Off Road Vehicles banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,385 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/us_nm/environment_autos_dc

Seriously, what the F--- is in the water out there? I seriously am worried as to where this idiotic lawsuit may go. When is open season on moron libs opening, cuz this moron would be the prize trophy! :roll: :cuss:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,372 Posts
I think they should also sue all the citizens of Komifornia who own automobiles, they're the ones responsible for it. :roll:

He also noted the judge in the New York lawsuit cited rarely-used legal doctrine in ruling that the question at issue was political rather than legal and should therefore be addressed by the legislature and not the court.

"I was surprised that the court in that case did that," he said. "I think it is a straight forward legal question. My impression is this is a very legitimate case to bring."

does rarely-used mean it doesnt count???

Whats a non-profit going to do with 100 mil? shouldnt the car companies keep the money for further research?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,227 Posts
everywhere is screwed up. it was a southern judge that ruled boating illegal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
On 2006-09-20 20:26, Alphacowboy wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/us_nm/environment_autos_dc

Seriously, what the F--- is in the water out there? I seriously am worried as to where this idiotic lawsuit may go. When is open season on moron libs opening, cuz this moron would be the prize trophy! :roll: :cuss:

So are you against reducing pollution and oil consumption? That is what they are trying to do and the only way to do it is to make it financially attractive for the auto makers. The car makers are not incented to change on their own so this is a good thing because the threat of losing money in a lawsuit could get them going. Why would anyone be pro oil consuption/less effeciency in engines/more pollution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,385 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
On 2006-09-21 03:02, mdn0123 wrote:

So are you against reducing pollution and oil consumption? That is what they are trying to do and the only way to do it is to make it financially attractive for the auto makers. The car makers are not incented to change on their own so this is a good thing because the threat of losing money in a lawsuit could get them going. Why would anyone be pro oil consuption/less effeciency in engines/more pollution?



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You must not keep up with the time my friend! Have you seen what they made the auto makers do to the new and upcoming Diesel engines for 07 for all the auto makers? They are claiming 2-3% LOSS in fuel efficiancy due to all the crap they put on the engine to reduce pollution. Dont get me wrong, i think clean air is a good thing, BUT, reducing efficiancy is getting rediculas! Hell, my dads old suburban (pre-vorcrap) got a solid 18mpg on a 350, his new 5.3ltr gets a wopping 15mpg! Its a smaller engine, has more emissions crap on it than I think is needed, and gets {expletive}ty mileage. We are going backwards due to the idiots in the EPA. Seriously, most diesels RIGHT NOW, burn very clean, lets see you kneel down by a gassers tail pipe and breeth deep, now, do that with a diesel. At idle, the gassers exhaust would make you sick, not the diesels. The CO levels out of the gassers are WAY higher than the diesels.

ANYWAY, its a complete joke to sue the automakers, they have enough pressure on them from the EPA to make stuff "safer" for this planet. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Well if the EPA is in charge then we have nothing to worry about :rotfl:

The EPA has become a puppet of the Bush administration, and we already know that he doesn't think global warming exists, so no need to fight it. So there is little accountability in the energy sector, which is why states do things like sue automakers for polluting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,372 Posts
exhaust emissions are getting stricter more and more down here. New counties have laws every year. I personally think global warming doesnt exist due to our actions, flame away. ever think about how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere after a volcanic eruption? Ilike how we humans think that we are so almighty that we can single handily ruin the planet earth. I wonder what all the mammoths thought when the glaciers started to melt away?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I wonder what all the mammoths thought when the glaciers started to melt away?

They didn't melt in 30 years - it took hundreds and thousands of years for climate change before humans existed. Believe what you want, but it isn't natural for the climate to make big swings over a couple of generations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,372 Posts
Most of the polution is from the industrial revolution not us driving automobiles. I believe the hole in the ozone is closing??? i dont get how you see big swings, when heat records as still existing from early 20th century?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
i dont believe sueing will do anything. It would take the whole world junking their current cars and getting hybrids and newer lesser emmisson cars to do that and the chance that will happen is 0%. I am for cleaner air and reducing the global warming threat but you haft to think realistically. If global warming is going to happen then im goin to burn as much gas, drive a big lifted truck and enjoy myself as much as possible. :D:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
If there worried about polution then they need to get a world thing going. DOsent matter if we all rode bikes to work look at some of these other countries were the air is orange i think japan? becuase theres no regulations there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
On 2006-09-21 03:02, mdn0123 wrote:

So are you against reducing pollution and oil consumption? That is what they are trying to do and the only way to do it is to make it financially attractive for the auto makers. The car makers are not incented to change on their own so this is a good thing because the threat of losing money in a lawsuit could get them going. Why would anyone be pro oil consuption/less effeciency in engines/more pollution?

Automakers do try to improve emmisions though. The number 1 concern when building an engine is emmisions, number 2 is fuel milage, and number 3 is driveability. They can't just pull new technology out of their a$$es over night and make the world perfect. Emisions are a biproduct of cumbustion, there is no way around that. Perfect combustion is impossible.

If they want rediced CO2 emmisions to prevent greenhouse effect, that's easy. Just remove catelytic convertors, AIR injection, EGR, etc. Then there will be barely any CO2. Plenty of CO, NOx, and HC thoough. CO2 is a biproduct of the reduction of the other emmisions that were deemed more important because they harm humans, unlike co2.

And like someone said, that'd be like suing SW for the crime in Detroit. California has more cars in it than all Eurpopean countried combined. Mayhbe they should reduce the amount of drivers. And what is money going to do to fix the enviornment anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,385 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
On 2006-09-21 06:51, mdn0123 wrote:
Well if the EPA is in charge then we have nothing to worry about :rotfl:

The EPA has become a puppet of the Bush administration, and we already know that he doesn't think global warming exists, so no need to fight it. So there is little accountability in the energy sector, which is why states do things like sue automakers for polluting.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
{big breath}
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
{gasping for clean non-Bush polluted air}
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
{about to pass out, maybe I should sue Bush, its all his fault anyway}
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
{give me a sec to catch my breath, ok?}








Alright, now, here somthing for you to chew on, how long did it take for the Glaciers to melt the first time? Yeah, what I am saying, who knows for a fact that the glaciers didnt melt before COMPLETELY, and reform at one point? Do you know, does anyone? Can you prove that its not NORMAL for the glaciers to melt at this rate? Can you with 100% cofidence tell me and the world that Global Warming is NOT a natural occurance? Can you tell me that for sure, the glaciers have NEVER completely melted away in less than 100 years in the entire existance of this planet? THERE IS NO WAY to completely prove global warming one way or the other. Not saying we shouldnt strive for clean air emmissions, but you COMPLETELY blew any respect I had for you with your Bush conspiracy theory that he has the EPA by its balls. Lastly, I think MANY people with just a little common sense feel that Global Warming is a bunch of bullshiat.

oh and this is for you....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
:flipoff:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,582 Posts
On 2006-09-21 09:43, mdn0123 wrote:


They didn't melt in 30 years - it took hundreds and thousands of years for climate change before humans existed. Believe what you want, but it isn't natural for the climate to make big swings over a couple of generations.
If you call .6 (yes, six tenths) of a degree celsius in the last 100 years a "BIG" swing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
Umm, yes glaciers did melt...and, umm, news flash...global warming is the LAST problem we have to worry about...The simple fact that 2/3s of the US will be UNDER WATER is more of a concern I believe...

And, you guys probably haven't had a glacial geology class have you?? Then you wouldn't know that the glacial/interglacial periods are only one "overall" picture of occurances...there are mini-glacial and mini-interglacial periods that happen on 1800 year cycles. Those are the most notable...but there are also shorter (50 year?) and longer (8600 year?)...as well as others...

So if you would look at the glacial/interglacial periods as a cycle, the line would look smooth from a distance (time), but as you got closer, the line also has those smaller cycles on it, and smaller cycles on them...and we are naturally coming out of a glacial period...I think currently we are in a smaller "warming period"...

It isn't as simple as glaciers-no glaciers. And, IMO, while we might be slightly accelerating global warming, I don't think we are affecting it as much as the world leaders are "scaring" us to believe...did most of you know that the glaciers hold LOADS of carbon dioxide?? As the glaciers melt, we are gaining more CO2...naturally adding MORE greenhous gasses...

And while you might diss the EPA, local government affects alot of the local cleanup levels. All of you ought to be thankful we have them as we have THE CLEANEST environment in the world (short the undeveloped countries)...China for instance, they have such pollution in their major rivers that they are completely unusable for drinking water...Russia also has major environmental issues...

Just some more food for thought...

steved
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,835 Posts
On 2006-09-21 14:11, halo 216 wrote:
DOsent matter if we all rode bikes to work look at some of these other countries were the air is orange i think japan? becuase theres no regulations there.

I can't remember the exact mileage of a motor I want to say 60k and they have to be replaced. Japan is pretty strict on emissions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,372 Posts
On 2006-09-24 23:32, HotRodDaddy wrote:


I can't remember the exact mileage of a motor I want to say 60k and they have to be replaced. Japan is pretty strict on emissions

What about mexico then?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top