russo

Good one, first on my list to follow is J. Immelt's GE, Al Gore, whom has made close to 100M on this, the researchers that depend on the continued funding, and so on. Anyone that thinks that humans are responsible for Global Warming because of the high levels of CO2 are drinking a little too much Cool Aid. Since when is CO2 a pollutant? Don't worry, the EPA is already on the bandwagon and is already attacking Texas and Virginia because they produce too much CO2.

Dadio

Don't count 'em out yet as Porsche has proven very resourceful in this area before having dealt with this issue for many years now. Besides as part of VW they may have some options that were unavailable to them as an independent manufacturer and VW has a better shot at the 41.4 number than most others.

Condor

As good as this site is for information and resources related to Porsche, it's really crap for politics and science. Though a newbie here, I'd like to modestly propose a return to talk about cars.

While this thread was started under the pretense that the EPA is going to put Porsche out of business in the US, silly things like that don't happen where money is concerned. We had an energy crisis in the 70s (when Porsche < 100hp), and yet here we are in 2010 (Porsche = 500hp). Relax.

jsmirand

While natural phenomena creates weather cycles over time, if you compare NASA polar images from 1970 versus today, and take out political ideology, most would agree with what a child could plainly point out, that there is obvious reduction in ice surface area. I don't think its a stretch to say that a reduction in ice mass sitting on land and melting into the sea will lead to a rise in water levels.

If its natural occurring phenomena driving a weather cycle, then its somewhat coincidental that it is occurring at such a prodigious rate in the geological second that man made co2 emissions hit the scene.

I don't understand why there is so much ideological resistance to this possibility from a conservative base (and I am conservative in many ways). We can register Chinese pollution from Seattle, we've globally addressed CFC emissions that expanded ozone holes, we've established as wrong 1950's thinking in which the Pacific could never be over-fished... the point is the Earth isn't that big, we have the capability to make large scale changes in it, it's not that hard. Having said all that, I hope I am wrong, but engineers plan for the worst and hope for the best, not the other way around.

brendo

just to keep this on the topic of cars, and porsche, top gear says that the exhaust from 997 is cleaner than the air it takes in from cities like LA, Bombay, Mexico City.

so that, it's a giant air cleaner. i suppose the faster i go, the more air i clean!

Dave07997S

Here, here...not to mention that we can't even predict the weather accurately within a 5 day span let alone decades from now. These computer models have been proven to be flawed. I am all for greener energy but more for national security reasons, I'm tired of sending trillions of dollars a year to countries who hate us..I would rather they just choke on their oil.

Dave

Mike in CA

Not taking it personally. Poor choice of word on my part; I don't work with an editor. I'll gladly substitute the phrase "have evidence to prove". You can find people on both sides who are dogmatic on this issue, or any other subject you can name. But I will say again, the exception does not prove the rule. People who deny human involvment in climate change choose to believe (there's that word again......can I just use it generically and we'll know what I mean?) in the relatively few people who support their position and ignore the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations that have presented conflicting evidence. Damn the facts indeed!

And really, as to motive, don't you think there is much more big corporate money out there willing to back anti-climate-change-caused-by-humans research, than there is grant money to fund pro climate change science? Any scientist could get far more shilling for Exxon or Shell than they could get from some environmental group or government grant. Yet relatively few take that path. Curious. Maybe facts are more important to most of them than money after all.

Dave07997S

Exactly...the 997 is a ULEVII vehicle. The issue is the amount of fuel it is burning not so much the exhaust.

brendo

yes, i hear you. i was just being glib. i'd just rather explore the technological advantages of gradually and methodically improving the efficiency of automobiles and the economics surrounding it than get wrapped up in the ideolgy of whether or not man is warming the planet.

if this thread was in OT, i'd have a different perspective.

GHills

50 Ice Ages, 50 Warming Ages, Zero human or SUV involvement. These are the only facts I see regarding climate change. Everything else is hot air.

Minok

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. The modus-operandi of US laws like this is to be constantly delayed as industry drags its feet. I'd love to see how GM, Ford or Chrysler will get to 41.4 MPG when they may have a single car between the 3 of them that gets anywhere near that.

The truly funny (but sad) thing is the VW Golf Hybrid-TDI under development is not likely to be sold in the US because the US market would not buy it. And thats a car that could get 60+ MPG.

GHills

I love how the climate changers are able to propose with a straight face the idea that we could or should build a World Thermostat.

Clearly none of these folks has ever worked in an office. Half the people (women?) think its too cold, half think its too warm.

My worst nightmare. Al Gore and David Suzuki decreeing the new world temperature....17C!

russo

Its funny how climate change researchers have done a great job in obfuscating the scientific method to support their agenda. This type of research would not be tolerated in any other scientific community. I find it very coincidental that many of the leading, so called scientists, have recently resigned their posts or are under investigation, and/or are retracting their initial findings. I guess this indicates that climate change is definitely caused by CO2 emissions released out of their oral orifices.

Mike in CA

All due respect, but that's false logic and assumes climate change couldn't be caused in different ways. The fact that climate change has occured naturally in the past in no way disproves the fact that human activity could also cause, hasten, or exacerbate climate change now.

alexb76

On the flip side, the fact that humans have produced carbon doesn't mean it's the ONE and ONLY cause for climate change as everyone is making it out to be.

Accoding to this report, http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rs-427843.html the biggest contributor to carbon in the world is cattle gas! Are you gonna become vegeratrian then?