Modern Sports Cars...Useless?

[pjkenned]

Well... my car only has a H6 so I don't know about the whole "V8" thing. Heck those PR people convinced most people that engines should be in FRONT of you. LOL!

Now... the whole red v. yellow brake thing... I love my brakes (red) but the $10,000ish option to go ceramic seems a bit excessive for the street. Then again, I push the brake pedal down hard all the time.

Oh wait, I'm biased.

 

[SparkyJJO]

It wouldn't be a problem at all if we 1. Didn't have to worry about the environmental effects such as global warming and 2. weren't importing oil...

1 is not a problem - man-made global warming (and all its derivatives) is a big scam. Heck, for all that CO2 you try and save by mandating less emissions of it, we get a big volcanic eruption that dwarfs the next 50 years of emissions anyway 😛

2 is a "small" problem, in a sense.... I really feel we should be drilling and refining as much oil as we are able, instead of letting it sit under our ground untouched and letting other countries and global market determine our prices of a commodity we could come up with ourselves. But still, this boils down to cost and what people are willing to pay. If someone is willing to pay the extra for the gas to run his sports car (or truck for that matter) then that's just fine. His choice. Someone else who doesn't, and wants the best mpg he can get, can buy the econobox if he wants.

 

[exdeath]

Sarcometer? 🙄

Busted apparently

 

[Zenmervolt]

From what I've noticed, 40K miles seems to be the point where vehicles start becoming significantly less and less clean.

The emissions testing reports from my own cars would beg to differ. With 127,000 miles my Volvo ran through tests emitting absolutely no detectable CO and a mere 5 PPM of residual HC.

My 24-year-old 951 with a performance chip and over 165,000 miles ran through testing with 0.04% CO and only 32 PPM of residual HC.

Neither car shows any statistically-significant deviation over the years of maintenance and emissions records that I have for each.

Engines don't just start to get dirty with mileage. The emissions get dirty because idiots don't take care of their cars. It takes some rather significant neglect (or significant aftermarket tuning) to let emissions get out of control on a car.

2) I like feel good stuff, much like you like feeling good about driving your vehicle however much fuel it uses. Getting people into lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles is the hardest part, once we get them to accept it as the norm, fuel efficiency improvements will be a hell of a lot easier.. It's difficult to expect a 3 ton vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick to get decent mileage whether it's gasoline powered or electrically powered.

The difference here is that my "feel-good stuff" doesn't involve forcing other people to behave a certain way. Your "feel-good" desire to avoid importing oil places significant and objectionable limitations on how other people are permitted to live their lives.

I could go on about the innate abhorrence of any idea that involves "get[ting people] to accept [something] as the norm", but this isn't P&N, so I'll let that part drop.

ZV

 

[obamanation]

given your username, I'm surprised you're spouting off on that farce. Hasn't CO2 been disqualified as a source of global warming since 2008?

No it hasn't been disproven... Also whether or not global warming is really being caused by humans, what IS an issue that is going to get worse is that the coral are dying because the ocean is absorbing all of the CO2 which is causing the ocean to get more acidic which the Coral do not like. If we fuck up the ocean because of our idiocy and indifference, you can say goodbye to all the seafood you enjoy and you'll get to enjoy whatever survives... Shark anyone?

No arguments there. Which is why I think nuclear power plants and offshore drilling as a present energy policy will tide us over until hydrogen and other forms of energy become more viable. The left seems to think we're in a different universe where every SOB lives on a farm and only needs a bloody windmill to power his TV.

Offshore drilling isn't going to solve any thing, it won't help or hurt the price of anything and it's just going to piss off the liberals. The sooner we stop emitting CO2, the better and if that means locking out access to known repositories of CO2 (unburned hydrocarbons) then fine by me. We can't control other countries but we CAN control our own..

These statistics are really cute, but I'm not sure how true they really are, or how much manipulation of various factors was done to make these stats come out the way they do. The fact is, we're going to be importing oil for a long time, but at least we can get a head start and not fill terrorist pockets in the future.

I think Obama's energy policy is the one thing I could get behind, but I haven't read too much about the caveats of it and so forth.

Well I wasn't so sure about the statistics either until I bothered to do some calculations on the DOE website based upon their numbers and it turns out, it's about correct. I mean sure semi-trucks and work trucks use an ass load of fuel, a lot a lot a lot, but even a semi-truck that gets 5mpg is still only using 10X as much fuel as one 50mpg car. So in other words, 1 semi-truck=10 prius drivers.. It's a lot of savings but I'm pretty sure at the very minimum there are probably like 1000 drivers to every semi-truck on the road. On average, passenger vehicles get 20mpg in the United States, if you cut fuel consumption in half (40mpg), we'd definitely not be importing oil from OPEC (though technically we could but that's another story) and we wouldn't be importing very much oil at all... Though if people drive more in response to this, the gains will be negated a bit.

Try playing around with this tool:http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard/calculator

Yes I'm aware Google is run by "liberal hippies" but the notion that 40mpg avg being the "magical number" is fairly consistent and I was able to independently verify it myself.. If you want to take the time to verify it yourself, be my guest and do the calculations based upon the info at this site:http://www.energy.gov/energyefficiency/index.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/index.html

 

[Tristicus]

My car has an I4.

I want a V6 at least.

D:

 

[thomsbrain]

no road in america supports travel at 150 mph. the reason the autobahn does is because it's really fucking expensive.

Actually, I did a lot of research on speed limits once for a project and it turns out that the interstate system is built to the same standards for speed as the autobahn. In fact, if you see videos of the autobahn, it's a lot scarier than most American interstates outside of the urban areas.

 

[BoberFett]

I think most fun happens at the limits of whatever you are driving. If you have too capable of a car, those limits, and associated fun will not be very accessible on the road.
For me the most fun cars are those that have good handling at the limit but not too much grip and power. I can open the taps on them on public roads and toss them into corners without going to jail, and have a lot of fun. I think Mazda is one of few companies that lives by that philosophy.

Ah, you enjoy endangering your fellow motorists by driving at the limits of whatever your driving. I hope you roll your Geo Tracker and kill yourself.

 

[obamanation]

The emissions testing reports from my own cars would beg to differ. With 127,000 miles my Volvo ran through tests emitting absolutely no detectable CO and a mere 5 PPM of residual HC.

My 24-year-old 951 with a performance chip and over 165,000 miles ran through testing with 0.04% CO and only 32 PPM of residual HC.

Neither car shows any statistically-significant deviation over the years of maintenance and emissions records that I have for each.

Engines don't just start to get dirty with mileage. The emissions get dirty because idiots don't take care of their cars. It takes some rather significant neglect (or significant aftermarket tuning) to let emissions get out of control on a car.



The difference here is that my "feel-good stuff" doesn't involve forcing other people to behave a certain way. Your "feel-good" desire to avoid importing oil places significant and objectionable limitations on how other people are permitted to live their lives.

I could go on about the innate abhorrence of any idea that involves "get[ting people] to accept [something] as the norm", but this isn't P&N, so I'll let that part drop.

ZV

Well that 40K mile thing was more about the time when the vehicle actually starts emitting emissions like PM, HC, NOX, etc.. Never seen a non fresh car (engine not rebuilt) with 100K miles where it only emitted CO2. Also do you do a lot of highway driving? While your Porsche has a PPM of 32 for HC, you forgot to mention NOX. Also once again, the PPM doesn't help because a 4L with 32PPM of emissions is still a hell of a lot more than a metro with 1L and 40PPM of emissions.. The point I was making was that the new SUV isn't cleaner than the New but old metro just because emissions standards have increased. Libtards like the new cars on the roads not necessarily because they're cleaner (they are) but because when they start getting dirty (emissions wise) they'll be kicked off the road sooner compared to a 1990 car that is barely running. A perfectly new 1990 Metro is quite capable of having just CO2 as its only emission.

As for the "feel good".. You may not give a shit about whether or not people are emitting too much CO2 but I don't give a shit about whether or not your 2.5 ton mustang can do 0-60 in 5 seconds or less... Also for every automotive enthusiast like you, there are about 100 who aren't, yet are getting the same fuel economy as you are.

 

[JMapleton]

I agree with him in regards to how useless 400hp in a luxury sedan is. Some people want that sort of power, I don't disagree, but do Joe Smith in suburbia the marketing manager need 400hp?

You want to be a cool dude with a fast car, that's fine, live that life. Don't be some parking lot poser with a 400hp BMW driving around your suit and tie thinking you're Steve McQueen, you're not, you're Bob the marketing manager.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Well that 40K mile thing was more about the time when the vehicle actually starts emitting emissions like PM, HC, NOX, etc.. Never seen a non fresh car (engine not rebuilt) with 100K miles where it only emitted CO2. Also do you do a lot of highway driving? While your Porsche has a PPM of 32 for HC, you forgot to mention NOX. Also once again, the PPM doesn't help because a 4L with 32PPM of emissions is still a hell of a lot more than a metro with 1L and 40PPM of emissions.. The point I was making was that the new SUV isn't cleaner than the New but old metro just because emissions standards have increased. Libtards like the new cars on the roads not necessarily because they're cleaner (they are) but because when they start getting dirty (emissions wise) they'll be kicked off the road sooner compared to a 1990 car that is barely running. A perfectly new 1990 Metro is quite capable of having just CO2 as its only emission.

Actually, you're well off base. A 4L engine doesn't flow appreciably more air than a 1L engine for a given steady-state cruise. A 4L engine does not push 4x the air through itself as a 1L engine except at WOT and very, very, very little driving is done like that.

A perfectly new 1990 Metro was not set up to meet current emissions standards. It's simply not going to do as well as the newest cars which use more advanced catalysts and have more precise fuel metering.

As for the "feel good".. You may not give a shit about whether or not people are emitting too much CO2 but I don't give a shit about whether or not your 2.5 ton mustang can do 0-60 in 5 seconds or less... Also for every automotive enthusiast like you, there are about 100 who aren't, yet are getting the same fuel economy as you are.

Clearly you did not read a single word of my comment on this portion of your reply. The difference is that you are attempting to force others to conform to your preferences while I am not forcing anyone to conform to my vehicular preferences. You are advocating a rather reprehensible restriction of personal freedoms. Until and unless you understand that, you won't be able to address this point.

ZV

 

[RU482]

They're about as useless as owning your own house (apartment is enough for vast majority of people & situations), eating out (cheaper to cook at home), going on vacation (you can see pictures of places from your computer), fast computers (slow ones will still take you to the same places), or owning anything but utilitarian clothes.

/bravo!

 

[LTC8K6]

There are plenty of times when 0-60 is useful. Want to aurally attack that asshole? Take off in first to 60mph in his face. I love doing this to cops that have already pulled someone over.

In many place you can get a ticket for that. Showing off is an exhibition of speed.

 

[MotF Bane]

lolumad?

 

[obamanation]

Actually, you're well off base. A 4L engine doesn't flow appreciably more air than a 1L engine for a given steady-state cruise. A 4L engine does not push 4x the air through itself as a 1L engine except at WOT and very, very, very little driving is done like that.

Actually it does, that's how displacement works.. You're assuming that the 1L is at WOT on the dyno while the 4L is at such a small throttle opening that it's actually flowing less or the same amount of air as the 1L and that's certainly not the case. Just because both vehicles are producing between 20-50hp while cruising, doesn't mean the 4L is flowing the same amount of air as the 1L. If the 4L was, then it'd be consuming the same amount of fuel as the 1L and then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

A perfectly new 1990 Metro was not set up to meet current emissions standards. It's simply not going to do as well as the newest cars which use more advanced catalysts and have more precise fuel metering.

You actually don't know that. While it's true the fuel metering is less accurate and advanced, once it's warmed, the cars should perform equally under most circumstances. Most of the improvements in the last 20 years (after the introduction of Fuel Injection) in emissions is actually in startup and believe it or not, at WOT. The catalytic converter takes care of the job of poor fuel metering.. if there is even an issue at all. Also at a steady cruise like on a dynamometer, a faster computer, more sensors, etc. aren't going to help all that much. Those improvements mostly help in changing conditions like with increases and decreases in load... Just keep in mind that there isn't any benefit to having excess HC or CO emissions as that means wasted fuel which is why having loose emissions standards doesn't guarantee dirtier cars especially if the vehicle is designed with fuel economy in mind.

Clearly you did not read a single word of my comment on this portion of your reply. The difference is that you are attempting to force others to conform to your preferences while I am not forcing anyone to conform to my vehicular preferences. You are advocating a rather reprehensible restriction of personal freedoms. Until and unless you understand that, you won't be able to address this point.

Well your choices are going to force upon me and anyone that comes after me a degraded environment... HC, NOX, sulfur, what ever deteriorate quite quickly and while they're absolutely awful and are hurting everyone who comes in contact with it, CO2 is something that is going to stay around for a while and it's effects are going to continue to haunt us long after we've solved the CO2 problem.. This is assuming we even bother to solve the problem at all.. People are incredibly selfish, as you have clearly proven which is one of many reasons why socialism could never work.

I want to make it clear that I'm very much against a totalitarian regime and the direction this country is going in, whether democrat or republican. Just look at this nonsense:http://www.dailytech.com/ACTA+Draft...gine+Development+is+Criminal/article18183.htm

But at the end of the day, technology will in time make up the difference between the onerous emissions requirements and the performance loss because of them.

At the end of the day though, all these efficiency improvements (food, water, energy) are just delaying the inevitable, which is the point in time where there will simply be too many people to sustain the lifestyle that we've all become accustomed to..

We're like goddamn deer without a predator.. What happens to deer populations that are allowed to grow out of control? They all starve to death, that's what... If there weren't so many damn people, this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Actually it does, that's how displacement works.. You're assuming that the 1L is at WOT on the dyno while the 4L is at such a small throttle opening that it's actually flowing less or the same amount of air as the 1L and that's certainly not the case. Just because both vehicles are producing between 20-50hp while cruising, doesn't mean the 4L is flowing the same amount of air as the 1L. If the 4L was, then it'd be consuming the same amount of fuel as the 1L and then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Uh, no. A 4L engine only flows 4x the air of a 1L engine if both are at WOT. At part-throttle openings, the larger engine does not flow 4x more air.

Also, the 1L engine will always need a larger throttle opening, which is what makes it more efficient at turning fuel into power while a car is at speed. Still, the increase in flow is not proportional to the increase in displacement.

Cars that offer similar performance, regardless of displacement, burn about the same fuel. That's why a C6 Corvette and an S2000 get about the same mileage in mixed driving despite the S2000 having a 2.0 or 2.2 litre engine while the C6 Corvette has anywhere from 6.0 to 7.0 litres of displacement.

You are grossly over-simplifying by claiming that it all comes down to displacement.

You actually don't know that. While it's true the fuel metering is less accurate and advanced, once it's warmed, the cars should perform equally under most circumstances. Most of the improvements in the last 20 years (after the introduction of Fuel Injection) in emissions is actually in startup and believe it or not, at WOT. The catalytic converter takes care of the job of poor fuel metering.. if there is even an issue at all. Also at a steady cruise like on a dynamometer, a faster computer, more sensors, etc. aren't going to help all that much. Those improvements mostly help in changing conditions like with increases and decreases in load... Just keep in mind that there isn't any benefit to having excess HC or CO emissions as that means wasted fuel which is why having loose emissions standards doesn't guarantee dirtier cars especially if the vehicle is designed with fuel economy in mind.

So you're agreeing that cars don't see degradation in emissions with age now. Interesting about-face on this claim.

Also, no, the catalytic converter absolutely does not, "take care of the job of poor fuel metering." If the mixture is too lean the cat will get burnt out due to excessive exhaust gas temperatures and if the mixture is too rich the excess HC will clog the cat. Either condition will rapidly render a cat ineffective. If you sincerely believe that the catalytic converter's purpose is to accommodate imprecise mixture control then you're more than a little misinformed. Catalytic converters actually require far more precise control of mixture than was necessary before their introduction.

Well your choices are going to force upon me and anyone that comes after me a degraded environment... HC, NOX, sulfur, what ever deteriorate quite quickly and while they're absolutely awful and are hurting everyone who comes in contact with it, CO2 is something that is going to stay around for a while and it's effects are going to continue to haunt us long after we've solved the CO2 problem.. This is assuming we even bother to solve the problem at all.. People are incredibly selfish, as you have clearly proven which is one of many reasons why socialism could never work.

Actually, the total human contribution to CO2 is 3% and there is no evidence that this 3% has any meaningful affect. There's actually no evidence that freedom will definitively cause anything to "haunt" any of us.

I want to make it clear that I'm very much against a totalitarian regime and the direction this country is going in, whether democrat or republican. Just look at this nonsense:http://www.dailytech.com/ACTA+Draft...gine+Development+is+Criminal/article18183.htm

Easy for you to claim, but the things you have actually been advocating clearly show that you are either knowingly lying or are simply so deluded that you are able to honestly believe what you claim despite its obvious contradiction.

But at the end of the day, technology will in time make up the difference between the onerous emissions requirements and the performance loss because of them.

At the end of the day though, all these efficiency improvements (food, water, energy) are just delaying the inevitable, which is the point in time where there will simply be too many people to sustain the lifestyle that we've all become accustomed to..

We're like goddamn deer without a predator.. What happens to deer populations that are allowed to grow out of control? They all starve to death, that's what... If there weren't so many damn people, this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue.

Every animal will eventually reach equilibrium. The birth rate in 1st-world countries has been below the sustainability level for some time now; every bit of observed evidence suggests that as the standard of living increases, birth rates decline.

At some point humanity will reach equilibrium. And at some point we will figure out long-distance travel through space; perhaps it will be before resources increase in scarcity and perhaps it won't, but it will happen in time. And the increase in prices that is caused by scarcity of resources will take care of any rationing that needs to be done. There's no need for the sorts of Procrustean "solutions" that you have been advocating.

ZV

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I went from a 98 Cavalier (cheap, sensible econobox) to an 06 Lincoln LS. Does 280+HP do anything more for me? Strictly speaking, no, but I love the hell out of the LS 😀

 

[obamanation]

Uh, no. A 4L engine only flows 4x the air of a 1L engine if both are at WOT. At part-throttle openings, the larger engine does not flow 4x more air.

Also, the 1L engine will always need a larger throttle opening, which is what makes it more efficient at turning fuel into power while a car is at speed. Still, the increase in flow is not proportional to the increase in displacement.

Now that I think about it, you are correct. However that brings up the most important and the only important point.. That is fuel economy... The lower the fuel economy, the more air that has gone through the engine and out the tail pipe.. If the emissions standards was grams per mile instead of PPM, it'd be a lot more logical IMO. Instead we have a system that caters to vehicles that have poor fuel economy and hurts those that have excellent fuel economy.

So you're agreeing that cars don't see degradation in emissions with age now. Interesting about-face on this claim.

That's not what I said... I said over the past 20 years, emissions improvements have been mostly limited to certain things. I don't see where I say anywhere that an aged vehicle doesn't have worse emissions than a new vehicle. My point is, it's not the age of the technology, meaning what the car can and can't do, but how worn down the car is from wear and tear. You can take a 2010 Prius, put a little sand in the oil (replicate the C4C except not killing it entirely), making the car run like crap and I can assure you that it will pollute far worse than that 20 year old civic with 220K city miles on it that has had its oil changed on time. A brand new 1990 Geo Metro in top working condition, when warmed up and in closed loop mode is pretty likely to emit only CO2 and it doesn't get better than that for emissions.

Let me try to clarify this very simply...
I'm fairly certain (though unverified) that a brand new 1990 Geo Metro is going to have about the same or better emissions than a 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe with 150K miles on it and was maintained like most people maintain their cars... Also I think the emissions of your car you presented are indicative enough of how even a well maintained car (this is all an assumption) will start to emit more pollution as it ages because things over time wear out..

Actually, the total human contribution to CO2 is 3% and there is no evidence that this 3% has any meaningful affect. There's actually no evidence that freedom will definitively cause anything to "haunt" any of us.

Yeah ok... So I see you're a Global Warming denier and that you're just going to blame everything else besides yourself... You call that freedom but what about my freedom to use DDT or dispose of my motor oil in a storm drain? Or are you ok with that too? This discussion about CO2 causing global warming and limiting the output of CO2 from people's vehicles isn't going to get anywhere until people such as yourself realize that it is a very real threat and that it's our fault.. I'm sure if you were given the opportunity, you'd blame MTBE and Lead not on the fuel you're using but because of Volcanoes.. Yes I am aware they emit things that are bad for the environment and all that crap but that doesn't give people an excuse to do it as well. That's like saying that because earthquakes kill people, me going on a killing spree is OK despite us knowing that it really isn't OK to do that.

Easy for you to claim, but the things you have actually been advocating clearly show that you are either knowingly lying or are simply so deluded that you are able to honestly believe what you claim despite its obvious contradiction.

I don't know what you're trying to say here so I'm just going to skip it.

Every animal will eventually reach equilibrium. The birth rate in 1st-world countries has been below the sustainability level for some time now; every bit of observed evidence suggests that as the standard of living increases, birth rates decline.

At some point humanity will reach equilibrium. And at some point we will figure out long-distance travel through space; perhaps it will be before resources increase in scarcity and perhaps it won't, but it will happen in time. And the increase in prices that is caused by scarcity of resources will take care of any rationing that needs to be done. There's no need for the sorts of Procrustean "solutions" that you have been advocating.

Mmm, I think we're headed for a future of "idiocracy" (movie).. Also the Muslims and Catholics show no plans to stop breeding as bad as that sounds.. Hope for the best, expect the worst.. Also with a higher standard of living means more pollution so even if the population gets cut in half, the increase in pollution of 5 billion+ people getting a higher standard of living is going to be completely and totally unsustainable. If everyone in china had the standard of living that Mexicans so enjoy, we'll all be fucked in a number of ways..

 

[obamanation]

I went from a 98 Cavalier (cheap, sensible econobox) to an 06 Lincoln LS. Does 280+HP do anything more for me? Strictly speaking, no, but I love the hell out of the LS 😀

Actually, IMO, the Cavalier has nothing going for it either in the fuel economy department or the performance department, so whatever...

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Actually, IMO, the Cavalier has nothing going for it either in the fuel economy department or the performance department, so whatever...

Uhm, it's a freaking 12 year old econocar. WTF do you want out of it for the $1000 I paid for it back in 2005 with 75k miles and in perfect condition (other than worn tires and a small crack in a dash piece)? 😉
I get about 20mpg in town, 30mpg on the highway doing 75mph and have driven a couple of trips to MN at 105mph (hitting the speed governor).

 

[Zenmervolt]

Also I think the emissions of your car you presented are indicative enough of how even a well maintained car (this is all an assumption) will start to emit more pollution as it ages because things over time wear out..

If you think that, then you haven't read what I posted along with the numbers. Neither car shows any meaningful change in emissions over all the test reports I have for them. In fact, the emissions for the 951 are better at 165,000 miles than they were 25,000 miles ago, albeit by such a small amount that it falls within sampling error.

The testing history I have for my cars indicates no changes in emissions throughout the ownership period. A person would have to be willfully stupid to believe that documentation of no changes somehow supports a claim that emissions get worse with age.

Yeah ok... So I see you're a Global Warming denier and that you're just going to blame everything else besides yourself... You call that freedom but what about my freedom to use DDT or dispose of my motor oil in a storm drain? Or are you ok with that too? This discussion about CO2 causing global warming and limiting the output of CO2 from people's vehicles isn't going to get anywhere until people such as yourself realize that it is a very real threat and that it's our fault.. I'm sure if you were given the opportunity, you'd blame MTBE and Lead not on the fuel you're using but because of Volcanoes.. Yes I am aware they emit things that are bad for the environment and all that crap but that doesn't give people an excuse to do it as well. That's like saying that because earthquakes kill people, me going on a killing spree is OK despite us knowing that it really isn't OK to do that.

Ah, yes. Rather than arguing the point I've actually made, you invent a different argument that I haven't made and you ridicule that.

What I actually said was that man's contribution to CO2 levels was a mere 3% and that there is no evidence that this minuscule contribution is affecting anything. Climate change is most certainly a real phenomenon. The climate of the earth has cycled many times throughout history and will continue to do so until the sun expands and envelopes the earth. What is far from certain (indeed, even far from statistically likely) is that humans' CO2 emissions are causing any meaningful deviation from the natural cycling which would occur regardless.

I don't know what you're trying to say here so I'm just going to skip it.

I'm saying that you cannot simultaneously claim to be against totalitarianism while shouting that everyone's freedom must be constrained to fit within your own view. The two viewpoints are inherently contradictory and a person who claims to hold both is either a liar or is deluded. There are no other options.

Mmm, I think we're headed for a future of "idiocracy" (movie)..

Yeah, because it used to be that the intelligent upper classes had more children while the recent reversal of this trend has dragged IQ and education levels steadily downward.

Oh, wait, that's not true at all. In fact, every historical record we have confirms the observation that as the standard of living increases, birth rates tend to drop while average IQ and education levels tend to climb.

Also the Muslims and Catholics show no plans to stop breeding as bad as that sounds.. Hope for the best, expect the worst..

Wow. Not only is that observation flat wrong (there have been major declines in Catholic birth rates in both Spain and Italy as both countries have developed economically in post WWII Europe), it also manages to be vaguely racist.

The simple fact of the matter is that, while religion does play a secondary role in driving birth rates, it is nowhere near as influential as a country's per-capita GDP. Economic development (and its associated increase in the standard of living) is easily the single most effective contraceptive at the macro level.

Also with a higher standard of living means more pollution

Which is, of course, why pollution levels in the US have fallen since the 1970's by every conceivable measure while the standard of living has continued to increase to such a point that, even when adjusting for inflation, the average family at the poverty line today has more spending money than a middle-class family of the 1960's.

so even if the population gets cut in half, the increase in pollution of 5 billion+ people getting a higher standard of living is going to be completely and totally unsustainable. If everyone in china had the standard of living that Mexicans so enjoy, we'll all be fucked in a number of ways..

I think we've pretty much debunked this in the previous comment.

Essentially, we've shown here that you are either unable or unwilling to process actual data and instead choose to rely upon whatever un-investigated a-priori conclusions happen to make you feel good.

ZV

 

[obamanation]

Uhm, it's a freaking 12 year old econocar. WTF do you want out of it for the $1000 I paid for it back in 2005 with 75k miles and in perfect condition (other than worn tires and a small crack in a dash piece)? 😉
I get about 20mpg in town, 30mpg on the highway doing 75mph and have driven a couple of trips to MN at 105mph (hitting the speed governor).

I'm not saying it wasn't smart of you to buy, but to say it was fuel efficient is a joke. If you're going to waste gas, make it worthwhile... But like I said, awful fuel economy... 20 mpg city, 30mpg highway is awful... A civic is comparable in size, weight and performance and has much better fuel economy.

 

[obamanation]

If you think that, then you haven't read what I posted along with the numbers. Neither car shows any meaningful change in emissions over all the test reports I have for them. In fact, the emissions for the 951 are better at 165,000 miles than they were 25,000 miles ago, albeit by such a small amount that it falls within sampling error.

The testing history I have for my cars indicates no changes in emissions throughout the ownership period. A person would have to be willfully stupid to believe that documentation of no changes somehow supports a claim that emissions get worse with age.

Have you owned these vehicles their entire lives? Do you really have smog reports from the car being smogged the first time? I'd like to see those numbers..

Ah, yes. Rather than arguing the point I've actually made, you invent a different argument that I haven't made and you ridicule that.

What I actually said was that man's contribution to CO2 levels was a mere 3% and that there is no evidence that this minuscule contribution is affecting anything. Climate change is most certainly a real phenomenon. The climate of the earth has cycled many times throughout history and will continue to do so until the sun expands and envelopes the earth. What is far from certain (indeed, even far from statistically likely) is that humans' CO2 emissions are causing any meaningful deviation from the natural cycling which would occur regardless.

Great.. so you know global warming and Co2 amounts are real but refuse to admit it's man's fault... wonderful... You're still basically a "denier".. So let's pretend you agree with my belief that it's man's fault and that it's getting worse in a hurry... What would you do to fix the problem? Would you do what I'm advocating for?

I'm saying that you cannot simultaneously claim to be against totalitarianism while shouting that everyone's freedom must be constrained to fit within your own view. The two viewpoints are inherently contradictory and a person who claims to hold both is either a liar or is deluded. There are no other options.

Great, so now that because I believe people shouldn't pollute, I have to be as bad as the people who want to control every facet of one's life? Does it really have to be black and white? Please, just take your opinions about whether or not man's emissions of CO2 is causing these problems out of the equation for a second and tell me what you think would be the most free and equitable solution to this problem? Because frankly, I feel like the exercise of your freedoms is infringing on mine. This is NOT the same as taking away my economic freedom to "help" those "less fortunate" because if a person succeeds or rots in a gutter has far less of an effect on me than someone using DDT or dumping toxic waste into the ocean and poisoning the food I eat..

Yeah, because it used to be that the intelligent upper classes had more children while the recent reversal of this trend has dragged IQ and education levels steadily downward.

Oh, wait, that's not true at all. In fact, every historical record we have confirms the observation that as the standard of living increases, birth rates tend to drop while average IQ and education levels tend to climb.

Average IQ tends to climb... lulz.. You realize that "average IQ" is always around 100, right? The whole point is to make it an "average".. Also you seem to think that the quality of life is improving in the very nations that have population control problems but it is not. Why else does the Philippines, Middle Eastern Countries, Central and South America, India have issues with population control? I see no significant slow down in population growth in those areas.

Wow. Not only is that observation flat wrong (there have been major declines in Catholic birth rates in both Spain and Italy as both countries have developed economically in post WWII Europe), it also manages to be vaguely racist.

See the statement above..

The simple fact of the matter is that, while religion does play a secondary role in driving birth rates, it is nowhere near as influential as a country's per-capita GDP. Economic development (and its associated increase in the standard of living) is easily the single most effective contraceptive at the macro level.

I'm sure it is, but that doesn't change the fact that some countries aren't getting any better and if anything are getting worse..

Which is, of course, why pollution levels in the US have fallen since the 1970's by every conceivable measure while the standard of living has continued to increase to such a point that, even when adjusting for inflation, the average family at the poverty line today has more spending money than a middle-class family of the 1960's.

The problem is, you don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant.. For the purpose of burning sequestered CO2, it's a pollutant because you're re-introducing something into the environment that doesn't belong.. Well it does belong if you think dinosaurs and an assload of things from several hundred million years ago belong..

 

[vshah]

i think i'm going to go for a nice drive today just to get this nonsense out of my head 😀

 

[jlee]

Great.. so you know global warming and Co2 amounts are real but refuse to admit it's man's fault... wonderful... You're still basically a "denier".. So let's pretend you agree with my belief that it's man's fault and that it's getting worse in a hurry... What would you do to fix the problem? Would you do what I'm advocating for?

Your reading comprehension isn't very impressive...

I'm going to find an onramp and go WOT just to piss you off. 😀