Contraversal!?!

[flynfrog]

Well IMVHO the Toyota sports car isn't a solution to our oil/CO2 problem. That's like dropping a Harrier/RX motor into a Supra. By Toyota standards, that's hardly innovative.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to see the Toyomaha motor from the Celica/Elise in a hybrid system, in a car the size and weight of the original 2000GT? Throw in a plug-in charger to sweeten the deal.

If Toyota (or any automaker) is really serious about pollution and conservation, let's see the stuff from the Aichi '05 Expo. Good for Zap and Tesla for keeping them honest.

like trading fuel emissons for coal emmisions?

[G-Rock]

The hole in the ozone is a bum argument as well. They show you the hole during the winter cycles of the north and south pole. Why? Cause SUNLIGHT is one of the main ingredients for ozone. They never embellish that fact do they? That's so they can fool people into thinking Krylon spray paint is making a hole in the atmosphere 10,00 miles away. Real smart these scientists are, I don't believe them one bit.

Hey Ray, get your facts straight. True, "Ground level ozone" is caused by sunlight and Nox emmisions (bad ozone)

"Upper atomosphere ozone" (the stuff that filters UV rays) is caused by lightning, electrical charges etc. (good ozone)

It has been damaged by spray cans and other chemicals but the abolishment of most of those chemicals have allowed it to recharge. It has the ability to do so. The fact that the ozone hole is not an issue anymore should be seen as a triumph of environmentalism not a bum arguement.

Someone said something about Ray putting O'Reilly to shame. Well, with his misinterpretations of environmental facts, he's not far off. He might even put Rush Limbaugh to shame as well. ( Rush once said that the polar ice caps are like ice cubes in a glass of water. When the ice melts, the water level stays the same and doesn't go up like global warming theorists believe )
[/quote]

[Giancarlo]

Hey Ray, get your facts straight. True, "Ground level ozone" is caused by sunlight and Nox emmisions (bad ozone)

"Upper atomosphere ozone" (the stuff that filters UV rays) is caused by lightning, electrical charges etc. (good ozone)

It has been damaged by spray cans and other chemicals but the abolishment of most of those chemicals have allowed it to recharge. It has the ability to do so. The fact that the ozone hole is not an issue anymore should be seen as a triumph of environmentalism not a bum arguement.

Someone said something about Ray putting O'Reilly to shame. Well, with his misinterpretations of environmental facts, he's not far off. He might even put Rush Limbaugh to shame as well. ( Rush once said that the polar ice caps are like ice cubes in a glass of water. When the ice melts, the water level stays the same and doesn't go up like global warming theorists believe )

http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/index_files/Page496.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2310643460

The above link is comprised of presentations of the argument against the science used to determine global warming. The Google link is a video presentation.

Watch the Google Video link, and/or download the presentation from the 1st link, and research the 'facts' that have been put forth by the UN, Al Gore & environmentalists. Global warming is not the issue - the issue is the fallacious science used to promote it. Like the Pirate v. Global Temperature graph I posted earlier, the cause and effect relationship between CO2 & temp is flawed...seriously flawed.

I'm not going to give away the the ending or spell out everything said. As F1 fans, we're intelligent and I invite you to watch & research the issue so you can make up your own minds. Lets discuss the science behind the 'Global Warming Theory', from there we can discuss if human activity is the cause and if so - what we can/should do about it. But watch the video first. You don't have to take everything at face value, but you should at least ask a question or two about the ethics used by those promoting global warming awareness in regards to what is and what is not 'truth'.

To accept Global Warming as true without questioning the science behind it, the people who support it, and their motives would be irresponsible.

*edited for clarity and a video*

[G-Rock]

Giancarlo, I'm not going to argue with you. If you don't want to believe in global warming, there are plenty of sites, articles and scientists that can support your arguement.

My stance is that CO2 (and other pollutants)emmisions are not balanced with absorbtion and that needs to be addressed in the long term. This world is based on balance and if you throw that out of proportion too much, the earth will respond accordingly.

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo, I'm not going to argue with you. If you don't want to believe in global warming, there are plenty of sites, articles and scientists that can support your arguement.

Whether I do or do not support global warming theory is irrelevant. What is relevant are the studies, data, and findings that are used to support the theory. If the science and logic of global warming theory are flawed, why is it getting shoved down our throats? Ethics aside, the impact of things like the Kyoto Treaty can devastate economies for the benefit of a few.

From looking at some facts put forth by the UN's IPPC, Global Warming (as they see it) is a complete and utter failure of science, common sense, ethics, and scientific integrity.

My stance is that CO2 (and other pollutants)emmisions are not balanced with absorbtion and that needs to be addressed in the long term. This world is based on balance and if you throw that out of proportion too much, the earth will respond accordingly.

My stance is that the human effect on global warming is only political. I've checked a few of the sources of the video I posted, most notably NASA. And like the video explained - NASA reports no warming of the lower atmosphere. To me, that's pretty conclusive. NASA uses the best technology available and this technology reports data that negates a global warming trend in the lower atmosphere. If you watched the same thermometer for the past 2 decades, and the temp didn't go up, how can you say that there is a global warming crisis? They only way to sell the Global Warming myth would to then skew the data, omit data, use contaminated data, or just make up your own data by implementing a spoils system.

So, after being presented with conflicting temp charts issued by the UN - how can you not argue that something is really-really wrong with the Global Warming Theory? How about all the other graphs issued that conflict with one another? Does the omission of the most significant green-house gas 'water vapor' from the reports even raise an eyebrow?

To extend that concern further, why are you not concerned that LIES are being told? Are you at all curious to why governments would be so willing to pull the wool over our eyes b/c of fallacious logic and junk science? Pollution is bad, but the greater evil in this are the politics. I'm not against the study of our environment - I am against the using of garbage scientific studies to push agendas.

Here's a link on the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Feel free to forward that to environmentalists.

[bhall]

Imagine that. A neo-con (see above post) who thinks global warming is a fallacy.

Now, where have I seen that before?

Oh, yeah...

[Giancarlo]

bhallg2k,

I understand that since you are a Marxist-Leninist, you have difficulty having a debate with capitalists which often lead to pathetic temper-tantrums and red herrings as far as the eye can see. That's just how you people work - We put forth fact/data & You put forth the proverbial 'you're a big poopy head' retort.

If you'd like to go toe-to-toe on any issues with me, take a big swig of kool-aid and polish off that aluminum helmet you proudly wear and:



START A NEW THREAD!


If you are not going to debate Global Warming, stop shitting in this thread and start another. I'll be more than happy to inform you how misinformed you are concerning politics, in-fact if you start your own Political thread, I may even take you seriously.

Until then, I'll be eagerly awaiting our debate in its own thread. Take care comrade (or whatever you people call each other).

[Ray]

It has been damaged by spray cans and other chemicals but the abolishment of most of those chemicals have allowed it to recharge. It has the ability to do so. The fact that the ozone hole is not an issue anymore should be seen as a triumph of environmentalism not a bum arguement.

Really? How is it that its an annual occurrence according to the EPA? Is that not considered a problem anymore? What about the baby seals and penquins in Antartica that can't afford sunscreen to protect themselves? Why don't we have the wonderful UN send them care packages of sunscreen so they don't get skin cancer?

Please tell me what 'facts' i got wrong. You actually agreed that what I said was true.

Global warming is pure political genius. True, the earth is heating up, I don't doubt that one bit. But I really oppose an organization that is 'intergovernmental' panel for anything, especially something as lame as this man made global warming BS. Plus, I don't trust anything that the UN has to say about anything. I just can't get past the Oil for Food scandal that Koffi Annan and his son got away with. They are corrupt just like any other form of government in the world today.

But to foolishly say we caused something that the Earth has been doing long before we had Krylon spray paint, that's just plain irresponsible. I think this is more about grants, research money, and government control over our daily lives than anything else. And I still believe that oil is a natural resource instead of being of finite amounts. I also don't like that everyone calls them fossil fuels. I don't believe that is oil is from ancient animals.

I do think we are making things worse, we have very bad habits that we need to fix. I think we need to plant more trees to offset all the CO2 that we are producing. I think we should get the greatest engine builders of the world together and improve the ICE to make it burn cleaner, make more power, and do so with greater efficiency. I think all the brouhaha about stupid hybrid cars is detrimental. They trade one type of pollution for another. So unless we come up with a better alternative, with that great govt money that stems from global warming research, we are apparently screwed according to the wisdom of the UN paid scientists.

But of course I can be wrong 9 times out of 10.

[Ray]

I broke my promise to stay out of political discussions, but I couldn't help it.

[bhall]

Read the entire thread, Giancarlo. I've said all I need to say already.

As far as a "toe-to-toe" debate goes, I think I'll pass. As soon as you said you'd vote for Ann Coulter for president, I stopped taking you seriously. So it wouldn't be any fun.

[Ray]

What's wrong with Ann Coulter?

Just a joke, don't freak out. I know how liberals can get.

[Giancarlo]

Read the entire thread, Giancarlo. I've said all I need to say already.

As far as a "toe-to-toe" debate goes, I think I'll pass. As soon as you said you'd vote for Ann Coulter for president, I stopped taking you seriously. So it wouldn't be any fun.

More of the "Liberal Two-Step"; bounce around leaping from one idiotic point to the next while adding a conspiracy here & there for effect.

When you move out of your mother's basement, get a job, and start paying taxes you'll come around...I hope.

[Ray]

Read the entire thread, Giancarlo. I've said all I need to say already.

As far as a "toe-to-toe" debate goes, I think I'll pass. As soon as you said you'd vote for Ann Coulter for president, I stopped taking you seriously. So it wouldn't be any fun.

More of the "Liberal Two-Step"; bounce around leaping from one idiotic point to the next while adding a conspiracy here & there for effect.

When you move out of your mother's basement, get a job, and start paying taxes you'll come around...I hope.

You know Giancarlo, as much as I don't like the liberal opinion, it's not very smart to make comments like the one you just made. Do you think that it makes your argument any more relevant or true to say things like that? It only makes the argument go from who's right, to who's got the better insult.

[Giancarlo]

Read the entire thread, Giancarlo. I've said all I need to say already.

As far as a "toe-to-toe" debate goes, I think I'll pass. As soon as you said you'd vote for Ann Coulter for president, I stopped taking you seriously. So it wouldn't be any fun.

More of the "Liberal Two-Step"; bounce around leaping from one idiotic point to the next while adding a conspiracy here & there for effect.

When you move out of your mother's basement, get a job, and start paying taxes you'll come around...I hope.

You know Giancarlo, as much as I don't like the liberal opinion, it's not very smart to make comments like the one you just made. Do you think that it makes your argument any more relevant or true to say things like that? It only makes the argument go from who's right, to who's got the better insult.

Solid point Ray. I sometimes get a bit frustrated when people cannot support what they say/feel without fact/reason. All I seem to hear on-line is a bunch of hot-air and courage.com talking points. Asking for a proper intelligent debate without name-calling seems to be a lost cause. While it isn't an excuse, I asked for a discussion on who was right with no avail. Unfortunately, now I'm just as guilty as 'bhallg2k'. Oh well... If I wasn't enraging the left, that means I wasn't doing it (presenting facts) correctly.

On that note: did you check out the vid & link I posted?

[Giancarlo]

For those just tuning in:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2310643460
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU (VERY LONG)

http://www.theinternetskeptic.com

Discuss....