I think you are going down a dangerous slippery slope when you start letting your politics interpret/influence your science.
Dan

 

Cleaner air is better for all of us and I don't think anyone can argue that.

The lopsided Kyoto Protocol is the main component in my hypothesis. Even
though the US is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses we also have
the strongest economy. The U.N. put unrealistic expectations on the US
so we would be forced into buying pollution credits from other countries
such as Russia (whose economy and population are flat). Redistribution.
Penalize the ones who can pay. Meanwhile India and China are exempt.
Having the U.N. as the driving force behind this is reason enough not
to trust it. No wonder the Clinton Adminstration were the first to reject it.

Pollution legislation here in the US is often loaded with similar loopholes.
It rarely works out with everyone paying their fair share. Those who
contribute to political campaigns will be treated less harshly. The rest
will be targeted by the media when it suits the agenda. You're right
though, the consumer ultimately foots the bill. Another luxury tax on
our beloved Porsches...

Ooh boy, don't know if I should have gotten involved in this thread!

 

Sure, the global warming is a big debate.
Wikipedia has nice articles about it, both sides.

Now, global warming or not, I'm happy that our cars don't pollute like they did before. Go to Ecuador, in Quito for example. You'll see what a crowded city with high emissions vehicles looks like. Reducing emissions is good.

I think in Europe they're discussing about a "gaz guzzler tax". People with those cars would pay an extra tax. That sucks, gas is already expensive out there (and mostly because of taxes), so if you have a gas guzzler, you already pay more taxes. Why would you have to pay twice ? (I may go back there someday, and the 993 would probably come with me...)


The biggest problem here is to ask people to change their habits. That's the typical change curve (denial, resistance, exploration, committment).
I was pissed when 10 years ago it was clear that 2-strokes dirt bikes would gradually dissapear, because of those "political-ecologists" who knew nothing about dirt bikes... Same arguments : it's a small market, there aren't that many dirt bikes in the world compared to the trucks, planes, ... and so on.
Well, guess what, the 4-strokes engines we have now are even better ! (well, I miss that 2-stroke banzai power curve thing... but still, 4 strokes are better !)

The global warming may be another false alarm, or not. The safe approach would be to consider it as a real thing. Don't shoot at it unless you have real arguments. Reducing our emmissions won't hurt. I'm pissed when I see extreme reactions, on one side or the other. But I think I see more reaction from the people that deny the global warming, usually with fake arguments. The fanatics who will chain themselves, they are the real minority here.
And I see the same reactions about recycling, which is a hot topic right now in my community. People just don't want to change.

Just think good things will come from the changes. Have you seen what VW does with a 1.4 liter gasoline engine ? 174 HP !!!
Why not a similar (well... better) Porsche engine with a smaller displacement than the current ones, variable geometry turbo + other goodies, lightweight, more RPMs,... less emissions, better gas mileage ? Who wants a 2 liter flat 6 with 300 HP, 35 mpg ?

Just my .02,

PS : For the Austin guys (and others) complaining about the cold weather : just ENJOY it. Take a picture of the thermometer. You'll miss it when you'll reach 110 in a few months. And remember NOW is the season to work on your car if you don't have AC in the garage !

 

Fake arguments??? Any argument is to be silenced! The official state
Climatologist of Oregon may be fired by the Governer because he disagrees
that global climate change is the fault of mankind. The Weather Channel's Dr
Heidi Cullen thinks that any meteriologist who disagrees should have their
credentials revoked. What BS!

A major volcanic eruption with a major ash discharge could swing the climate
back the other way. An asteroid shot on the earth could finish us all. We don't
control it all.

I need a snack...

 

I have to agree with you. I really enjoyed reading that book and i'd recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.

 

So what ?
I understand an unlikely asteroid crash gives you the right not to care about it, just because "worse things could potentially happen" ?

Citing wikipedia :
"There is strong consensus among climate scientists that warming observed over the past 50 years was caused primarily by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, that warming will continue if emissions continue, and that consequences become increasingly serious as the amount of warming increases. A few scientists disagree, most commonly asserting that although warming is occurring its cause is either natural or unknown."

It's sad if people get fired because they disagree. But hey, it just happens everywhere. That's the human nature, some even got killed.
The fact you hear about it in those cases is because of the political hype surrounding the global warming.

Now, a consensus does not prove anything, the majority can be wrong. And I don't think this is the right place to debate the causes of the warming. That's not my domain of competencies either.
Off the popcorn !

A fact I got from wikipedia regarding the energy in the transporation domain : 65% of the energy is used in privately owned gasoline vehicules, 20% by trucks and other diesel engines, and only the remaining 15% are used for the air transportation. If you want to reduce emmissions, it makes sense to attack those 65% first, no ? Global warming or not, we know the future cars will have to lower the emissions. The oil reserves are not infinite either.
So there will be changes, Porsches included, like it or not.

 

I'm sorry - global warming or green house gas emissions aren't the problem (and more or less supercars on the road aren't going to make a difference). Remember big bang? or the other theories? The little planet earth has been around a "long" time - a few weeks ago they discovered a 5000 year old couple cuddling, however in fossil formation.

My basic science:
All the planets are organic / chemical in nature and eventually will exhaust their primary cohesion to be a solid mass as possibly evident of Mars since it is the closest planet to earth. Water, air, food is limited by the area of our planet, (imagine you only had 100 cubic yards to live in) there is no way you could create a biosphere that regenerated itself (research the many people that have tried) no go! Without boring you; there wasn’t a problem with the earth 200 years ago!

Now +200 billion people later there is (and the masses are attributing this to global warming)!! How about too many people occupying to little earth? Cars, refineries, power plants, factories, etc are essential components of our society, today.

Population exposition is the problem! Not Porsches (I agree, there are a lot more producers of green house gases today than ever before.) Why? Too many people on a tiny planet!

Simple calc: (# of People/area today) (# of people /area yesterday)

 

I think you're right.
So, who wants to die first ? Or is it : who do you kill first ?

If you divide resources by # of people, oups... some countries are already way over the quota...

 

David - Basic science???- I guess if you are a PhD at Caltech! Loosely related to overpopulation - I heard that 90% of CA lives within 15 mi of the coast and we feel it everytime your on the 5 and the horses are running down at ole del mar...

 

TJ90: I'm running methanol (pure corn farts OK a little barely in there) in case ANYONE asks! Del Mar - only between July and Sept that I run grunge fuel .

 

Tabasco: your on the right track! Who(m) will agree to make way for their offspring? As long as we agree to global mass birth, the natural resources go...you got it... down. People are living longer, etc. so there is another factor....us baby boomers....we never die!

Goish, I wish we had a Snickers bar! (Sorry watching Jimmy Kimmel live!)

 

Jimbo,

I can't agree with your using luxury yachts as an example. First there are only a relative handful of these made and sold per year compared to luxury cars and their price runs nthe multi-millions, not the mutli-tens-of-thousands like Porsches. A 10% tax on a luxury yacht is a whole lot more than a 10% tax on even a Carrera GT, not to mention a regular old Carrera. What would be a more appropriate comparison would be the gas guzzler tax which I don't think has had a big impact on the sales of Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, et al has it?

Pete

 

Speaking of cold weather:



I don't remember complaining about the cold weather in Austin; I just commented that the professionals can't seem to be able to forecast it a week out. The earth and weather patterns are obviously not completely understood. Sure, pollution is bad. But does my driving a 9 year old 911 contribute to Antarctica melting? And is it even melting at all? Science is not by consensus.

Hey, and whatever happened to the ozone hole the media lectured us about a few years ago??? More on that here:

http://web.mac.com/ryskind/iWeb/Site...310297C49.html

 

Brewmeister - your original argument was that liberals were the problem, (quoted "The REAL "Incovenient Truth" there is that the liberals are trying to use the subject as an excuse to re-distribute wealth"). Unless you are suggesting that all countries involved in the Kyoto protocol are "liberals" then you have left your original argument empty. I still do not see what a "liberal agenda" has to do with redistributing wealth, or who is to gain by promoting climate change erroneously. You suggest that other countries will benefit by making the US pay for its pollution. Seems fair to me considering the amount of pollution we create. The US consumes way more resources per capita than any other country in the world. A child born in the US will consume about as many resources as 100 Ethiopian children. It's a vast difference, and we have the wealth to do something about it.

Regarding other responses here to the media frenzy over global climate change: The fact is that the media is creating a debate where little exists. In scientific journal articles, there is little dissent. Utne Reader did an analysis about 8 months ago. Apparently of the media articles on the topic, more than 60% suggest there is scientific debate about its existence. However, in scientific journals, the percent is about 98% conclusive of climate change. This difference can be equated to the media's mandate to "show both sides" regardless of whether one side is an extreme or minority view. So, who are you going to believe? The media, or science?

Calling it "global warming" is a term the media uses. Global climate change is more accurate. Due to changes in our environment, extremes in weather are being recorded. So to assume on a weekly basis that it does not exist because the weather is cold detracts from the longer term trends and the drastic nature of those changes. In my line of work, we now have to change our models to factor in climate change, because the models are no longer running right. So in my line of business it is accepted, and not recently, but for some time. The difference is that it is becoming common knowledge outside of the speciality. But then again, my job title is Senior Scientist. What do I know...

 

Interesting seeing Rennlist takes on this subject. I never come here to talk politics, but it seems our shared passion for our cars is intersecting with a major political issue (which, in my opinion, shouldn't be a political issue).

As an erstwhile member of the media (and possessing approximately the same "qualifications" as George Carlin and Michael Crichton on the matter...),
I have to say, the media does sometimes get stuff wrong, and can blow things out of proportion - scandal and doom are big sellers.
But this time, it is not purely the media that is driving this - Or even, God forbid, Al Gore. It is an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, which says that it is likely (not definite) that the climate has been affected by an unprecedented (in human history) 200 year window of constantly elevating CO2 emissions.

So we are now conducting a global experiment. We are all participants in a massive control group. This isn't about wealth redistribution, or even liberal or conservative values, it is about the possibility that humans MIGHT be contributing enough additional greenhouse gasses to affect mean temperatures. What that would really mean is not known, as the domino effect is theoretical and incalculable. (What we do know is that humans, while they may not like it, can adapt to any economic climate). So is it really fair to lash out at "liberals" or "the media" as wrong, when when no one KNOWS the actual answer? By taking that side, you are effectively gambling, based on personal animosity toward people whose views you generally disagree with, despite the fact that there is at least adequate scientific data available to credibly back up the theory.

And this isn't just about warm temperatures.

I have some friends in the Department of Defense who are working diligently to figure out a way to make the US military less strategically vulnerable to the inevitable oil shortages that are expected later this century. Whether it's through decreased oil field capacity, increased global oil demand or a disruption in the supply chain, the Pentagon is extremely concerned about energy efficiency as a defense strategy.

So, are we going to engage in a protracted ideological pissing match among friends (which can be fun, but is rarely productive) or are we going to take some of that legendary American can-do attitude and ingenuity and get to work on a solution? Global warming or not, human beings are going to have reduce their reliance on the black stuff sooner or later.

Not known for their political ideology, I'm sure Ferdinand and Ferry Porsche would have seen this as a fascinating - and potentially very lucrative - technological challenge.