blksn8k
Well-Known Member
If you want to see real climate change just wait for the next volcanic eruption or asteroid strike. I'm sure those will somehow be the fault of human kind as well. Good grief. :sad:
Global Warming debate over
- Thread starter Frank screwyourednecks
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Yup, and your V6 gets worse mileage than the V8. Good choice. LOL
<a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2007_Ford_Explorer.shtml">2007 Sport Trac</a>
15 mpg combined. You do realize that is the same gas mileage as a 2007 V8 Ford Expedition, right?
<a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/23724.shtml">2007 Ford Expedition</a>
So, you thought you were making a decision that was in line with your moral code (one that obviously has you so concerned about global warming) yet your logic failed you?
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite">Merriam-Webster</a>
Your bumper sticker is in the mail.
[Broken External Image]:
<a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2007_Ford_Explorer.shtml">2007 Sport Trac</a>
15 mpg combined. You do realize that is the same gas mileage as a 2007 V8 Ford Expedition, right?
<a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/23724.shtml">2007 Ford Expedition</a>
So, you thought you were making a decision that was in line with your moral code (one that obviously has you so concerned about global warming) yet your logic failed you?
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite">Merriam-Webster</a>
Your bumper sticker is in the mail.
[Broken External Image]:
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank,
First: My IQ was tested about 25 years apart....which does not really matter except that the tests have changed slightly over the years. An IQ test does not measure how much you have learned, but is based on your capacity to understand Logic, Patterns, as well as Abstract and Spacial Thought processes. Not sure what your reference to the Silicon Valley booming back in 1969 means??
Am I pitiful because I don't believe you or those who belive in Anthropologic Climate Change?
You also continue to ignore that proven fact that many scientist who support the GW are being pressured by their governments to support that theory or lose their funding. All they are doing is taking measurements and temperatures and confirming that the Earth is experiencing a Climate Change. NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH THAT. What I disagree with you is that the Climate Change is MAN MADE.
I am not a dude so don't address me as "Dude". You need to grow up first!
That is EXACTLY what I think! Man cannot even control Weather, much less the Global Climate? Man cannot even accurately forecast the weather for tomorrow, much less predict what climate changes will happen in the next 20 -30 years.
Any Climate Change will be a long slow process and man CAN ADAPT. It does not happen overnight. Even if the ice caps and glaciers melt and the seas rise there will be plenty of warning and time for those who live in areas affected by the higher water to move to higher ground. Inconvenient? Yes, but mankind has had to relocate many times. Even if Climate change is caused by man and we can reverse it, it took over 150 years to get to this point, and it will take at least 150 years to reverse it. I don't subscribe to the Doom-and-Gloom scenario that by 2030 the Earth will be wracked with Super Storms, Earthquakes, Hurricanes and Millions will die. Millions of people have died in the natural catastrophes that have plagued the Earth since Mankind has existed on Earth. We have adapted and will continue to adapt....Those who cannot adapt may die, but that is the nature of mankind.
People have lived in dangerous places where earthquakes, volcanoes, Hurricanes, floods have destroyed everything. Some give up and move away while other continue to go back and rebuild. Both adapt, but in different ways.
Yep, I replied long enough to reply to all your concerns, and I did not insult you one time, nor have I ever referred to you as "Dude". :grin:
The reason I can say that Humans are not having any effect on the climate is because C02 and Global Warming is just a plausible, but unproven theory and not supported by any scientific proof. Scientist who agree with the Greenhouse gas-GW theory are just saying that it the theory is plausible. but there is no certainty because it has never been proven that CO2 causes global warming, but many scientist believe that it might be the other way around, that Global Warming is causing the increase in CO2 in the Earths atmosphere? That theory is based on the ocean warming from below due to hot spots in the Earths crust in the deepest parts of the oceans that we have not fully explored. Scientist all agree that 70% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from evaporation of the oceans. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere.
There may be a link to Climate Change and CO2, but they have not presented any convincing evidence that proves which came first...The CO2 or the warming Oceans? Nor have they shown any convincing evidence to prove that any of this is caused by man, and that man can change the outcome.
All they do is announce "Debate is over", and with far-fetched speculation and without a shred of evidence, declare that Man is the cause of Climate Change, therefore Man can fix it? How arrogant and ignorant is that ?
I'm sorry but I require a lot more absolute proof that you and the scientist continue to ignore
...Rich
First: My IQ was tested about 25 years apart....which does not really matter except that the tests have changed slightly over the years. An IQ test does not measure how much you have learned, but is based on your capacity to understand Logic, Patterns, as well as Abstract and Spacial Thought processes. Not sure what your reference to the Silicon Valley booming back in 1969 means??
Am I pitiful because I don't believe you or those who belive in Anthropologic Climate Change?
You also continue to ignore that proven fact that many scientist who support the GW are being pressured by their governments to support that theory or lose their funding. All they are doing is taking measurements and temperatures and confirming that the Earth is experiencing a Climate Change. NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH THAT. What I disagree with you is that the Climate Change is MAN MADE.
I am not a dude so don't address me as "Dude". You need to grow up first!
That is EXACTLY what I think! Man cannot even control Weather, much less the Global Climate? Man cannot even accurately forecast the weather for tomorrow, much less predict what climate changes will happen in the next 20 -30 years.
Any Climate Change will be a long slow process and man CAN ADAPT. It does not happen overnight. Even if the ice caps and glaciers melt and the seas rise there will be plenty of warning and time for those who live in areas affected by the higher water to move to higher ground. Inconvenient? Yes, but mankind has had to relocate many times. Even if Climate change is caused by man and we can reverse it, it took over 150 years to get to this point, and it will take at least 150 years to reverse it. I don't subscribe to the Doom-and-Gloom scenario that by 2030 the Earth will be wracked with Super Storms, Earthquakes, Hurricanes and Millions will die. Millions of people have died in the natural catastrophes that have plagued the Earth since Mankind has existed on Earth. We have adapted and will continue to adapt....Those who cannot adapt may die, but that is the nature of mankind.
People have lived in dangerous places where earthquakes, volcanoes, Hurricanes, floods have destroyed everything. Some give up and move away while other continue to go back and rebuild. Both adapt, but in different ways.
Yep, I replied long enough to reply to all your concerns, and I did not insult you one time, nor have I ever referred to you as "Dude". :grin:
The reason I can say that Humans are not having any effect on the climate is because C02 and Global Warming is just a plausible, but unproven theory and not supported by any scientific proof. Scientist who agree with the Greenhouse gas-GW theory are just saying that it the theory is plausible. but there is no certainty because it has never been proven that CO2 causes global warming, but many scientist believe that it might be the other way around, that Global Warming is causing the increase in CO2 in the Earths atmosphere? That theory is based on the ocean warming from below due to hot spots in the Earths crust in the deepest parts of the oceans that we have not fully explored. Scientist all agree that 70% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from evaporation of the oceans. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere.
There may be a link to Climate Change and CO2, but they have not presented any convincing evidence that proves which came first...The CO2 or the warming Oceans? Nor have they shown any convincing evidence to prove that any of this is caused by man, and that man can change the outcome.
All they do is announce "Debate is over", and with far-fetched speculation and without a shred of evidence, declare that Man is the cause of Climate Change, therefore Man can fix it? How arrogant and ignorant is that ?
I'm sorry but I require a lot more absolute proof that you and the scientist continue to ignore
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
How 'bout that? And here I thought it was arrogant to posit that humans have the ability to cause such catastrophic, apocalyptic global environmental changes in such a short time span as 150-200 years, and that we'll all be extinct in another 100 years or less. But wait a sec: Hasn't the Earth been around for over four billion years, and humans on Earth for at least 10-20,000 years? If I'm not mistaken, both the planet and man have survived through cataclysmic changes in that time. Well, what do I know? I'm just a dumb mammal, soon to be extinct.
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
The funny thing is that God is in control of all of this. We barely have a glimpse of how our world really works. Arrogant and ignorant are probably the best words to describe this. God controls the weather, not us. He has gotten this world through droughts, floods, ice ages, volcanos and everything else. I suspect He can get us through a few degrees of warming. Hell- some folks think that a little warming will extend the growing season and provide more food and oxygen for a larger population. Global warming might be exactly what we need! How arrogant to think we know everything.
Realistically, I have only another 25 years or so on this planet, so I am not real concerned about what happens another 100 years from now. I doubt if folks in 1915 really thought too much about how bad things would be in 2015.
Realistically, I have only another 25 years or so on this planet, so I am not real concerned about what happens another 100 years from now. I doubt if folks in 1915 really thought too much about how bad things would be in 2015.
Last edited by a moderator:
Duane Foster
Active Member
Gavin, I don't think it can be said any better!
Gavin,
Yes, I agree with you. I have even heard that some scientist feel that we are due for another Ice Age....which most predict would be far worse than global warming. Some feel that global warming may be a God sent in preventing the next Ice Age.
An Ice Age is similar to the Doom-and-Gloom scenario of a Nuclear Winter...No crops, no food, and many people would die. At least with global warming, we have enough time to adapt to warmer temperatures, less rain, desalinating sea water to fresh water, better air cooling, and probably more sea food:grin: That can't be all bad. :bwahaha:
...Rich
Yes, I agree with you. I have even heard that some scientist feel that we are due for another Ice Age....which most predict would be far worse than global warming. Some feel that global warming may be a God sent in preventing the next Ice Age.
An Ice Age is similar to the Doom-and-Gloom scenario of a Nuclear Winter...No crops, no food, and many people would die. At least with global warming, we have enough time to adapt to warmer temperatures, less rain, desalinating sea water to fresh water, better air cooling, and probably more sea food:grin: That can't be all bad. :bwahaha:
...Rich
Andy Chase
Well-Known Member
Richard, that sounds like we'll have a lot more new fishing spots to try, that can't be all that bad!
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Gavin>>>>
..God controls the weather....
I don't care about the Earth cause I wont be here to see the bad stuff....
Congratulations Gavin, you have posted the most ignorant post not only in the history of this site but probably in the history of the internet.
..God controls the weather....
I don't care about the Earth cause I wont be here to see the bad stuff....
Congratulations Gavin, you have posted the most ignorant post not only in the history of this site but probably in the history of the internet.
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Congratulations to Sport Trac Site member Gavin for posting the most ignorant thing that has ever been posted on the internet. We here are quite proud of witnessing this piece of history.
After a couple years of saying some weird and fairly stupid things, Gavin finally has yielded the gem that put him over the top when he stated " I have only another 25 years or so on this planet, so I am not real concerned"
Let me be the first to say that it is an honor, Gavin, to be the man who created the post you have rendered your greatness upon. If I had only known that having a bit of dialogue about the (scientific consensus) topic of Global Warming would be the platform that elicited your greatness, I certainly would have posted the article a little earlier. Especially since the articles reporting the SCIENTIFIC consensus are being reported on almost on a daily fashion now
Again thanks Gavin and remember to drop in here from time to time to keep us mere thinking men on our toes. We need you more than you know.
Frank
After a couple years of saying some weird and fairly stupid things, Gavin finally has yielded the gem that put him over the top when he stated " I have only another 25 years or so on this planet, so I am not real concerned"
Let me be the first to say that it is an honor, Gavin, to be the man who created the post you have rendered your greatness upon. If I had only known that having a bit of dialogue about the (scientific consensus) topic of Global Warming would be the platform that elicited your greatness, I certainly would have posted the article a little earlier. Especially since the articles reporting the SCIENTIFIC consensus are being reported on almost on a daily fashion now
Again thanks Gavin and remember to drop in here from time to time to keep us mere thinking men on our toes. We need you more than you know.
Frank
Since you haven't answered any of my questions, I guess you just missed them. Here they are again.
If the debate is over, why did you start a new thread? To restart the debate? Just an announcement? Trolling?
Frank, could you please take us along the moral decision-making process that led you to high participation in global warming through ownership of a Sport Trac?
the proposed solutions are where great men and women make their names (and due fortunes). What are your solutions?
And as far as stupid comments go, I actually did audibly laugh at this one.
"Hugh, My Trac is a 6 cylinder."
Scientific consensus is V6s are more fuel efficient than V8s, except when they aren't. Now that's science!
If the debate is over, why did you start a new thread? To restart the debate? Just an announcement? Trolling?
Frank, could you please take us along the moral decision-making process that led you to high participation in global warming through ownership of a Sport Trac?
the proposed solutions are where great men and women make their names (and due fortunes). What are your solutions?
And as far as stupid comments go, I actually did audibly laugh at this one.
"Hugh, My Trac is a 6 cylinder."
Scientific consensus is V6s are more fuel efficient than V8s, except when they aren't. Now that's science!
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackson Ellis
Active Member
What has 99% of the world's population done to leave a legacy that will benefit the world (the people, the earth/environment, whatever) overall? Do you count being an educator - which benefits future citizens? Do you count planting a tree or sailing around sabotaging oil rigs and whaling ships? Do you have to buy an electric car, install solar panels, and bathe less often to gain membership in the club that says you did your part? Or would you also have to ban plastics, pesticides, and incandescent bulbs in your home? Maybe you can also catch your farts in a carbon filter lest they find their way up to kill an ozone molecule.
You can never do too much to please the rabid tree-hugger. The same can be said for overzealous vegans, PETA members, anti-nukes, cancer survivors; this list is endless. I've met some really good people, who'd give the shirt off their back for a cause, but drove a huge SUV. I've also met some self-centered Toyota Prius drivers. You could spend your life preaching environment more that Al Gore, and someone will bash you for not spending that energy saving animals from the pound.
My truck isn't the most fuel efficient, but I work from home and fill up (maybe) every couple of weeks. I recycle, I walk for cancer, I fly the American flag on my front porch, and I don't break the laws. Have I done anything (good or bad) that will really matter in 100 years? Probably not. Will I? Who knows, maybe I'll find a cause that stirs me to that extent some day. If and when that happens, I will not consider myself done once I have posted an article on a website and then blasted everyone who disagreed with my opinion. In a hundred years, people will google about the classic Sport Trac, and they'll see where you've done just that. Legacy left. Mission accomplished!
You can never do too much to please the rabid tree-hugger. The same can be said for overzealous vegans, PETA members, anti-nukes, cancer survivors; this list is endless. I've met some really good people, who'd give the shirt off their back for a cause, but drove a huge SUV. I've also met some self-centered Toyota Prius drivers. You could spend your life preaching environment more that Al Gore, and someone will bash you for not spending that energy saving animals from the pound.
My truck isn't the most fuel efficient, but I work from home and fill up (maybe) every couple of weeks. I recycle, I walk for cancer, I fly the American flag on my front porch, and I don't break the laws. Have I done anything (good or bad) that will really matter in 100 years? Probably not. Will I? Who knows, maybe I'll find a cause that stirs me to that extent some day. If and when that happens, I will not consider myself done once I have posted an article on a website and then blasted everyone who disagreed with my opinion. In a hundred years, people will google about the classic Sport Trac, and they'll see where you've done just that. Legacy left. Mission accomplished!
Andy Chase
Well-Known Member
Hugh, good read, it's almost like the Vaccinations debate, faulty science was used in both of these debates which caused a "scare" and is hard for some people to forget
Its just like the AGW believers to claim the Debate is over, when ever they cannot offer any proof, or when the real world actuality does not fit their scenario.
I would love to see the scientist who believe in AGW and those who oppose the AGW theory get together in a fair debate and show scientifically valid evidence that proves their beliefs without any political influence. I know of 20K scientist who oppose the AGW theory would love the opportunity to be heard.
Scientific Consensus requires that the majority of scientist agree that there is sufficient scientific proof that eliminates all other possible theories. That has not happened. The consensus for AGW is based on a small group of scientist who for the most part are unnamed and ignore other theories that disagrees with them, but provide no evidence to disprove their theories...much like what Frank is doing.
Political consensus only requires that they convince their constituents that the evidence exists with out showing it. Once the government gets behind something they can control, ti's very difficult for anyone who disagrees to be heard. Be forewarned that eventually the government will be taxing businesses and individuals based on the Carbon Footprint they leave behind all in the false assumption that AGW is real. If AGW is not true, they loose all credibility and control.
The "Debate is over" excuse comes from highly biased political agendas, not from scientific evidence.
Politicians should not interfere with science, religion, and health care. They are not experts in any of those subjects and only bastardize facts for political gains.
...Rich
I would love to see the scientist who believe in AGW and those who oppose the AGW theory get together in a fair debate and show scientifically valid evidence that proves their beliefs without any political influence. I know of 20K scientist who oppose the AGW theory would love the opportunity to be heard.
Scientific Consensus requires that the majority of scientist agree that there is sufficient scientific proof that eliminates all other possible theories. That has not happened. The consensus for AGW is based on a small group of scientist who for the most part are unnamed and ignore other theories that disagrees with them, but provide no evidence to disprove their theories...much like what Frank is doing.
Political consensus only requires that they convince their constituents that the evidence exists with out showing it. Once the government gets behind something they can control, ti's very difficult for anyone who disagrees to be heard. Be forewarned that eventually the government will be taxing businesses and individuals based on the Carbon Footprint they leave behind all in the false assumption that AGW is real. If AGW is not true, they loose all credibility and control.
The "Debate is over" excuse comes from highly biased political agendas, not from scientific evidence.
Politicians should not interfere with science, religion, and health care. They are not experts in any of those subjects and only bastardize facts for political gains.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Ok
The debate is not over for ALL. Hows that?
The debate is over for 98 percent of Democrats
The debate is over for 98 percent of Scientists
The debate is over for 75 percent of the American public
The debate is over for 99 percent of the rest of the Developed world
The debate is not over for 68 percent of Republicans
The debate is not over for 78 percent of devout Christian Evangelicals or Creationists
The debate is not over for 100 percent of oil executives
The debate is not over for 100 percent of Right wing radio and television personalities
Ok if you factor in all of the figures, and if you were a thinking individual, not someone who holds on to a belief due to sheer stubbornness or religious doctrine, then the debate is over. Percentages are just that-- percentages. Sure there have been things that go against the odds. Say an upset in sports. But the statistics don't lie. It s a virtual consensus for humankind, to believe in GW GCC etc.
Now, if you take 2 apples and take two more apples and add to it you have four apples. This is the case 100 percent of the time. That's math, a science that has been accepted all over the world after trials, observation and then finally acceptance.
The GW debate is in the trial phase, with almost unanimous acceptance. Sure the debate, somehow, is continuing. But in this case study, we only get one chance to get the answer right. There are no retests. The earth, shared by everyone, has only one life.
The real question for the scant few who are still in denial is: Why are you holding on to your beliefs?
Answer that for the forum..:banghead:
The debate is not over for ALL. Hows that?
The debate is over for 98 percent of Democrats
The debate is over for 98 percent of Scientists
The debate is over for 75 percent of the American public
The debate is over for 99 percent of the rest of the Developed world
The debate is not over for 68 percent of Republicans
The debate is not over for 78 percent of devout Christian Evangelicals or Creationists
The debate is not over for 100 percent of oil executives
The debate is not over for 100 percent of Right wing radio and television personalities
Ok if you factor in all of the figures, and if you were a thinking individual, not someone who holds on to a belief due to sheer stubbornness or religious doctrine, then the debate is over. Percentages are just that-- percentages. Sure there have been things that go against the odds. Say an upset in sports. But the statistics don't lie. It s a virtual consensus for humankind, to believe in GW GCC etc.
Now, if you take 2 apples and take two more apples and add to it you have four apples. This is the case 100 percent of the time. That's math, a science that has been accepted all over the world after trials, observation and then finally acceptance.
The GW debate is in the trial phase, with almost unanimous acceptance. Sure the debate, somehow, is continuing. But in this case study, we only get one chance to get the answer right. There are no retests. The earth, shared by everyone, has only one life.
The real question for the scant few who are still in denial is: Why are you holding on to your beliefs?
Answer that for the forum..:banghead:
Frank,
More total BS. All are undocumented and unverified numbers...not facts or evidence
I can show you data that over 20K scientist completely disagree with the AGW theory.
Fact-1: All scientist agree that CO2 is a very minor gas, and only comprises about 0.01% of Earth's atmosphere.
Fact-2: All scientist agree that humans only contribute about 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.
Fact-3: The quantity of CO2 in our atmosphere is controlled by the oceans. Air is a poor regulator of heat, however water is an excellent media for storing heat and regulating temperatures.
Fact-4: The small amount of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere could never rise enough to create the Greenhouse effect and infact would lead to a cooling of the Earth
Fact-5: A bigger concern to scientist is the water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere. That contributes more towards Global Warming than CO2
Fact-6: A recent study shows that there are thousands of more geo-thermal hot spots than scientist were not aware of. Most are under the oceans, especially the Pacific ocean. There are even some under the polar ice and directly under some of the glaciers that are shrinking (exactly what AGW activist are claiming is caused by CO2)
Fact-7: Average global temperatures over the past 10 years have been slowly cooling, which flies in the face of the AGW scientist who refuse to acknowledge the truth because it does not fit their AGW theory.
Fact-8: You fall into the same trap that all the AGW believers succumb to,....You make climate change a Political issue when you don't have the scientific evidence to prove their claim.
Fact-9: There are probably thousands of scientific theories on websites that expound one theory or another....none can be proven and are all based on trying to link one thing or another for the climate change. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and has managed to keep herself going with or without man's help or interference. I believe that scientist should stop attempting to alter what mother nature does since we know so little about how the Earth's climate is regulated, and know less about what's going on under the oceans.
Since you know less than even the dumbest of the politically motivated, politically-correct scientists, YOU will never convince me that global warming or climate change is caused by humans.
...Rich
More total BS. All are undocumented and unverified numbers...not facts or evidence
I can show you data that over 20K scientist completely disagree with the AGW theory.
Fact-1: All scientist agree that CO2 is a very minor gas, and only comprises about 0.01% of Earth's atmosphere.
Fact-2: All scientist agree that humans only contribute about 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.
Fact-3: The quantity of CO2 in our atmosphere is controlled by the oceans. Air is a poor regulator of heat, however water is an excellent media for storing heat and regulating temperatures.
Fact-4: The small amount of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere could never rise enough to create the Greenhouse effect and infact would lead to a cooling of the Earth
Fact-5: A bigger concern to scientist is the water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere. That contributes more towards Global Warming than CO2
Fact-6: A recent study shows that there are thousands of more geo-thermal hot spots than scientist were not aware of. Most are under the oceans, especially the Pacific ocean. There are even some under the polar ice and directly under some of the glaciers that are shrinking (exactly what AGW activist are claiming is caused by CO2)
Fact-7: Average global temperatures over the past 10 years have been slowly cooling, which flies in the face of the AGW scientist who refuse to acknowledge the truth because it does not fit their AGW theory.
Fact-8: You fall into the same trap that all the AGW believers succumb to,....You make climate change a Political issue when you don't have the scientific evidence to prove their claim.
Fact-9: There are probably thousands of scientific theories on websites that expound one theory or another....none can be proven and are all based on trying to link one thing or another for the climate change. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and has managed to keep herself going with or without man's help or interference. I believe that scientist should stop attempting to alter what mother nature does since we know so little about how the Earth's climate is regulated, and know less about what's going on under the oceans.
Since you know less than even the dumbest of the politically motivated, politically-correct scientists, YOU will never convince me that global warming or climate change is caused by humans.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Where in the world did you get those numbers? Those aren't even close to what the PEW Research Center has been putting out.
Since you STILL haven't answered any of my questions, I guess you STILL just missed them. Here they are again.
If the debate is over, why did you start a new thread? To restart the debate? Just an announcement? Trolling?
Frank, could you please take us along the moral decision-making process that led you to high participation in global warming through ownership of a Sport Trac?
the proposed solutions are where great men and women make their names (and due fortunes). What are your solutions?
And as far as stupid comments go, I actually did audibly laugh at this one.
"Hugh, My Trac is a 6 cylinder."
Scientific consensus is V6s are more fuel efficient than V8s, except when they aren't. Now that's science!
Since you STILL haven't answered any of my questions, I guess you STILL just missed them. Here they are again.
If the debate is over, why did you start a new thread? To restart the debate? Just an announcement? Trolling?
Frank, could you please take us along the moral decision-making process that led you to high participation in global warming through ownership of a Sport Trac?
the proposed solutions are where great men and women make their names (and due fortunes). What are your solutions?
And as far as stupid comments go, I actually did audibly laugh at this one.
"Hugh, My Trac is a 6 cylinder."
Scientific consensus is V6s are more fuel efficient than V8s, except when they aren't. Now that's science!
Hugh,
Since Frank will not respond, I will try to answer in his place...
Yes. I enjoy starting trouble.
I will answer this to what I think is going through Franks head since I believe why he has fallen for global warming, yet has an SUV.
Essentially, the ST is the best vehicle in its class. It has room for 5, a small bed to haul miscellaneous stuff around, and was available in a 4X4. Everybody "knows" a V6 is going to get better gas mileage than a V8 ever will (note the Quotes "" around the word knows) he can drive the ST without feeling guilty.
I can relate to it. While I have not drank the kool-aid regarding global warming, I still try to be environmentally concerned. I used LED and CFL bulbs before the gooberment banned the manufacturing of 100 watt incandescent bulbs. I keep my thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer. I drive a ST and not an F-150 due to its size and better fuel mileage. If I need a V8 F-150, I will buy one, but since I don't, I don't have one.
Frank just enjoys stiring the pot. I am guessing he doesn't have any friends.
Tom
Since Frank will not respond, I will try to answer in his place...
Yes. I enjoy starting trouble.
I will answer this to what I think is going through Franks head since I believe why he has fallen for global warming, yet has an SUV.
Essentially, the ST is the best vehicle in its class. It has room for 5, a small bed to haul miscellaneous stuff around, and was available in a 4X4. Everybody "knows" a V6 is going to get better gas mileage than a V8 ever will (note the Quotes "" around the word knows) he can drive the ST without feeling guilty.
I can relate to it. While I have not drank the kool-aid regarding global warming, I still try to be environmentally concerned. I used LED and CFL bulbs before the gooberment banned the manufacturing of 100 watt incandescent bulbs. I keep my thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer. I drive a ST and not an F-150 due to its size and better fuel mileage. If I need a V8 F-150, I will buy one, but since I don't, I don't have one.
Frank just enjoys stiring the pot. I am guessing he doesn't have any friends.
Tom
I don't disagree with Frank on the importance of conservation, if that's even his point; he exclusively wants to argue about the existence of AGW.
I am environmentally conscious but that mentality began long before I ever heard of anything called global warming. Not being wasteful was simply how I was raised. I've taken that concept further than my parents, even, who are far from hippies (more like suburban conservatives). I grow my own food, harvest my own meat (free range, lol), buy local grown food, build wildlife habitat, have an incredibly energy efficient home, LED bulbs, short commute and recycle.
I don't do it out of fear of destroying Earth if I don't, though. I do it because I don't **** where I eat. It's also more economical and I'm cheap.
Perhaps Frank buys carbon offset credits?
I am environmentally conscious but that mentality began long before I ever heard of anything called global warming. Not being wasteful was simply how I was raised. I've taken that concept further than my parents, even, who are far from hippies (more like suburban conservatives). I grow my own food, harvest my own meat (free range, lol), buy local grown food, build wildlife habitat, have an incredibly energy efficient home, LED bulbs, short commute and recycle.
I don't do it out of fear of destroying Earth if I don't, though. I do it because I don't **** where I eat. It's also more economical and I'm cheap.
Perhaps Frank buys carbon offset credits?
