Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

To say funding is "totally irrelevant", is ridiculous. Why would Exxon Mobil fund anti global warming think tanks, if they don't expect information gathered to be weighted in their favor? I'm sure their motives must be entirely pure. Are you telling me, you completely trust the information that comes from an oil company funded organization? There is, without a doubt, a definite warming trend, and the clear majority of climate scientists and organizations agree that man has contributed significantly. Next, you'll be telling me, that according to a study financed by Phillip Morris, smoking doesn't cause cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Information is information. Either it is correct or not. Who or where it comes from has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is accurate or not.

If you can't effectively rebutt the information, the inherent weakness of your postion is exposed when you turn to attacking sources rather than debating the science.

And consensus is hardly an indicator as to whether an idea has merit. Should I remind you that prior to WWII, it was very difficult to find a scientist that wasn't on the eugenics bandwagon and any scientist who suggested otherwise was a special interest radical. After WWII, however, it seemed that no one ever actually supported the idea of eugenics.

And for all the "consensus", there is not a shred of actual evidence to support it. What there is, is billions of dollars being doled out to scientists who jump on the bandwagon. Scientists in fields that not so long ago weren't very highly paid. Today, jumping on the bandwagon means a BMW and a stylish address. Not bad for nerds who were barely making 35K a decade ago if they could get a position as a weatherman.

If you care to debate the science and demonstrate that you aren't just a parrot repeating whatever you have been told to repeat, then lets talk science. If you aren't, then your opinion is worthless since it is really not even your own.
 
Werbung:
Actually - I wonder about that.

What do automobile fatality statistics look like in countries where the majority of cars are lighter and smaller and fuel efficiency is stressed?

Here's an interesting table: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2003.htm

First, you need some updated information. Secondly, you need to correct for the number of vehicles on the road.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001 that existing CAFE standards increased traffic deaths by 1,300 to 2,600 per year. A Harvard University/Brookings Institution study put the figure at between 2,200 and 3,900 deaths per year.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that since CAFE was implemented, more than 46,000 traffic deaths would have been avoided if people had been driving heavier cars. Many tens of thousands more, of course, have been needlessly injured.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded in an October 2003 report that CAFE standards are even deadlier than the agency previously thought. They stated that for every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars (those weighing 2,950 pounds or less), for example, increased annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715, according to NHTSA. For larger cars and light trucks, the agency estimated that each 100-pound reduction in weight would increase annual traffic fatalities by as much as 303 and 296, respectively

Try as you might, you simply can't escape physics. They will get you every time.
 
First, you need some updated information. Secondly, you need to correct for the number of vehicles on the road.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001 that existing CAFE standards increased traffic deaths by 1,300 to 2,600 per year. A Harvard University/Brookings Institution study put the figure at between 2,200 and 3,900 deaths per year.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that since CAFE was implemented, more than 46,000 traffic deaths would have been avoided if people had been driving heavier cars. Many tens of thousands more, of course, have been needlessly injured.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded in an October 2003 report that CAFE standards are even deadlier than the agency previously thought. They stated that for every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars (those weighing 2,950 pounds or less), for example, increased annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715, according to NHTSA. For larger cars and light trucks, the agency estimated that each 100-pound reduction in weight would increase annual traffic fatalities by as much as 303 and 296, respectively

Try as you might, you simply can't escape physics. They will get you every time.

Is that just within the US where you have a mix of heavy and lightweight cars?

Somehow - I can't help but think that if the need exists or was mandated - ie a smaller more fuel efficient but safe vehicle - we could find a way to meet that need.
 
Is that just within the US where you have a mix of heavy and lightweight cars?

Somehow - I can't help but think that if the need exists or was mandated - ie a smaller more fuel efficient but safe vehicle - we could find a way to meet that need.

Coyote, all crashes aren't big cars vs little cars. The physics of two small cars involved in an accident is just as deadly to humans as large cars vs small cars. An amount of energy equaling X footpounds will kill. X + (any number of footpounds delivered by increasingly larger vehicles) does not make you more dead.
 
Good for them.

Looks like plenty of Alaskans were accepting Chavez's offer. I say, good for them as well.
We don't have a Citgo station near to where I live(I checked), as I was already to gas up there exclusively. Like the proverb says, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".









Alaska villages await Venezuela oil aid

By JEANNETTE J. LEE
Associated Press writer Monday, October 09, 2006

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- In the Arctic village of Ambler, residents are paying $7.25 a gallon for home heating oil as the days darken and the chill of winter seeps into the dozens of homes, most poorly insulated, along the Kobuk River.

The impoverished Inupiat Eskimo community of 280 welcomes any help in the costly drudgery of keeping warm, even if it comes, as critics point out, from a country engaged in a geopolitical spat with the U.S.

"When you have a dire need and it is a matter of survival for your people, it doesn't matter where, what country, the gift or donation comes from," said Virginia Commack, who at 56 years old is considered a young elder in Ambler.

Ambler and nearly 150 other Alaska Native villages have accepted money for heating oil from Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chavez, repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil" in a speech to the United Nations last month. Chavez has also called Bush a "terrorist," and denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The Venezuelan government, through its Texas-based oil company Citgo, plans to buy 100 gallons of heating oil this winter for each of more than 12,000 households in rural Alaska.

The donation has refocused attention on the rampant and longstanding problems in the oil-rich state's Native villages, where poverty, fuel prices, unemployment and unchecked crime far surpass national averages.

For years, Alaska Natives have reproached the state and federal governments for sending too little money to their tiny, far-flung communities. Many lie at least 100 miles off the state's skeletal road system in climates where winter temperatures routinely plummet far below zero. Fuel and grocery prices are bloated by the high costs of long-distance shipping by small plane and barge.

"It's pretty clear that the people need help and they're not going to get it here," said Steve Sumida, deputy director for the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council in Anchorage. "Who else is providing the assistance?"

A recent editorial in the Anchorage Daily News, the state's largest newspaper, bashed the Legislature's decision in March to reject an $8.8 million state supplement to a federal program that helps poor Alaskans with home heating costs. The program has not kept pace with inflation and rising fuel costs over the past decade.

"It's embarrassing that residents in a state with so much oil wealth should be looking to a foreign nation for help," the Sept. 26, editorial said. "It's hard to blame villagers for accepting the gift."

Senate Finance Co-Chairman Gary Wilken, R-Fairbanks, said at the time that the request was cut because it would be unsustainable should oil prices drop.

State revenue burgeoned this year as oil prices peaked to an all-time high of more than $70 a barrel. In 2005, 86 percent of the general fund, or $2.8 billion, came from oil, according to the state Department of Revenue. That does not include the oil royalty check sent each year to nearly every Alaska resident.

A spokesman for Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski said the governor believes the donation is a political ploy to undermine Americans' faith in their government, however, it's up to each village to make their own decision on the offer.

"It seems like a very strange irony that we produce the oil and yet every year there seems to be a chronic problem in getting the fuel to people that need it," John Manly said. "Governor Murkowski has tried to do that, but obviously there's still some work to be done. It's not an easy job to keep up with rising costs.

Of the communities tagged to receive the money in November all but a handful have accepted. Officials in four villages in the Aleutian and Pribilof islands rejected the offer because Chavez's comments offended them, but most recipients say survival trumps the faraway political fracas.

"When it comes to feeding and taking care of your family, you have to compromise sometimes," said Shield Downey, a part-time janitor at Ambler's health clinic. "I don't have anything against our government, but if it needs to be that we get assistance from a different source, so be it."

The money is slated for Tglingit and Haida Indians in southeast Alaska, Athabascan Indians in the Interior and Eskimos along the western coast. The villages that qualify for aid must be at least 75 percent Alaska Native, according to the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council.

Citgo has given millions of gallons of discounted heating oil to poor households in several states, including New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine.

Citgo, the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the U.S., does not operate in Alaska, but spokesman David McCollum said the company "wouldn't rule anything out" when it came to establishing a presence in the state.

To avoid the costs and complications of shipping oil to the villages, Citgo will send the monetary equivalent, about $5.3 million, to Native non-profit groups. The non-profits will purchase heating oil for each household directly from local retailers, Sumida said.

Each household in the program uses about 300 gallons of heating oil between November and February at an average cost per gallon of $4.45, according to early estimates by the council.

"A hundred gallons? That's a lot to me," said Jolene Nukusuk, office assistant at the health clinic in Hooper Bay, 500 miles west of Anchorage.

The Bering Sea town has an average winter low of minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit and Nukusuk said she has seen the thermometer dip to minus 40.

"Heating oil is over $5 a gallon here," Nukusuk said. "And it gets really cold."
http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar...regional/5caf81503a2b84e087257201002104ba.txt
 
No, the enemy of George Bush. Chavez may be the enemy of the Bush Administration, but is he really the enemy of the US? Just because the neocons say he is the enemy, does not make it so.

Since when is a communist the friend of the US? Your blind and unreasoning hatred of bush has led you to support an enemy of the US. Do I find that surprising in the least? No.
 
Since when is a communist the friend of the US? Your blind and unreasoning hatred of bush has led you to support an enemy of the US. Do I find that surprising in the least? No.

Just because Venezuela has a different political system than ours, does not automatically make them our enemy. Have they attacked us, when I wasn't looking? What makes Venezuela our enemy? Is it that mysterious, elusive, "they support terrorism", excuse? The same excuse the Bush Administration has used, time, after time, after time, to justify their policies. And you know what, some people are still falling for it.
 
Actually - I wonder about that.

What do automobile fatality statistics look like in countries where the majority of cars are lighter and smaller and fuel efficiency is stressed?

Here's an interesting table: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2003.htm

You are of course right.


What some people want to do is ram a Prius with a Hummer and then say look how poorly that Prius came out of it.

The goal to any reasonable mind is to get most vehicles to a fairly comparable good gas mileage type & size with all the advanced air bag and safety added features. If you look at how safe cars were back in the days without padded dashes and steering wheels/seat belts/anti lock brakes/air bags/shock absorbing bumpers/and designated crumple zones it is unquestionable cars are safer now comparatively.

There will always be some 18 wheeler or full size work truck hitting a smaller vehicle and causing devastating damage. But we can definitely make cars safe to drive that through various technologies get much better mileage. Overseas where gas prices are much higher than the US a mid-size US car is a full size luxury land yaht... :D

As for fuel there are many ways and types of plants to create ethanol from. Bio-diesel is a proven performer and would be get for local school bus and metro bus fleets that stay in one basic place so a city could easily get by with a small number of bio-diesel fuel stations. Hybrids really save gas big time and even better ones are on the way. I even watched a story on several retired gentlemen that have all electric cars that they are thrilled with for their limited in town driving.

It's the mixture of the new into the old just like it always is. It's evolution ;). Necessity is the mother of invention.
 
Looks like plenty of Alaskans were accepting Chavez's offer. I say, good for them as well.
We don't have a Citgo station near to where I live(I checked), as I was already to gas up there exclusively. Like the proverb says, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I gave the fuel to my then GF Umma(grandmother). She needed it more than me. For many people it was quite helpful. Basically 500-700 dollars worth. Last winter was pretty cold compared to others in recent history. Keep in mind that 100 gallons in the average rural Alaskan home in the dead of winter burns that in 2-3 weeks.

Again there were more than a few villages who said we dont want fuel from Chavez. This was announced one week, everyone was glad. Then the next week Chavez made his comments at the UN about Bush, then they said screw your fuel.

Interesting to point out that not very many rural Alaskans knew who the hell he was, or that Citgo was. No Citgo stations in AK. International politics is usually pretty low on the minds of us folks out here. I am one of a few.

Also in terms of Exxon, if they fell off the face of the Earth tomorrow, I would jump for glee and give Palerider a bearhug.
 

You are of course right.


What some people want to do is ram a Prius with a Hummer and then say look how poorly that Prius came out of it.

The goal to any reasonable mind is to get most vehicles to a fairly comparable good gas mileage type & size with all the advanced air bag and safety added features. If you look at how safe cars were back in the days without padded dashes and steering wheels/seat belts/anti lock brakes/air bags/shock absorbing bumpers/and designated crumple zones it is unquestionable cars are safer now comparatively.

There will always be some 18 wheeler or full size work truck hitting a smaller vehicle and causing devastating damage. But we can definitely make cars safe to drive that through various technologies get much better mileage. Overseas where gas prices are much higher than the US a mid-size US car is a full size luxury land yaht... :D

As for fuel there are many ways and types of plants to create ethanol from. Bio-diesel is a proven performer and would be get for local school bus and metro bus fleets that stay in one basic place so a city could easily get by with a small number of bio-diesel fuel stations. Hybrids really save gas big time and even better ones are on the way. I even watched a story on several retired gentlemen that have all electric cars that they are thrilled with for their limited in town driving.

It's the mixture of the new into the old just like it always is. It's evolution ;). Necessity is the mother of invention.

Interesting points!

I looked up some safety ratings. On http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx - there are several small cars (like the Honda Civic) that rated just as well as larger vehicles.
 
TopGun, while I dont disagree, and there are plenty of people who drive vehicles larger than they need. Many do need larger vehicles for actual usage. There are three trucks parked in my driveway. A car simply wouldnt work for the needs I have in a vehicle.
 
Since when is a communist the friend of the US?

It's happened before.

11224cs.jpg


I wish I could find one that I saw in high school which had a big, smiling picture of Stalin with the caption, "Uncle Joe the Friendly Commie is Our Friend!"
 
Werbung:
Back
Top