rnf2 wrote:

> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>
> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
> rhys

Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
made in Australia.

--Aardwolf.

 

rnf2 wrote:

> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>
> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
> rhys

Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
made in Australia.

--Aardwolf.

 

In article <3F9F3F84.A187EFDC@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>
> rnf2 wrote:
>
>> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
>> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
>> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>>
>> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
>> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
>> rhys
>
> Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
> made in Australia.

Other than mustang, vette, and viper.

 

In article <3F9F3F84.A187EFDC@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>
> rnf2 wrote:
>
>> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
>> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
>> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>>
>> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
>> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
>> rhys
>
> Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
> made in Australia.

Other than mustang, vette, and viper.

 

In article <3F9F3F84.A187EFDC@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>
> rnf2 wrote:
>
>> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
>> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
>> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>>
>> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
>> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
>> rhys
>
> Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
> made in Australia.

Other than mustang, vette, and viper.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
> less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...

I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming - assuming
the clear cut land is returned to use as a new forest. It is my opinion
that young trees that replace old stand trees when a forest is clear cut
actually tie up more CO2 per year than slower growing old trees. In fact
I am sure that this is true. There may be other unrelated reasons for
preserving old growth forest, but reducing CO2 concentrations is not one
of them. In fact I think if you are only concerned about tying up more
CO2 you should advocate clear cutting all old growth forest and replace
them with faster growing trees that will tie up CO2 at a faster rate.

Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern
Ludites as a justification for their desire to smash everything and
return to the non-existent pristine past.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
> less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...

I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming - assuming
the clear cut land is returned to use as a new forest. It is my opinion
that young trees that replace old stand trees when a forest is clear cut
actually tie up more CO2 per year than slower growing old trees. In fact
I am sure that this is true. There may be other unrelated reasons for
preserving old growth forest, but reducing CO2 concentrations is not one
of them. In fact I think if you are only concerned about tying up more
CO2 you should advocate clear cutting all old growth forest and replace
them with faster growing trees that will tie up CO2 at a faster rate.

Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern
Ludites as a justification for their desire to smash everything and
return to the non-existent pristine past.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
> less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...

I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming - assuming
the clear cut land is returned to use as a new forest. It is my opinion
that young trees that replace old stand trees when a forest is clear cut
actually tie up more CO2 per year than slower growing old trees. In fact
I am sure that this is true. There may be other unrelated reasons for
preserving old growth forest, but reducing CO2 concentrations is not one
of them. In fact I think if you are only concerned about tying up more
CO2 you should advocate clear cutting all old growth forest and replace
them with faster growing trees that will tie up CO2 at a faster rate.

Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern
Ludites as a justification for their desire to smash everything and
return to the non-existent pristine past.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent discussion
> about science.

Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
degrees on a consistent basis.

I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
preconceived notions.

Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
honest scientist.

Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?

Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
have too little CO2?

History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?

I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
funding and soon need to find something else to do.

Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
worse than doing nothing?

Ed

None of us is as dumb as all of us

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent discussion
> about science.

Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
degrees on a consistent basis.

I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
preconceived notions.

Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
honest scientist.

Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?

Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
have too little CO2?

History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?

I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
funding and soon need to find something else to do.

Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
worse than doing nothing?

Ed

None of us is as dumb as all of us