pure CO2. Definitely not recommended, however. >Is this not why there are no longer steam engines being used? To much vapor? No. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but > crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes. > But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!! By the way, does someone have a gun to YOUR head making you drive the speed limit? Democrats block efforts to increase oil production http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/oct/22/letter-democrats-block-efforts-increase-o il-produc/ > Democrats block efforts to increase oil production > http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/oct/22/letter-democrats-block-efforts-increase-o il-produc/ Bush blocks oil drilling. http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drilling.asp Bush has been blocking oil drilling since 2002. Bush blocks Florida Gulf, Glades drilling May 29, 2002: In a two-part deal, the federal government will pay $235 million to buy back oil, natural gas and mining development rights in the cypress swamps of the Everglades and off the beaches of the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal deal involves paying $115 million to buy back oil and gas leases about 30 miles off the shores of Pensacola in a deposit known as Destin Dome. The Everglades deal, which requires congressional approval, amounts to $120 million worth of cash or future drilling credits to retire mineral rights in the Big Cypress National Preserve and other federal lands. The move to protect Florida's environmental treasures marks a departure from the Bush administration's efforts to boost oil and gas exploration nationwide. The president downplayed the apparent discrepancy between his administration's push to open the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore California to oil drilling, at the same time he was making Florida's coastal region off-limits to energy development. Bush noted that his decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and that local interests and economic factors played a large role in his decision to protect the Sunshine State's natural environment from potential pollution. "President Bush has finally realized that jeopardizing Florida's spectacular coastline for a few weeks worth of offshore oil and gas makes no sense," said Lisa Speer, a senior policy analyst with NRDC and an expert on offshore oil development issues. "We trust the administration will apply the same logic to other sensitive public lands, including the Arctic Refuge, offshore California and pristine places throughout the West." >Bush blocks oil drilling. > >http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drilling.asp > > Bush has been blocking oil drilling since 2002. The world has lots of oil, the only way to keep profits up is through keeping it a cartel system and restricting production. There is nothing surprising about this. Democrats Push Ethanol Growth House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol. http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=10304 http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/?imw=Y&ir ef=mpstoryemail Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket CNN) -- Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world's attention, the head of an agency focused on global development said Monday. The finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend," he said on CNN's "American Morning," in a reference to top economic officials who gathered in Washington. "There are riots all over the world in the poor countries ... and, of course, our own poor are feeling it in the United States." "While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day," Zoellick said late last week in a speech opening meetings with finance ministers. Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, has called using food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity." "We've been putting our food into the gas tank -- this corn-to-ethanol subsidy which our government is doing really makes little sense," said Columbia University's Sachs. Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania over the weekend, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food." On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but > crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes. > But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!! If you (and others who feel they are being pinched by current fuel prices) choose to drive in the right lane at 55 MPH, you are welcome to do so. I don't know of any state which has a MINIMUM Speed Limit that is over 55 MPH. I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about the gas mileage issue. You can drive at a speed that you believe is both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't you? This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of issues. By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV, regardless of its fuel mileage. On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours. This costs the 55 MPH driver an extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message