|
|
|
|
 |
integrator
 |
|
DrWhiner wrote:
integrator wrote:
btw- the thing the cheerleaders here miss is that 'enthusiasts' dont ONLY buy the performance models... but when they have a performance model they can buy and love, they also purchase other Honda vehicles. Most in the US don't only have ONE vehicle... like a Integra and a CRV. Performance is good for the rest of the business as well.
|
|
To think 'repeat business' only means replacing a single car in a single car household is unrealistic. In my extended family, my sister and her husband have 3, we have 2, my parents have 3 cars. All are Honda/Acura products. So, that FRS driver may have a Prius or something else also. Very few people drive ONLY a performance car. Its the treat they pay extra for, but then have the back up with more room and comfort to drive regularly. So, feel free to going back to your jerking off.
|
owequitit
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
integrator wrote:
btw- the thing the cheerleaders here miss is that 'enthusiasts' dont ONLY buy the performance models... but when they have a performance model they can buy and love, they also purchase other Honda vehicles. Most in the US don't only have ONE vehicle... like a Integra and a CRV. Performance is good for the rest of the business as well.
|
|
1988 Honda Accord LX (still own 190K)
1989 Honda base Civic hatchback
1990 Honda Accord EX (still own 260K)
1992 Honda Civic HX hatchback
1999 Honda Civic EX coupe
2000 Honda Civic EX coupe (still own 200K)
2002 Honda Accord EX-L V6
2004 Honda Accord EX-L V6 (still own 150K)
2006 Honda Accord EX-L V6
2009 Honda Civic Si (still own)
2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 (still own)
How many cars on that list are purely enthusiast models? 1. That is less than 10% of all of my IMMEDIATE family purchases. However, fear not because my affinity for the purely enthusiast models certainly did influence my willingness to recommend every single one of those models to people who knew less about cars than I did. Also, note that out of 11 cars, we still own 6 of them, and only one of them is an "enthusiast" model. However, what is more important to note is that ALL of them have various characteristics that they shared with Honda enthusiast models of the past. Those characteristics are the ones that ultimately won over the purchase decision in addition to my recommendations and they are sure as hell the reason we kept coming back for more. So frankly, you can take your slanted whining and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, because I can assure you from repeat personal experience that the same characteristics that made me want a Civic Si hatch, CRX Si, Integra GS-R/Type R, a 99-00 Si, every version of Prelude VTEC made (and several non-VTEC models), the NSX, and 06-11 Si also made me want to own that other long list of Hondas. Of course, this is just my immediate family, and does NOT include the friends or other, more distant, relatives to which I have recommended Honda.
For the record, several of those Hondas were built beyond stock by me because Honda would not bring what I wanted over to the states. So in 3 cases, I swapped them and generally made them order of magnitude faster than they were stock. As I got older, I no longer had time for it, and thus I finally broke down and bought an Si. However, my willingness to do so was based on Honda building a factory enthusiast car predicated on the same set of values I was trying to achieve in those other cars that I was building. I will give Honda credit that when they do it right, they do it right. But, there is also seldom in between with them. They either strike out or smash it out of the park normally.
So you can sit there on your high horse and make your baselessly snide comments about how enthusiasts don't matter and don't get it, but we all know the reality is that Honda's enthusiast cars made people consider the brand in ways they never would have considered it otherwise, and they also made many of those people a lot more loyal to the brand than they would have been otherwise. Like it or not, the DNA that defined Honda's unimportant "enthusiast" cars also defined their regular product. Your unwillingness to admit that changes nothing.
*For the record, I had a chance to buy a 2012 Si. I even was looking forward to it, until I tried one out. Kept the 09. We are in the same boat with our 2009 Accord. Not real happy with the VCM gas mileage, but we are going to extend the lease a few months in hope that the 2013 Accord brings Honda back to being Honda. If it doesn't, we will either keep the '09, or I will look at the Camry or Altima. Our apprehension about Honda's product direction has been inversely proportional to their willingness to provide vehicles that uphold their core values. They are in serious danger of us not buying ANY new Honda's when clearly we have quite an ownership history with them.
|
ams23
|
|
|
SC, keep in mind that emissions from cars traditionally include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and various other pollutants that are toxic to humans. So don't you think Honda has at least some justification in investing in new technologies such as hybrid/electric/fuel cell/etc? And on top of that, Honda hopes to achieve better acceleration and better handling with upcoming electric hybrid systems. As long as Honda finds a reasonably cost-effective way to provide this tech to consumers in the future, then what is there to complain about? I think that Honda's motivation is to try to improve performance while at the same time improving fuel econony and reducing noxious emissions, rather than to try making a statement about doom and gloom from global warming.
|
Varmint
|
|
The term I use to describe what danielgr, saitamahonda, and Honda AFVM are writing about is "character".
My 1999 CR-V had character. It had a funky dash, a fish tub, a bed, and a picnic table. It was a little SUV with a big interior. It was powered by the little-engine-that-could, which was a funky engineering experiment with cast iron sleeves. Mine even had the 5MT.
I replaced that car with a 2004 MDX. The MDX is the kind of car Shawn is talking about. It was foolproof. Great suspension (for an SUV), great engine, good interior, good electronics, and a price tag that didn't cause heart failure. It did everything well. Yet, it was as funky as a wet sock. As my first luxury ride, it made me feel special. However, it had no character. I got bored with it pretty quick.
My CR-Z has character. The driving modes are fun whether you're a hypermiler or looking to carve a corner. I get 44 mpg. That's my average, not a highway figure. According to my dynolicious app (yeah, not a racetrack quality instrument) I've pulled .9g several times on the stock tires. Several CR-Z owners are putting up autoX lap times that make the MINI guys nervous. The car begs to be personalized with little performance or exterior tweaks. The 6MT shifter doesn't compare with the last S2000 I drove, but it destroys the Focus I took for a spin. For a $20K car, it's a damn good shifter. Even though the tank is 1/3rd the size of the MDX, I spend more time at the pumps... answering questions. Prius owners love to tell me they get 4-8 mpg better than I do AND have a backseat. My smile never wavers as I compliment them on how sitting in the back of a Prius is a lot like sitting behind the wheel of one.
There's no doubt vehicles like the RDX are the proper way to build for the mainstream. But, from a personal level, I hope that Honda continues to build more cars with character.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
330R wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
Yeah. I guess the guy that just bought a FR-S also ordered a xB, a xD and a IQ. LOL. |
Integrator's point is valid as there are numerous examples. I myself had an Integra Type-R and an Accord LX at the same time until last fall, when I sold the Accord and bought a Civic Si Sedan. What, you've never seen or heard of a "Honda family" before? Or does it uncomfortably defeat the purpose of your "LOL"s to acknowledge it?
The "guy that just bought a FR-S" recently bought a new CR-V for his wife, as he just mentioned in that thread. He had a Civic Si until several months ago. Owners of the enthusiast Hondas don't just stop there. Why should they? On the other hand, if frustrated, tired of waiting for nothing coming Honda enthusiasts finally wander off to other brands, it's not exactly inconceivable (yes, it means what I think it means) they could end up becoming a Toyota family, Ford family, whatever, when the time comes to replace their non-enthusiast rides.
|
I believe, for an 'intelligent' car buyer (assuming there's one), will buy/lease whatever the best available in the market, within the price range one is looking in, no matter if one owns a Honda or a Scion. One is free to choose from Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forrester, GM's Equinox, Honda's CR-V ....etc., as long as one have independent thinking and looks for one's best interest. Those who bought a MINI may or may not buy another MINI product or one from BMW. That is what I'm saying, falling on deaf ears.
P.S. So what you guys are trying to say, after owning a FR-S, one is more inclined to take a Corolla or a Camry. LOL.
|
330R
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
330R wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
Yeah. I guess the guy that just bought a FR-S also ordered a xB, a xD and a IQ. LOL. |
Integrator's point is valid as there are numerous examples. I myself had an Integra Type-R and an Accord LX at the same time until last fall, when I sold the Accord and bought a Civic Si Sedan. What, you've never seen or heard of a "Honda family" before? Or does it uncomfortably defeat the purpose of your "LOL"s to acknowledge it?
The "guy that just bought a FR-S" recently bought a new CR-V for his wife, as he just mentioned in that thread. He had a Civic Si until several months ago. Owners of the enthusiast Hondas don't just stop there. Why should they? On the other hand, if frustrated, tired of waiting for nothing coming Honda enthusiasts finally wander off to other brands, it's not exactly inconceivable (yes, it means what I think it means) they could end up becoming a Toyota family, Ford family, whatever, when the time comes to replace their non-enthusiast rides.
|
I believe, for an 'intelligent' car buyer (assuming there's one), will buy/lease whatever the best available in the market, within the price range one is looking in, no matter if one owns a Honda or a Scion. One is free to choose from Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forrester, GM's Equinox, Honda's CR-V ....etc., as long as one have independent thinking and looks for one's best interest. Those who bought a MINI may or may not buy another MINI product or one from BMW. That is what I'm saying, falling on deaf ears.
P.S. So what you guys are trying to say, after owning a FR-S, one is more inclined to take a Corolla or a Camry. LOL.
|
Yes, LOL. That is what I'm saying, LOL. In the case of Honda, their smart engineering DNA has been found across their product line, LOL. If you go in for a CR-V today, see the other products, become familiar with the CR-V over time and also notice the strength of those other products over time, see them and sit in them, maybe test drive them when your CR-V is in for its service, LOL, you're going to remember those other Honda products when the time comes for another vehicle, LOL.
Toyota isn't exactly a newb at building cars, themselves, LOL. Toyota also is taking a stab at spicing up their staid product line, LOL; witness the new Camry, LOL. In SE trim, not a bad car, LOL.
But since you make mention of it, I'll certainly keep an eye out for your intelligent, independent thinking from now on. L-O-L.
|
integrator
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
330R wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
Yeah. I guess the guy that just bought a FR-S also ordered a xB, a xD and a IQ. LOL. |
Integrator's point is valid as there are numerous examples. I myself had an Integra Type-R and an Accord LX at the same time until last fall, when I sold the Accord and bought a Civic Si Sedan. What, you've never seen or heard of a "Honda family" before? Or does it uncomfortably defeat the purpose of your "LOL"s to acknowledge it?
The "guy that just bought a FR-S" recently bought a new CR-V for his wife, as he just mentioned in that thread. He had a Civic Si until several months ago. Owners of the enthusiast Hondas don't just stop there. Why should they? On the other hand, if frustrated, tired of waiting for nothing coming Honda enthusiasts finally wander off to other brands, it's not exactly inconceivable (yes, it means what I think it means) they could end up becoming a Toyota family, Ford family, whatever, when the time comes to replace their non-enthusiast rides.
|
I believe, for an 'intelligent' car buyer (assuming there's one), will buy/lease whatever the best available in the market, within the price range one is looking in, no matter if one owns a Honda or a Scion. One is free to choose from Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forrester, GM's Equinox, Honda's CR-V ....etc., as long as one have independent thinking and looks for one's best interest. Those who bought a MINI may or may not buy another MINI product or one from BMW. That is what I'm saying, falling on deaf ears.
P.S. So what you guys are trying to say, after owning a FR-S, one is more inclined to take a Corolla or a Camry. LOL.
|
or a Sienna minivan, RAV4, or Lexus RX...if they're Toyota fans. Or something made by another company.
btw- not all us guys turn in our balls when we have children. Some get to have a special car on the side. What YOU would know about intelligent buyers is obviously nil. Feel free to return to your Torrance cubicle where thinking is left to others who don't have their nose stuck in Accavitti's butt.
|
saitamahonda
|
|
notyper wrote:
wiki-fucking-pedia? Really?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/
All the data from all the sources. Whether you want to use atmospheric temps (the most accurate) or land temp stations (least accurate), the trend from 2002 to 2012 is flat to slightly down and yet CO2 is climbing. Hmm, that whole theory about the sun being the primary driver of climate looks more reasonable - as it always has to anyone who actually has common sense.
As for the rest, what did you prove? Nothing. I already noted that the areas facing deforestation are doing so because they are poor populations who need food and fuel. And nothing you've stated debunks anything I said about CO2 and plants.
So bite me. This was a thread about the RDX. I didn't bring up the AGW lies that have been perpetrated on us, but I won't hesitate to come down like a load of bricks on anyone who wants to parrot them here. I'm done being polite.
SC
|
I now understand why you are so pessimistic of Honda. Because you absolutely don't share the same values as Honda does.
You talk so arrogantly about what Honda should do, saying the world's rainforest cover on average isn't that bad, and really only care that NA is fine and the other parts of the world aren't and that it's justified. Wake up, this is everyone's planet earth. The green movement isn't based on a lie or some made up BS. It is a real issue our world is facing.
"wiki-fucking-pedia?" It is an unbiased space for people to continually edit and peer review. Your reaction is immature if not a reflection of your lack of intelligible diction.
Your source is a joke. Website name: wattsupwiththat. Real credible man, real credible.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Former meteorologist and weather expert Anthony Watts maintains this site, skeptical of the man-made global warming topic.
|
330R
|
|
|
Hey Shawn, what is Temple of VTEC's policy on multiple user accounts and alter egos?
|
owequitit
|
|
saitamahonda wrote:
notyper wrote:
wiki-fucking-pedia? Really?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/
All the data from all the sources. Whether you want to use atmospheric temps (the most accurate) or land temp stations (least accurate), the trend from 2002 to 2012 is flat to slightly down and yet CO2 is climbing. Hmm, that whole theory about the sun being the primary driver of climate looks more reasonable - as it always has to anyone who actually has common sense.
As for the rest, what did you prove? Nothing. I already noted that the areas facing deforestation are doing so because they are poor populations who need food and fuel. And nothing you've stated debunks anything I said about CO2 and plants.
So bite me. This was a thread about the RDX. I didn't bring up the AGW lies that have been perpetrated on us, but I won't hesitate to come down like a load of bricks on anyone who wants to parrot them here. I'm done being polite.
SC
|
I now understand why you are so pessimistic of Honda. Because you absolutely don't share the same values as Honda does.
You talk so arrogantly about what Honda should do, saying the world's rainforest cover on average isn't that bad, and really only care that NA is fine and the other parts of the world aren't and that it's justified. Wake up, this is everyone's planet earth. The green movement isn't based on a lie or some made up BS. It is a real issue our world is facing.
"wiki-fucking-pedia?" It is an unbiased space for people to continually edit and peer review. Your reaction is immature if not a reflection of your lack of intelligible diction.
Your source is a joke. Website name: wattsupwiththat. Real credible man, real credible.
|
If it is a real world issue that we all face, and not some B.S. propaganda, then why can't you guys ever counter an intellectual response based on fact with anything other than dismissal, denial and more spewed indoctrination?
REAL facts are based on data, and as such, can be substantiated and peer reviewed, which is something that never happens with an AGW debate (at least on one side). I have yet to see a single person make it more than 2 rounds with Shawn on the subject, and he very clearly backs himself up with actual science, and not ideological indoctrination, which is why that happens.
Example. If I claim that a 747 going 500MPH hits the ground at a 45* angle and everyone dies, nobody disputes it because they KNOW science and reality will back it up. Can't say the same about the AGW proponents because they can never back themselves up. We are just supposed to believe them because they said so.
P.S. If you even attempted to use wikipedia on ANY scholarly defense, you would fail immediately. It does NOT constitute a valid source of information (precisely because it is open source) and thus is invalid. The absolute best you can hope for from wikipedia is to use it as a place to get a lot of actual sources on a subject, and even then, it is questionable on what sort of quality you would get.
Of course, if you had ever pursued anything higher than an undergraduate post secondary degree, you would understand that.
|
Ganplosive
|
|
L. O. L. (sorry I just had to hahaha)
Temple of Vtec sure has changed since a month ago.... everyone is so much more angry than I had remembered
|
Gumbercules
|
|
notyper wrote:
wiki-fucking-pedia? Really?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/
All the data from all the sources. Whether you want to use atmospheric temps (the most accurate) or land temp stations (least accurate), the trend from 2002 to 2012 is flat to slightly down and yet CO2 is climbing. Hmm, that whole theory about the sun being the primary driver of climate looks more reasonable - as it always has to anyone who actually has common sense.
As for the rest, what did you prove? Nothing. I already noted that the areas facing deforestation are doing so because they are poor populations who need food and fuel. And nothing you've stated debunks anything I said about CO2 and plants.
So bite me. This was a thread about the RDX. I didn't bring up the AGW lies that have been perpetrated on us, but I won't hesitate to come down like a load of bricks on anyone who wants to parrot them here. I'm done being polite.
SC
|
I'm no expert, but looking at many of those charts it shows a huge upward trend for the past few decades and then a decline only in the last decade or so. So it seems like you are ignoring those huge gains because of a recent downtrend. So what do you think about the entire pattern?
To focus only on the last decade would be like someone gaining 200 lbs but then saying it was ok because they recently lost 10 lbs.
|
ClementZ
|
|
notyper wrote:
wiki-fucking-pedia? Really?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/
All the data from all the sources. Whether you want to use atmospheric temps (the most accurate) or land temp stations (least accurate), the trend from 2002 to 2012 is flat to slightly down and yet CO2 is climbing. Hmm, that whole theory about the sun being the primary driver of climate looks more reasonable - as it always has to anyone who actually has common sense.
As for the rest, what did you prove? Nothing. I already noted that the areas facing deforestation are doing so because they are poor populations who need food and fuel. And nothing you've stated debunks anything I said about CO2 and plants.
So bite me. This was a thread about the RDX. I didn't bring up the AGW lies that have been perpetrated on us, but I won't hesitate to come down like a load of bricks on anyone who wants to parrot them here. I'm done being polite.
SC
|
"Wiki-fucking-pedia?" is the best rebuttal you have?
http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/breaking-the-satellite-temperature-record-down/
There is disagreement on the warming trends; certain models are showing flat rates, others are showing slight increases.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4B7idYmHXME/T1DE4bsikaI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/n3JkWa-65MY/s1600/120302-Jan+Ice.jpg
So I'll use this; ice. More heat, less ice. The general trend (yes, even from 2002) is that Arctic ice is receding and therefore temperatures are increasing.
And yes, I did disprove something. You say that below 200ppm CO2, photosynthesis nearly stops. And when photosynthesis stops, plants normally die. But they didn't; plants didn't die out everywhere when CO2 dropped below 200ppm. And I'm not quite sure what you were getting at when you mentioned the increase of CO2 to 1000ppm results in greater efficiency from staple plants; are you implying we'll be better off if CO2 levels do get that high?
Sure, don't be polite. But you can see that being a complete prick about the subject isn't getting you any further, can't you?
|
owequitit
|
|
Gumbercules wrote:
notyper wrote:
wiki-fucking-pedia? Really?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/
All the data from all the sources. Whether you want to use atmospheric temps (the most accurate) or land temp stations (least accurate), the trend from 2002 to 2012 is flat to slightly down and yet CO2 is climbing. Hmm, that whole theory about the sun being the primary driver of climate looks more reasonable - as it always has to anyone who actually has common sense.
As for the rest, what did you prove? Nothing. I already noted that the areas facing deforestation are doing so because they are poor populations who need food and fuel. And nothing you've stated debunks anything I said about CO2 and plants.
So bite me. This was a thread about the RDX. I didn't bring up the AGW lies that have been perpetrated on us, but I won't hesitate to come down like a load of bricks on anyone who wants to parrot them here. I'm done being polite.
SC
|
I'm no expert, but looking at many of those charts it shows a huge upward trend for the past few decades and then a decline only in the last decade or so. So it seems like you are ignoring those huge gains because of a recent downtrend. So what do you think about the entire pattern?
To focus only on the last decade would be like someone gaining 200 lbs but then saying it was ok because they recently lost 10 lbs.
|
Here is a big question. How do you explain the thousands of years of warming from BEFORE we burned fossil fuels? We know that we have exited an Ice Age, and are now accelerating out of one. So if human activity is solely to blame, why did it start before we did?
|
DCR
|
|
Ganplosive wrote:
L. O. L. (sorry I just had to hahaha)
Temple of Vtec sure has changed since a month ago.... everyone is so much more angry than I had remembered
|
It is a cycle, and not unusual when you have two warring factions over what Honda is doing as a company.
|
Ganplosive
|
|
|
oh I remember the good old days when you and I were the ones waging war on TOV~~
|
ams23
|
|
owequitit, one would need to look at the rate at which warming occurred over those thousands of years, and compare it to the rate of warming over the last fifty years to gather any meaningful insight to the matter.
Hopefully we can all agree that using a traditional internal combustion engine does have at least some deleterious effects on the environment. After all, is there anyone here who enjoys breathing in noxious fumes from their car, or is there anyone here who would want that stuff floating around in our atmosphere?
Regarding global warming, I don't see the point in denying it or being skeptical about it. Clearly there had or has been significant warming over the last fifty years. Why on earth (no pun intended) would glacial ice be melting so fast on Greenland, Antarctica, etc? Come on, this is common sense. Now, whether or not humans are the primary cause for this doesn't really matter too much because one way or another the issue of having a warmer climate, glacial ice melting, rising sea level, population boom, etc. is here to stay. So as intelligent human beings we can either choose to be irresponsible and simply ignore the issue and let future generations deal with the consequences, or we can do our best right now to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce pollutants, etc to the best of our ability. Of course, we should not overcompromise and ruin our way of life to achieve these goals. So the key is to use a balanced approach and try to make some improvements year after year after year.
The automotive companies are now in a position where they can bring new hybrid/electric (and eventually fuel cell) technologies to the market in a reasonably cost-effective manner. These companies are in a position to be conscious of environmental needs (ie. to reduce toxic emissions, reduce greenhouse gases, etc.) while at the same time be conscious of consumer needs (to improve fuel economy, improve handling, improve acceleration, etc.). If businesses and/or individuals are in a good position to actually improve the environment, then how is that a bad thing? It doesn't matter if the earth warms 2 degrees or 0.02 degrees, it is never a bad thing to try to improve the environment as long as the tradeoff in doing so is not prohibitively steep.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Ganplosive wrote:
L. O. L. (sorry I just had to hahaha)
Temple of Vtec sure has changed since a month ago.... everyone is so much more angry than I had remembered
|
It started around 2009, but it's gotten steadily worse since then. This forum is defined by hatred and spite. A toxic mixture of bitter disputes over global warming, the 9G Honda Civic, and U.S. politics has made ToV an even nastier place than NASOIC.
I must accept my share of the blame for this. While I am not the only one who has acted aggressively, and while I do not believe I have been outrageously uncivil, I have shown absolutely no mercy in many of the debates I have participated in. I got tired of the ignorance, the propaganda, and the trolling.
|
Gumbercules
|
|
owequitit wrote:
Here is a big question. How do you explain the thousands of years of warming from BEFORE we burned fossil fuels? We know that we have exited an Ice Age, and are now accelerating out of one. So if human activity is solely to blame, why did it start before we did?
|
AFAIK, warming and cooling happens naturally at certain rates over time, but scientists are claiming that the current rate of warming and more importantly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are both way out of line from where they should naturally be. They are not claiming that this is the first time warming has happened, so the "big question" here should be "are scientists wrong about the current rates of CO2 and warming being outside of what they should normally be?" So far I have seen very little to prove them wrong.
To dismiss current warming simply because warming has occurred in the past is not a valid analysis. For example, there have always been fat people, but that doesnt mean its ok for 1/3 of the population to be obese and nearly 1/2 overweight, and its this rate that alarms researchers. Another example, species go extinct all the time but the rate at which many of our current species are endangered of extinction is only matched by events like asteroid collisions and mega-eruptions.
|
owequitit
|
|
ams23 wrote:
owequitit, one would need to look at the rate at which warming occurred over those thousands of years, and compare it to the rate of warming over the last fifty years to gather any meaningful insight to the matter.
Hopefully we can all agree that using a traditional internal combustion engine does have at least some deleterious effects on the environment. After all, is there anyone here who enjoys breathing in noxious fumes from their car, or is there anyone here who would want that stuff floating around in our atmosphere?
Regarding global warming, I don't see the point in denying it or being skeptical about it. Clearly there had or has been significant warming over the last fifty years. Why on earth (no pun intended) would glacial ice be melting so fast on Greenland, Antarctica, etc? Come on, this is common sense. Now, whether or not humans are the primary cause for this doesn't really matter too much because one way or another the issue of having a warmer climate, glacial ice melting, rising sea level, population boom, etc. is here to stay. So as intelligent human beings we can either choose to be irresponsible and simply ignore the issue and let future generations deal with the consequences, or we can do our best right now to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce pollutants, etc to the best of our ability. Of course, we should not overcompromise and ruin our way of life to achieve these goals. So the key is to use a balanced approach and try to make some improvements year after year after year.
The automotive companies are now in a position where they can bring new hybrid/electric (and eventually fuel cell) technologies to the market in a reasonably cost-effective manner. These companies are in a position to be conscious of environmental needs (ie. to reduce toxic emissions, reduce greenhouse gases, etc.) while at the same time be conscious of consumer needs (to improve fuel economy, improve handling, improve acceleration, etc.). If businesses and/or individuals are in a good position to actually improve the environment, then how is that a bad thing? It doesn't matter if the earth warms 2 degrees or 0.02 degrees, it is never a bad thing to try to improve the environment as long as the tradeoff in doing so is not prohibitively steep.
|
I am well aware of the warming trend. There is also no evidence to suggest that if you remove the human component, that the trend would be linear forever. It is logical both from a Meteorology and Geology standpoint that as certain physical mechanisms are either triggered or disabled by changes in the environment, that the reaction of the environment will also change. Thus it is illogical and still unproven that human activity alone is the sole influence of the rate of change. It might be a great theory, but it is far from proven. The other part of the theory that isn't panning out or substantiated is the so-called "butterfly effect" where some small random change creates a web of chaos throughout the system. In pro-AGW circles, they are calling these "feedbacks," which have also not been substantiated.
Also, if you consider engine combustion in a vacuum where no other combustion or CO2 production occurs, then yes, it would appear to be very deleterious. However, when you actually look at the global system as a whole, the effects of human carbon combustion do NOT solely explain the occurrences in the universe. This is where the theory starts to fail. First, there are so many natural sources and sinks that it is nearly impossible to track them all. It is also impossible to claim that only fossil fuel burning is a major contributor, because there are natural processes on Earth that make our activity look much less significant. Then you factor in respiration, etc, and it looks even worse for AGW. Of course, then you have to consider many of the variables that Shawn has talked about such as a concentration increase in CO2 not causing a commensurate increase in warming effect (substantiated in lab testing).
You don't see the point in denying or being skeptical about it because that would challenge your indoctrination into it or you agenda to promote it. I don't know which, and I don't care. However, it is my duty as a free thinking, and rather educated individual to not only be skeptical about EVERYTHING, but to actively question it until there is a large body of proof that it is true. If you don't like that, tough. I won't buy it just because you did, or because you told me to. The more you skeptically investigate it, the more it just doesn't hold water, which is why we have things like Climategate, where a relatively small group of people colluded to control information that was available, and actively worked to discredit anything that legitimately questioned their position. That is going to make me question it more. Further, I will continue to question the "green" organizations that stand to recoup TRILLIONS of my tax dollars for their own bank accounts because that is exactly what they accuse the "big oil" companies of doing, and in most cases, I see these people directly act in their own best interest in the guise of "the common good." I don't need an organization of self-serving hippies telling me how they are going to save me from myself. I certainly don't need to pay them $10 on the cent for half-assed solutions, political agendas and bullshit.
Finally, your assertions about hybrid technology are not correct. First, the automakers might be in a position to do it, but that doesn't mean it is good. We are in a position to nuke the Middle East, but that doesn't mean we should. Hybrids are a sham from a cradle to grave pollution standpoint, but since the greenies don't understand or see the physical process that go into producing their vehicles, they don't care. It is false sense of do-good-ism that doesn't pass muster with me. Plug in electrics are even worse, because they merely displace the pollution from the tailpipe to the powerplant. While they are all telling me how good this is, they are absolutely close minded, ignorant and uneducated about the changes required to update a power grid that would actually make sense from an electric/plug-in hybrid standpoint, because again, they do not comprehend the situation outside of their forced ideology.
It could be argued that thousands in per unit costs, reductions in reliability, increases in complexity, weight, and loss of enjoyment are direct costs that are prohibitive. Especially when you consider the system wide total savings, which in many cases are virtually nil. We are essentially being asked to support a program that costs us 10-20% more per unit, but gives nothing in return. In the real world, we call that stupid.
Now, if you actually want to talk about processes, rather than general ideology, I am sure there is plenty to be discussed.
P.S. Contrary to your apparent assertion, I never denied the existence of "Global Warming." AGW opponents also don't deny the existence of warming. It is a convenient ploy to state that as the case, but it is inaccurate. The disagreement is in the CAUSE of the warming, not in the existence of it. The point of showing the trend for the last 10-12 years was to illustrate that despite a massive increase in human CO2 production, the trend is on a decline. It is temporary, and it will likely move back up, but if what you say is true about human activity, then why is the trend able to move independently of our activity? If humans are responsible, and CO2 is the cause, then a continued linear/exponential increase in CO2 production should result in a continued linear increase in temperatures, but it isn't. Yet, every time questions are raised as to the other variables at play, they are quashed down in a mire of accusation, denial and misinformation. Why is that?
|
ams23
|
|
|
Your verbose response just serves to obfuscate the issue that the climate is warming, and that current and future generations will suffer the consequences . Any reasonably intelligent human being should be able to recognize that humans have at least some ability to influence the environment around them, in both good and bad ways. And because automakers decide to invest in various new technologies (hybrid, electric, fuel cell, improved internal combustion engines, etc.) to try to reduce noxious fumes and greenhouse gases emitted from cars, you choose to crap all over them because of battery weight and additional complexity? That is very shortsighted. Of course you conveniently ignore the improved fuel economy, cleaner car emissions, and eventually improved acceleration/handling too that will result from these new technologies. But hey, let's not let this get in the way of your inherent skepticism and negative outlook ;)
|
owequitit
|
|
ams23 wrote:
Your verbose response just serves to obfuscate the issue that the climate is warming, and that current and future generations will suffer the consequences . Any reasonably intelligent human being should be able to recognize that humans have at least some ability to influence the environment around them, in both good and bad ways. And because automakers decide to invest in various new technologies (hybrid, electric, fuel cell, improved internal combustion engines, etc.) to try to reduce noxious fumes and greenhouse gases emitted from cars, you choose to crap all over them because of battery weight and additional complexity? That is very shortsighted. Of course you conveniently ignore the improved fuel economy, cleaner car emissions, and eventually improved acceleration/handling too that will result from these new technologies. But hey, let's not let this get in the way of your inherent skepticism and negative outlook ;)
|
Clearly, as per usual, you were unable to respond to the actual debate. I mean, you couldn't even veil your attack beyond the first sentence.
Now, go practice some reading comprehension and try again. I didn't say it wasn't warming, and sure as hell didn't say any of the other bullshit you are insinuating.
If you want to be a close minded twit about it, we can engage until we are both removed. I am not going to be attacked by a green-washed moron that refuses to question the world around him, and is unable to respond to a simple (and broad line) of questioning.
Now, do you want to engage in intellectual debate, or would you rather fuck off and leave me alone?
|
owequitit
|
|
Gumbercules wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Here is a big question. How do you explain the thousands of years of warming from BEFORE we burned fossil fuels? We know that we have exited an Ice Age, and are now accelerating out of one. So if human activity is solely to blame, why did it start before we did?
|
AFAIK, warming and cooling happens naturally at certain rates over time, but scientists are claiming that the current rate of warming and more importantly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are both way out of line from where they should naturally be. They are not claiming that this is the first time warming has happened, so the "big question" here should be "are scientists wrong about the current rates of CO2 and warming being outside of what they should normally be?" So far I have seen very little to prove them wrong.
To dismiss current warming simply because warming has occurred in the past is not a valid analysis. For example, there have always been fat people, but that doesnt mean its ok for 1/3 of the population to be obese and nearly 1/2 overweight, and its this rate that alarms researchers. Another example, species go extinct all the time but the rate at which many of our current species are endangered of extinction is only matched by events like asteroid collisions and mega-eruptions.
|
AFAIK, I don't really care AFAYK. Everything happens in natural cycles, and everything is caused by something. Everything happening in natural cycles is not an adequate explanation, especially when you won't accept it from the opposite view point.
However, the fundamental flaw in your position here is that there is no basis for comparison. Without having two identical models that are only different in the rate of human CO2 production, you can't make an unquestionable judgement about what normal is. Since we have no history less human CO2, the only things that can happen are estimation, guesstimation and assumptions. Logical or not, they may or may not be incorrect.
Second, it is completely ridiculous to attempt to counter an argument with "warming and cooling happens naturally at certain rates over time." Warming and cooling don't just magically occur. There is always some mechanism or trigger at work. So in the absence of a mechanism that is removing heat from the Earth, why would temps go down when CO2 has gone up in the last 10 years? If there is a mechanism and global warming is so cut and dry, why can't anyone explain it to me? FYI, most geologists I talk to say AGW is total bullshit as do most meteorologists. Of course, they probably have no idea what they are talking about...
And this is exactly what I am talking about. I am being bashed by AMStoolbag and yourself for not blindly accepting your ideology, but you guys can't even answer or provide information for simple questions that may, or may not refute your position. If it is so bulletproof, then why don't you answer the question?
However, you still have failed to answer the primary tenet of the question, which is how are we solely responsible for the increase in warming, if we are not solely responsible for CO2 warming. Like I very clearly said once before, human activity looks bad if you only consider it in a vacuum. When you throw the rest of reality back into the equation, it unravels nearly everything, hence the issues with Climategate.
Science isn't an AFAIK thing. It is cold, hard, measurement and fact. In the absence of those things, nothing is unquestionable, hence my refusal to buy in despite your (and others) best efforts.
|
mobis21
|
|
I've noticed a trend. Any thread frequented by owe quit it, turns into an OFF topic diatribe.
This has NOTHING to do with the RDX any longer.
|
owequitit
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
I've noticed a trend. Any thread frequented by owe quit it, turns into an OFF topic diatribe.
This has NOTHING to do with the RDX any longer.
|
It was off topic long before I joined. And how exactly are you helping to get it back on topic, by trying to point fingers?
Congratulations, you are the new official most useless human on the board. At least I can reason and substantiate my thoughts. You seem to be capable of nothing more than chasing people through threads making snarky comments of zero value, zero aptitude and zero substance.
|
duncan
|
|
owequitit wrote:
mobis21 wrote:
I've noticed a trend. Any thread frequented by owe quit it, turns into an OFF topic diatribe.
This has NOTHING to do with the RDX any longer.
|
It was off topic long before I joined. And how exactly are you helping to get it back on topic, by trying to point fingers?
Congratulations, you are the new official most useless human on the board. At least I can reason and substantiate my thoughts. You seem to be capable of nothing more than chasing people through threads making snarky comments of zero value, zero aptitude and zero substance.
|
+10
I was about to say the same thing about this person--all he does is slam other people's posts without adding any of value (reference his diatribes against DCR). If I'm any more paranoid I would've thought he's 80Honda posting under a different handle.
|
Gumbercules
|
|
wow, someone is angry, I never said that you were wrong because you didnt subscribe to my ideology, and it's not like you dont have your own ideology and are willing to think beyond what you believe. You are just as closed minded as you are accusing me of.
If you read my statement, I wasnt questioning whether AGW is real or not, but just that the analysis for the counter-argument is flawed. And it just so happens I agree with a lot of what you say, i.e. warming doesn't magically occur, by saying that it naturally occurs I mean that there are triggers, both slow long-term ones like the increase in plankton and vegetation in early bio-earth as well as tectonic shifting, and also faster ones like geo-events (eruptions) and asteroids (and even solar cycles, but i'm not fully aware about the L-T or S-T solar cycle impacts on atmospheric conditions).
What I was saying, though, is that you do have an incorrect definition of trend. Sure the last 10 years may have reverse the long term trend, but even as you stated, in the future it will likely increase again. I dont remember anyone saying AGW and CO2 is so cut and dry that the earth will warm EVERY SINGLE DAY for the rest of eternity. To conclude that a trend is wrong because of a relatively short-term reverse of the trend is flawed. If you look at the stock market for the last 80 years, the Long-term trend is that the market has increased over time (for various reasons), but should we say that this is not true becuase for the last 5 years the trend has been negative? does that mean that the dow will go back to 1930's levels soon? I know the stock market is its own animal, i'm simply trying to say that your analysis is a little too simplistic.
Also, I have never seen a scientific report claim that human CO2 release is the only thing that affects long-term atmospheric conditions, becuase like you and others have said it is a very complicated system, but you constantly fail to understand that it is a very balanced system which usually changes gradually over time (for various reasons) not at the rate that scientists are quoting.
And you say we dont have a way to compare waht current warming would be with and without human CO2, but what about ice core studies, and fossilized mineral studies? dont they provide some view of what "normal" should be? By your standards, the only way a criminal should be convicted is if there was hard-core undeniable photo/video evidence, and all circumstantial evidence is useless.
I'm guessing you also believe dinosaurs could have lived with humans as recent as 10,000 years ago, since there is no "cold, hard, measurement and fact" where someone time traveled and witnessed when they actually existed.
|
TonyEX
|
|
notyper wrote:
I just can't take it anymore. I used to try and be more civil in these matters, but it just doesn't work.
The idea that those who have climbed highest need to fall back to the level of those who are still climbing is just so anti-human it angers me when I hear it.
SC
|
I guess this is a bad time to bring up the UN?
Seriously... we quite agree. Maybe if Texas weren't so humid I'd move there. They got 80mph speed limits and now they're talking about an 85.
Of course, here in California, the CHP is still cool to the idea of carbon crap.. so they let us be at 80 so long as you don't do anything stupid.
It's getting depressing living in California and I can't understand why so many people have bought into the Climate Change lie. All I can think of is that science is not being taught anymore.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Actually, to quote Wikipedia on Climate Change is to ignore the fact that it is being manipulated by supporters of Climate Change.
Indeed, just about anything in Wikipedia on Climate Change is propaganda.
Wikipedia management is aware of it but technically it's a very hard nut to fix without implementing editorial oversight.
Try this
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/04/21/wikiganda-wikipedia-propaganda-truth-facts-ha-we-can-edit-those-out-for-you/
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
