robertlane Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06010...m?ref=foolwatch "The 2006 tax laws stand to greatly increase buyer interest in hybrid vehicles. If you can buy a fuel-efficient Escape hybrid for -- let's say Ford is feeling exceedingly generous and call it $2,600 over the list price for an ordinary Escape (the same amount as the credit in this case) -- you'd be crazy to buy the non-hybrid version. Same SUV. Same price. Better gas mileage. It's a no-brainer." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Errrr...the hybrid version is full seconds slower than the V-6 model to virtually any speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Errrr...the hybrid version is full seconds slower than the V-6 model to virtually any speed. For the vast majority of buyers, what is more important, economics and environmental benefits or if true a couple of seconds of speed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Yeah, how fast it goes should be the absolute #1 priority in any vehicle with a high center of gravity and a short wheelbase. Because we have way too few accidents on the roads. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 You only live once. If you are my age.... VRRROOOOOOOMMM !!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 You only live once. If you are my age.... VRRROOOOOOOMMM !!!!! Trust me, ask any of my passengers, I have no problem "VRRROOOOOOOMING", I just don't do it in something that will make me a hazard to me or other drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) Trust me, ask any of my passengers, I have no problem "VRRROOOOOOOMING", I just don't do it in something that will make me a hazard to me or other drivers. That environmental crap is all politics. If I am going to spend money, give me performance. When you get the feel of the vehicle you are driving, you will know it's limits. Edited January 11, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 That environmental crap is all politics. If I am going to spend money, give me performance. When you get the feel of the vehicle you are driving, you will know it's limits. Many in the general population don't realize the handling limits of their SUVs until it's on its roof. If that were not the case, the whole Explorer issue would have been a non-issue, despite the flaws in the Firestones. My MIL's neighbour has a hybrid Escape. It's "fast enough", and she's happy. If it keeps people from buying from our competition because it makes them feel better because they think it's helping the environment (despite having my reservations about the economics of the purchase), more power to them, no pun intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Many in the general population don't realize the handling limits of their SUVs until it's on its roof. If that were not the case, the whole Explorer issue would have been a non-issue, despite the flaws in the Firestones. My MIL's neighbour has a hybrid Escape. It's "fast enough", and she's happy. If it keeps people from buying from our competition because it makes them feel better because they think it's helping the environment (despite having my reservations about the economics of the purchase), more power to them, no pun intended. I agree. Give the people what they want. I just will not be buying one. I'll get off this forum, I just want to say something. In the early seventies, the environmentalists said that all the smog from car exhausts would bring on another ice age, so the car makers brought out the catalytic converter, which cut exhaust emmissions by 95%. Most of the emmissions now are harmless carbon dioxide and water. Now they are saying that all this carbon dioxide is causing a "green house effect" resulting in global WARMING. I believe these people have a political agenda which has nothing to do with science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I agree. Give the people what they want. I just will not be buying one. I'll get off this forum, I just want to say something. In the early seventies, the environmentalists said that all the smog from car exhausts would bring on another ice age, so the car makers brought out the catalytic converter, which cut exhaust emmissions by 95%. Most of the emmissions now are harmless carbon dioxide and water. Now they are saying that all this carbon dioxide is causing a "green house effect" resulting in global WARMING. I believe these people have a political agenda which has nothing to do with science. That's a pretty narrow-minded comment. Catalytic converters weren't brought out to prevent another ice age caused by smog, they were brought out because smog causes or worsens many respiratory diseases that could make living in a city poisonous to your health. Yes cars are cleaner running now, but there is also a lot more of them on the road, and people drive a lot more, offsetting a lot of reductions in pollution. If you have no appreciation for catalytic converters or environmental activism you've obviously got no appreciation for air cleaner than that of places like China where policies are much more lax (or non-existent), no appreciation for water free of mercury, benzene or red tide, cancer-causing pesticides on vegetables and anything else that might lead to relatively healthy life beyond age 60. Aside from ice age claims, there's lots of other tangible reasons not to pollute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 That's a pretty narrow-minded comment. Catalytic converters weren't brought out to prevent another ice age caused by smog, they were brought out because smog causes or worsens many respiratory diseases that could make living in a city poisonous to your health. Yes cars are cleaner running now, but there is also a lot more of them on the road, and people drive a lot more, offsetting a lot of reductions in pollution. If you have no appreciation for catalytic converters or environmental activism you've obviously got no appreciation for air cleaner than that of places like China where policies are much more lax (or non-existent), no appreciation for water free of mercury, benzene or red tide, cancer-causing pesticides on vegetables and anything else that might lead to relatively healthy life beyond age 60. Aside from ice age claims, there's lots of other tangible reasons not to pollute. I rember the old environmentalist TV ads. They were using scare tactics, as they do to-day. They warned of an ice age beause of the smog blocking the sun. Catalytic converters are GOOD. The greater number of cars to-day does not offset a 95% reduction of emmissions. There would have to be 20 times more cars. If China is so bad, why aren't you over there protesting? I did not mention China. Life expectancy has never been higher than it is now. The environment to-day is cleaner than it has been in 200 years. In the 1800s, city life was a nightmare, with all the mud, horse manure, disease from drinking bad water, excrement thrown into the streets. As for climate change, scientists are divided on whether or not it is taking place, or whether, if it is, is it a good or bad thing. If it is taking place, it is caused by the sun. Destroying our economy will not stop it. If you reply to this, I would appreciate it if you would address specific points, and not go into a hysterical rant trying to twist my words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I rember the old environmentalist TV ads. They were using scare tactics, as they do to-day. They warned of an ice age beause of the smog blocking the sun. Catalytic converters are GOOD. The greater number of cars to-day does not offset a 95% reduction of emmissions. There would have to be 20 times more cars. If China is so bad, why aren't you over there protesting? I did not mention China. Life expectancy has never been higher than it is now.The environment to-day is cleaner than it has been in 200 years. In the 1800s, city life was a nightmare, with all the mud, horse manure, disease from drinking bad water, excrement thrown into the streets. As for climate change, scientists are divided on whether or not it is taking place, or whether, if it is, is it a good or bad thing. If it is taking place, it is caused by the sun. Destroying our economy will not stop it. If you reply to this, I would appreciate it if you would address specific points, and not go into a hysterical rant trying to twist my words. I had a question? What is the normal temperature for the earth? 10,000 years ago a large percentage of NA was covered by glaciers. Then when the Vikings discovered Greenland it was warm enough to farm. That is why they called it Greenland. In the late 70's and early 80's we had several very cold winters. Many of the scientists' who now predict global warming were predicting an ice age was on the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) I had a question? What is the normal temperature for the earth? 10,000 years ago a large percentage of NA was covered by glaciers. Then when the Vikings discovered Greenland it was warm enough to farm. That is why they called it Greenland. In the late 70's and early 80's we had several very cold winters. Many of the scientists' who now predict global warming were predicting an ice age was on the way. So you agree with me, then. Global warming is a bogus idea. In Iceland, there is evidence of ancient farming on land that is now covered with ice. Eric the Red came up with the name "Greenland" to try to get people to come there. Believe me, it was not green. Real scientists rely on proven fact, not politically motivated hypothesis. Edited January 17, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) I rember the old environmentalist TV ads. They were using scare tactics, as they do to-day. They warned of an ice age beause of the smog blocking the sun. Catalytic converters are GOOD. The greater number of cars to-day does not offset a 95% reduction of emmissions. There would have to be 20 times more cars. If China is so bad, why aren't you over there protesting? I did not mention China. Life expectancy has never been higher than it is now.The environment to-day is cleaner than it has been in 200 years. In the 1800s, city life was a nightmare, with all the mud, horse manure, disease from drinking bad water, excrement thrown into the streets. As for climate change, scientists are divided on whether or not it is taking place, or whether, if it is, is it a good or bad thing. If it is taking place, it is caused by the sun. Destroying our economy will not stop it. If you reply to this, I would appreciate it if you would address specific points, and not go into a hysterical rant trying to twist my words. "If China is so bad why aren't you there protesting"? Who's twisting who's words? What does that have to do with anything? I need to go somewhere to have an opinion on it? I'm not an environmentalist but I do advocate being careful with the natural ressources we have. The environment is cleaner now? It is different yes, there's less bacterial pollution and more chemical pollution. I'm not advocating destroying the economy (of course environmentally friendly technologies don't destroy economies, they merely provide incentive for updating equipement, which stimulates growth, investment and efficiency). No one knows for sure if there is global warming or not, scientists are divided - so isn't it better to take the prudent route and try to limit these things? Edited January 18, 2006 by marc-o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) "If China is so bad why aren't you there protesting"? Who's twisting who's words? What does that have to do with anything? I need to go somewhere to have an opinion on it? I'm not an environmentalist but I do advocate being careful with the natural ressources we have. The environment is cleaner now? It is different yes, there's less bacterial pollution and more chemical pollution. I'm not advocating destroying the economy (of course environmentally friendly technologies don't destroy economies, they merely provide incentive for updating equipement, which stimulates growth, investment and efficiency). No one knows for sure if there is global warming or not, scientists are divided - so isn't it better to take the prudent route and try to limit these things? I was thinking about Kyoto, which the Canadian government has signed on to. I believe the billions we are putting into that could be better spent finding real solutions. Environmentalists never think of an idea that saves us money. Off the top of my head, I can come up with a few. How about less packaging? How about getting rid of phone books. They could program the directory into the telephone. How about getting rid of newspapers? You could have a memory card, put it into a slot in the news box, and get your favorite newspaper's contents. To read it, you would use a small device which would project it onto a flat surface. All they can come up with is blue box recycling, which costs a fortune, and is very inefficient. It is in the left's interest to perpetuate our discontent, and if we become contented, they need to create some more discontent. All they want to do is weaken our economy. Prosperity strengthens the right. As poor people become well off, they stop worrying about social assistance programs, and start looking for tax cuts. The left needs poverty, and will do whatever it takes to create it. That is just my way of looking at it. We both want a better world. Edited January 21, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I was thinking about Kyoto, which the Canadian government has signed on to. I believe the billions we are putting into that could be better spent finding real solutions. Environmentalists never think of an idea that saves us money. Off the top of my head, I can come up with a few. How about less packaging? How about getting rid of phone books. They could program the directory into the telephone. How about getting rid of newspapers? You could have a memory card, put it into a slot in the news box, and get your favorite newspaper's contents. To read it, you would use a small device which would project it onto a flat surface. All they can come up with is blue box recycling, which costs a fortune, and is very inefficient. It is in the left's interest to perpetuate our discontent, and if we become contented, they need to create some more discontent. All they want to do is weaken our economy. Prosperity strengthens the right. As poor people become well off, they stop worrying about social assistance programs, and start looking for tax cuts. The left needs poverty, and will do whatever it takes to create it. That is just my way of looking at it. We both want a better world. Well I agree with you on that... there's a difference between coming up with ideas and coming up with GOOD ideas. The problem is a lot of time when someone comes up with a good idea, there's a million things that happen afterwards that end up making it innefficient and generally inneffective. I think there's a lot that could be done to reduce harm to the environment that is just common sense like what you are implying... problem is when the government gets a hold of it, or when you run into a few people that oppose it and put up a fuss, then not much good comes out of it. For example, I lived in Europe about 15 years ago...no blue boxes there - when you had empty cans or bottles or paper, you took them to this neighbourhood bin (you'd have a couple in any given square mile, so they were never really far away, always on the way SOMEwhere). Well they don't have that in Canada, they have blueboxes. I agree that's pretty innefficient and expensive (running two trucks around town instead of one), and pollutes in itself. I don't know why they do it that way... do they think people won't bother? Would people bother? (I'm sure some wouldn't) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) Well I agree with you on that... there's a difference between coming up with ideas and coming up with GOOD ideas. The problem is a lot of time when someone comes up with a good idea, there's a million things that happen afterwards that end up making it innefficient and generally inneffective. I think there's a lot that could be done to reduce harm to the environment that is just common sense like what you are implying... problem is when the government gets a hold of it, or when you run into a few people that oppose it and put up a fuss, then not much good comes out of it. For example, I lived in Europe about 15 years ago...no blue boxes there - when you had empty cans or bottles or paper, you took them to this neighbourhood bin (you'd have a couple in any given square mile, so they were never really far away, always on the way SOMEwhere). Well they don't have that in Canada, they have blueboxes. I agree that's pretty innefficient and expensive (running two trucks around town instead of one), and pollutes in itself. I don't know why they do it that way... do they think people won't bother? Would people bother? (I'm sure some wouldn't) For me the bottom line is that there are problems in this world that are of far greater urgency than the environment, such as the energy shortage, the war on terror , fixing the obsolete power grid, and fixing the highways. Unnessecarily frightening people in order to steal their money is despicable. The programs now in place have, and are continuing to make the world a cleaner place. The environmental industry has to drum up support for phantom impending disasters in order to stay in business. They should find something else to do. Edited January 20, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 So you agree with me, then. Global warming is a bogus idea. In Iceland, there is evidence of ancient farming on land that is now covered with ice. Eric the Red came up with the name "Greenland" to try to get people to come there. Believe me, it was not green. Real scientists rely on proven fact, not politically motivated hypothesis. That is what they taught you in the Canadian public school system. At the time it was 'Greenland' during a warming period. The Vikings could farm Greenland. Global warming at present is a fact. The earth has been warming for an extended period of time. The question is what is the cause of global warming? Is it manmade or natural? Can man control the temperature of the earth? If the earth is 4 billion years old if you look only at the last 1,000 years the temperature has not been constant. (Note: this is pre SUV) There has been hot spells and even mini ice ages. There is no normal temperature for the earth. When Krakatoa went off North Bay had snow all summer long that year due to the dust and particles floating around the from the eruption. I don't think that the activities of man can control the temperature of the earth. Remember when acid rain was going to destroy the world? That quietly dissappeared as an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 That is what they taught you in the Canadian public school system. At the time it was 'Greenland' during a warming period. The Vikings could farm Greenland. Global warming at present is a fact. The earth has been warming for an extended period of time. The question is what is the cause of global warming? Is it manmade or natural? Can man control the temperature of the earth? If the earth is 4 billion years old if you look only at the last 1,000 years the temperature has not been constant. (Note: this is pre SUV) There has been hot spells and even mini ice ages. There is no normal temperature for the earth. When Krakatoa went off North Bay had snow all summer long that year due to the dust and particles floating around the from the eruption. I don't think that the activities of man can control the temperature of the earth. Remember when acid rain was going to destroy the world? That quietly dissappeared as an issue. Well you have to be careful and differentiate between what disappears as an issue and what is no longer an issue. The media doesn't talk about a lot of things that are still problems, and exagerates lots of things that barely are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 That is what they taught you in the Canadian public school system. At the time it was 'Greenland' during a warming period. The Vikings could farm Greenland. Global warming at present is a fact. The earth has been warming for an extended period of time. The question is what is the cause of global warming? Is it manmade or natural? Can man control the temperature of the earth? If the earth is 4 billion years old if you look only at the last 1,000 years the temperature has not been constant. (Note: this is pre SUV) There has been hot spells and even mini ice ages. There is no normal temperature for the earth. When Krakatoa went off North Bay had snow all summer long that year due to the dust and particles floating around the from the eruption. I don't think that the activities of man can control the temperature of the earth. Remember when acid rain was going to destroy the world? That quietly dissappeared as an issue. You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. Yes, what ever happened to acid rain? To-day, I do not think the technology exists to calculate the average global temperature. How do they know what it was a hundred years ago? The oceans are probably largely responsible for global climate. The only thing greater than the oceans is the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. Yes, what ever happened to acid rain? To-day, I do not think the technology exists to calculate the average global temperature. How do they know what it was a hundred years ago? The oceans are probably largely responsible for global climate. The only thing greater than the oceans is the sun. There is quite a lot of info on temp for the last 100 years. How you interpret it is the question. Mount St. Helens was a little baby volcano compared to Krakatoa. However you could well be right about the amount of pollution. Around Windsor we have a large greenhouse industry. CO2 is trucked in to these operations to help the plants grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. You got somekind of source for that info? The thing with the environment is its about balance. Obviously the world has existed with volcanoes going off periodically - but the fact is NO ONE really understands the impact (even if it is nil) of human activity over time. The notion that human activity somehow needs to ressemble the extent of natural activity in order to be comparable is wrong: it doesn't take much salt to ruin a recipe, we don't know to what extent human activity interferes with natural patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. Yes, what ever happened to acid rain? To-day, I do not think the technology exists to calculate the average global temperature. How do they know what it was a hundred years ago? The oceans are probably largely responsible for global climate. The only thing greater than the oceans is the sun. May I suggest this book, Taking Sides - Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. ISBN 0073514411 It's worth a few hours effort and it would give you both sides of the issue and more importantly, a greater understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 You got somekind of source for that info? The thing with the environment is its about balance. Obviously the world has existed with volcanoes going off periodically - but the fact is NO ONE really understands the impact (even if it is nil) of human activity over time. The notion that human activity somehow needs to ressemble the extent of natural activity in order to be comparable is wrong: it doesn't take much salt to ruin a recipe, we don't know to what extent human activity interferes with natural patterns. The evidence to prove that human activity is not destroying the earth is that we are still here. Mother Nature is robust enough to withstand anything we can do to her. If we were to really piss her off, she would expell us from the planet. Every pollutant comes from the earth. We do not import them from another universe. To believe that we as a species are greater than Mother Nature is supreme arrogance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfs Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Global warming is not a fact. Records show hat the earth is 2 degrees warmer than 100 years ago. I do not trust that measurement was that accurate in 1906, nor the extrapolation to world wide temperatures. Here is a fact - the U. S. Federal Imperial Government has mortgaged this country to the hilt and our grandchildren will be working 6 months of every year just to pay for the stupid entitlement and vote buying schemes we let politicians get by with. That is much more worrysome than global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.