Anyone figure out where the money went from Big Al's "Live Earth" extravaganza this past weekend? (It wasn't a benefit event, so the money raised went into someone's pocket.) Tons of fossil fuel used to put that on and tons of money changed hands, but I'm not clear on what the purpose was(?).

Seriously, does anyone know the answers to these questions?? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Gosh, political/environmental conservatism on a Porsche forum. Who would have imagined?

 

People who can afford Porsches are typically (though not always) hard working and intelligent. Intelligent people who work hard usually don't subscribe to the wealth redistribution agendas of socialist politicians - the global warming scam included.

 

A little bit of knee-jerk conservatism, true, but a whole lot of pragmatic realism.

 

Isnt it funny how livestock is one of the largest producers of co2 gas emmisions, but you dont hear Al gore and his socialist buddies saying we all need to become vegetarians. As far as wealth redistribution (a socialist belief) goes.....to buy into that argument you would have to believe that wealth is distributed to begin with which it is not, wealth is EARNED therefore cannot be redistributed.

JERRY

 

This just in............Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat member of the body, wants to ban sports cars because of their contribution to "GLOBAL WARMING" he goes on to say that they are boy toys...... and a symbol of affluence, "He wants to kill Porsche but let Bentley drive on," he (Karl-Heinz Florenz) told The Financial Times.
According to him any car that exceeds 101 miles per hour should be banned, I guess that means the Prius too then. Anyone starting to see what these people are all about???

 

This is all amusing or upsetting, depending on the day.

In any case, whatever your politics, what is wrong with conservation and doing what one can to protect or improve the environment?

Finally, the clear scientific - not political - consensus is that global warming is real, and that a portion of it is due to us humans and our toys and machines. I think discounting this real phenomenon is akin to denying evolution. If that is your choice, it's your choice.

In the end, we all ought to do what we can to make the world better for our kids. All of them. If that means lower emissions from our cars - even if that is not the major issue - it is still reasonable to do, and won't necessarily hurt us in any way. Lighter, cleaner cars... No reason they couldn't be cool, fun, or fast. That is limited only by imagination, perserverence and money. Get ahead of the curve, instead of trailing behind it.

 

My friend you don't understand the first thing about science or the scientific method... "Consensus" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in science. There was scientific consensus that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that there was global cooling, etc, etc. All the consensus in the world didn't make those things true. Science isn't swayed by the opinions of others, unlike the sheep who buy into this global warming bs.

Is the earth warming? Maybe. Do we understand all the factors affecting the earth's climate? NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. It is the height of arrogance and stupidity to believe we have the answer.

Do I like pollution? No. But it has nothing to do with the global warming debate. Cutting pollution is great. But it's not government's role to enforce arbitrary regulations to meet that end - and it's especially not government's role to seek to modify behavior by methods of imposing unfair taxes on individuals who are living their lives the way they see fit. Gee, I guess I take that "it's a free country" idea literally... imagine that.

 

+1

 

+2 ....i cant believe i let the consensus thing slip by.

 

Two points:
1) Long live McDonalds and hamburger joints...not to mention Ruth's Chris, Morton's, Fleming's and Lawry's...

2) All of our atmospheric/weather "data" is a little more than 100 years old... This is just a rounding area when considering the age of the planet and solar system. Is this "data" statistically significant?

-B

 

It's amazing how many non-scientific experts there are on this internet car forum. I think I'm actually the ONLY scientist that has replied to this thread.

My opinion was formed on this years ago. In my industry (water resources), it's a foregone conclusion. Now that the issue is into the general public, the debate has begun. You think a lot of the arguments in the general public might be based in ignorance? Based on my reality, I'd say that's a definite. Considering this is an car forum, I would suggest to readers to heed caution regarding arguments counter to scientific preponderance.

Speaking of reality, how about a taste of it: water companies are undertaking water supply planning to determine long-term water supply projections. What does this have to do with global warming? Evaporation. Pretty easy concept to understand, yes? Hotter water evaporates faster, yes? Considering water is one of the basic needs of human existence, and our water supplies are expected to dwindle faster into the future, water companies are currently taking measures to counteract and plan for it. Your water supply company is making infrastructure changes now, regardless of your opinion that they don't need to bother. They understand the science behind it and know how to come to logical conclusions.

Scientific & Engineering Journal articles are regularly addressing the issue and discussing planning for future needs in this progressively warming era. So continue the debate amongst yourselves if you like chasing your tail.

By being in the scientific field, both in trade and training, it has formed my reality. If science cannot convince you, nothing will. If you are interested in the topic, don't expect a car forum to answer it for you. Do your research.

 

Well that sure proved my point quickly.

 

If you conclude that Earth is warming, I'm OK with that. But there is no evidence that this is anything other than a natural phenomenon. The globe has heated an cooled numerous times before Man got here, so assuming that we're in a warming phase now, why then assume that: 1) It's fundamentally (or even significantly) caused by Man and, 2) Man can make Earth significantly cooler?

Interestingly, water on Earth is a fixed quantity, so there is no less (or more) of it now than there was ten years ago or a thousand years ago. Yes, it evaporates into the atmosphere when heated, but it ALWAYS comes back in the form of RAIN, no? Current water shortages around the world are due primarily to extra demand of industrialization of second and third world countries.

BTW, still haven't heard from anyone on what the purpose was behind Big Al's "Live Earth" weekend and where the money went. Presumably, the tons of emissions generated created a giant carbon footprint- correct? Must have been pretty important for Big Al to risk that much carbon.

 

Good thing I have those little black plastic guides for my Targa's sunblind on order, it gets jammed now and then. Oh wait, if there is more evaporation cloud cover should increase.
Damn and I just spent the 13 bucks on the parts.
This debate is costing me money.
I think I'll just ignore it . . .
Wait, now Im gonna have to go buy at least five or six bags of sand to stick my head into. . .
Another 12-15 bucks!
is this what is meant by the slippery slope?