Actually I've been overly responsive.
When I posted clips from Motor Trend and such these are established authorities. I thought maybe looking right at the difference in design and technology and hearing the testers official comparisons & opinions might get you off stuck on stupid about loving old 1982 drum brake Buick technology. But if you're happy being stuck back in time somewhere then I'm fine with leaving you there.
Good job. Pointless... stupid... irrelevant. You qualify for running as a democrat in congress.
I don't like Bush either. That's the point. BOTH sides are in agreement after reviewing the evidence brought before them by hundreds of people in the field. It was clearly stated in that March 08 Presidential statement what the situation is and why we must start reducing our dependence on oil. I could cut and paste all day on each & every point the President made. I'll post just one more for you. But I'll not just go back and forth with cut & paste because that gets us no where. The decision has been made at the top. Both political Parties agree. They have the direct testimony which trumps a Goggle search every time.
That is the most foolish statement I have ever heard. You think the word of a lawyer and a politician is of greater value than science? That is plain stupid.
And if that weren't enough as I said before the bottom line remains the same. Oil prices are going to remain high. America will adjust just like we did when we moved away from leaded gas. Your insistence at peeing in the wind will only get your pants wet... and I hate to see that.
I hate to see willfully ignorant 50 year olds. The ones who are a model for their children's utter stupidity. It's no wonder America is as screwed up as it is.
Many scientists warn that there will come a day when rising oil prices will not be due to political or economic pressures, but because a natural peak in global oil production will have been reached.
The 10-year warning
In February 2005, Robert Hirsch, a Senior Energy Program Advisor at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and colleagues submitted a report to the U.S. Department of Energy that examined the likely consequences of the impending global oil peak.
The researchers used the peaks of individual oil producing nations and regions around the world to predict what will happen on a global scale. In all of the historical cases they examined, it was not obvious that peaking was going to occur until about a year before the event. Also, the peaks were followed by sharp declines in oil production that did not gently slope or flatten out as some forecasters have predicted.
Since all the rest of your 'evidence' was repeating the same, I will just respond to these.
"Many scientists believe..." Many.. not all, or most, or vast majority... many. That is because most do not say this.
"peak in global oil production" You are 50 years old and you still believe the chicken little "the sky is falling!" mantra? You realize that this 'peak oil' theory (that we only have 10 more years to go) was made in the 50s? Squealed about in the 60s, blasted through the nation in 70s, worried over during the 80s, taught throughout schools in the 90s, and now in 2008 we are still worried that we only have 10 more years before 'peak oil' just like in the 50s?! Will you PLEASE GET A CLUE! Grow up you 50 year old stuck in a time warp!
The only peak in oil production is due to US NOT GETTING THE OIL. Mainly because of idiots like you. "Run! The sky is falling! Oil will peak in the (50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s)!!"
Here is some evidence: (real evidence)
Canadian oil sands is believed to contain one trillion barrels of oil. (Canadians are being stupid too)
A Trillion barrels are also said to be trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. (Nope, can't touch it)
The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates 102 billion barrels of oil and 635 trillion cubic feet of gas beneath federal lands and coastal waters. (can we get it?)
Yet almost 90 percent of the OCS acreage is off-limits to production - on essentailly spurious environmental grounds. (nope! Thanks man. Your children will love you for it)
Geologists estimate that another 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 50 billion barrels of oil are waiting, yet to be discovered, off the "Lower 48" states. The American Petroleum Institute (API) notes that this is enough oil to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 59 years. (But thanks to you and your ignorant politicians that are so truthful, we can't get it)
Oh but what about your 'source'? Note: none of your quotes provided real hard evidence, just what they said 'would happen' because the sky is falling for sure.
Did you know that the "Science Applications International Corporation" is the 6th largest contractor to the government? That most of their money comes from grants and government contracts? Did you know that they have done nothing in the field of oil production?
Question... why would they get up and tell congress that oil was running out and we need to get an alternative fuel?
Hint: Congress gets more power to control our economy (because of foolish citizens) due to this "oil is running out" theory. Do you bite the hand that feeds you by saying the theory is wrong?
Hint: I wonder which major science firm would get awarded grants and contracts to research and develop these alternative fuels? Maybe a firm that is already the 6th largest contractor? Can you say: "Conflict of Interest"?
You're reasoning is just ridiculous and I really think you know that. How long it took GM to stop producing the Corvair helps confirm my point (and Nader's point) the the auto industry did not want to address safety concerns... which is exactly what I said. And just like I also said seatbelts themselves were even cited and proven as something the auto industry did not want to voluntarily take the lead on. Hence uniform safety standards... fuel requirements etc. had to be imposed. [/COLOR]
The handling on the Corvair was fine. Nader made it up to gain political power from ignorant citizens (psst: that's you). Even Jarlaxle agrees. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agreed. The auto industry, which includes GM, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen agreed. Nearly everyone that isn't completely ignorant and doesn't assume that a lawyer/politician is infallibly truthful... agrees.
You still have your head shoved so far up your politics, that you can't see the real world. Since you are unable, or unwilling to understand science, maybe you should give up this debate. You'll never win over science with uneducated opinion based on, of all things, what a politician says. "Gee golly, if a congressman says it, it MUST BE TRUE!" That's humorous on it's face.
ANDY ANDY ANDY... My way is to try not to have unsafe untested, highly polluting, gas guzzling cars but have safer tested cars that are less polluting and include gas saving technology.
We've already been over this. Other than polluting... higher milage cars, safer cars, both were already being developed prior to government intervention. As for untested... air bags were mandated by government without enough testing which led to children dying. Smaller, mandated by government, cars are less protective than larger thicker metal cars, which has led to more people dying. It's an established fact. You can't argue with scientific evidence, by using youtube videos, and press core releases, and personal opinion. You, and those like you, are responsible for those deaths.
Oh and so you know... the Corvair and the Camero share nothing but a C at the start of their names and they were both attempts at a sporty type car. The Corvair was a small rear engine air cooled design completely opposite of the Camero.
"Its [Corvair] final design evoked the later Camaro" -GM
I'll let you inform GM that you disagree with them.
I truly don't think a mere car could make you attractive to anyone let alone women... you have a bad temper and your only resort is to name call. Maybe the Lottery but not just a brand new car... LoL!!!
