**New Smog Legislature Alert**
3/6/07, 04:12 AM
#21
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
heres the problem with Science and scientists as a whole (and I am a huge science buff, majored in BioEngineering and worked at TSRI in the molecular bio lab), most things in science are simply theories, no matter how sound they might be, for instance approx. 90% of scientists (probably more) believe in the theory of evolution and that the creation of this planet and life has some kind of rational explanation not due to a greater being, however almost that same percentage of this worlds population believe the opposite and believe in some form of creationism. There was a point where the worlds scientists believed that the world was flat, and before that that the world was the center of the universe. There are so many MAJOR things that science has been wrong about, not to say they are wrong here, but it still is all conjecture as a possible explanation of the changes we are seeing in the worlds climate; there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF. What about when the earth went from the ice age, to a time where the world was a barren desert, to a gassious swamp, to rich and full forests; all relatively over night? Humans werent there to cause those huge, drastic changes, yet they happened. This planet has been progressively been getting hotter for as far back as it has been recorded, which isnt too long in the grand scheme of things, since the early 1900s or so, but long before we started gross poluting this planet. In the 80s they had everyone scared that the world wouldnt make it too far into the new millenium if we didnt change things, and here we are almost 20 years later, millions more people, and more and more pollution being dumped into the air, less and less trees in our forests and yet nothing has changed anywhere near as much as predicted.
I am NOT saying that we arent contributing or that global warming is a hoax, because I dont know for sure one way or the other; what I am saying is that it is not certain that we are having as great of an effect on this planet as people are being scared into thinking. Earth will continue to be here long after we are gone and life and nature will continue. Humans may not have a place in that world but it would be up to nature to decide. Just like the beetles in your example, we are a very small piece of this grand puzzle; the beetles while making noticeable changes to the forests, didnt wipe them off the face of the planet and mean the end of things for forests and we ultimately wont lead to the distruction of the planet. I do however think (and am fully on board for) that yes it would be nice to preserve our wild life and natural lands so we can enjoy them for as long as possible, that dirtying our oceans, lakes and rivers is a travesty, that constantly leveling natural resources to build more and more concrete slabs of civilization is very sad, and that we should let this planets animals that inhabit it with us to live their lives as they normally would without us encroaching on their territory. Those are the things we should be striving for, so that we may enjoy the wonders life has given us.
I am NOT saying that we arent contributing or that global warming is a hoax, because I dont know for sure one way or the other; what I am saying is that it is not certain that we are having as great of an effect on this planet as people are being scared into thinking. Earth will continue to be here long after we are gone and life and nature will continue. Humans may not have a place in that world but it would be up to nature to decide. Just like the beetles in your example, we are a very small piece of this grand puzzle; the beetles while making noticeable changes to the forests, didnt wipe them off the face of the planet and mean the end of things for forests and we ultimately wont lead to the distruction of the planet. I do however think (and am fully on board for) that yes it would be nice to preserve our wild life and natural lands so we can enjoy them for as long as possible, that dirtying our oceans, lakes and rivers is a travesty, that constantly leveling natural resources to build more and more concrete slabs of civilization is very sad, and that we should let this planets animals that inhabit it with us to live their lives as they normally would without us encroaching on their territory. Those are the things we should be striving for, so that we may enjoy the wonders life has given us.
As to certain scientific principles only being theories, it's true. They were all theories to begin with. All scientific methodology begins with a hypothesis. You then set about trying to prove that hypothesis. But certain sciences are now pretty exacting, and without them we wouldn't have things like penicillin, or air travel...or the Mustang.
I think the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support human contributions to global warming is pretty irrefutable at this point. Pretty much the only "scientists" who dispute it are lone wolves bought and paid for by special interests.
3/6/07, 06:26 AM
#22
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 9, 2004
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey rrobello,
So much was said above and didn't have time to read all of it but I felt like I needed to say something.
1. You and others like you in California have to fight this stupid law. It is aimed at a small number of vehicles that will have such a small effect on pollution that you will not be able to measure it.
2. Your elected heros propose stupid laws like this to make themselves look like they are trying to do something to protect the enviroment. So they can campaign on it in the next election. They figure that you will not do much because your numbers are so small.
3. Your elected heros are really a bunch of spineless jellyfish. They go where the current takes them. If you flood them with respectfull e-mails, phone calls and old fashioned letters they will pay attension.
4. rrobello, Im sure SEMA is against this so contact them and see what they say.
5. As far as "Global Warming" is concerned the main number one culprit is that bright thing in the sky called our sun
So much was said above and didn't have time to read all of it but I felt like I needed to say something.
1. You and others like you in California have to fight this stupid law. It is aimed at a small number of vehicles that will have such a small effect on pollution that you will not be able to measure it.
2. Your elected heros propose stupid laws like this to make themselves look like they are trying to do something to protect the enviroment. So they can campaign on it in the next election. They figure that you will not do much because your numbers are so small.
3. Your elected heros are really a bunch of spineless jellyfish. They go where the current takes them. If you flood them with respectfull e-mails, phone calls and old fashioned letters they will pay attension.
4. rrobello, Im sure SEMA is against this so contact them and see what they say.
5. As far as "Global Warming" is concerned the main number one culprit is that bright thing in the sky called our sun
3/6/07, 06:29 AM
#23
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 23, 2006
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about global warming aside,
The original post was about older cars being subject to smog inspection. I for one see NOTHING wrong with that. All cars in operation, including those 15yrs old and older should be required to meet the emmissions requirements that they were built to. Therein lies the confusion. Many folks screaming about the new emmisions testing laws think thier precious 65 Mustang is going to be required to meet the same standards as a new 2008 or be scrapped. That is ludicrus. The 65 will have to meet the standards in force for a 65. Which there really were none. What happens as time goes on is that cars that DID have emmisions requirements are now older than 15yrs. That 1987 Cavalier next to you on the freeway belching blue fog is now 21 years old. It should be required to meet the emmissions standards for a 1987 model year vehicle. It currently does not. I see nothing wrong with forcing these cars to meet the requirements or taken off the road until they do.
Ok, flame suit on. I am going to get if for this one but have no idea why.
The original post was about older cars being subject to smog inspection. I for one see NOTHING wrong with that. All cars in operation, including those 15yrs old and older should be required to meet the emmissions requirements that they were built to. Therein lies the confusion. Many folks screaming about the new emmisions testing laws think thier precious 65 Mustang is going to be required to meet the same standards as a new 2008 or be scrapped. That is ludicrus. The 65 will have to meet the standards in force for a 65. Which there really were none. What happens as time goes on is that cars that DID have emmisions requirements are now older than 15yrs. That 1987 Cavalier next to you on the freeway belching blue fog is now 21 years old. It should be required to meet the emmissions standards for a 1987 model year vehicle. It currently does not. I see nothing wrong with forcing these cars to meet the requirements or taken off the road until they do.
Ok, flame suit on. I am going to get if for this one but have no idea why.
3/6/07, 10:25 AM
#25
I get a blast out of posters here that are ****ed off about "global warming" and "harming the environment" but yet have V8 engines, off road H or X pipes, tunes that allow richer fuel mixtures, or go to the track to squander fuel in speed contests.
If you want to be a tree-hugging hippie like our Legislature then trade in your 'Stang and get a Prius!
Global warming is a fraud perpetrated on the most powerful economies of the world to cripple them with phony "CO2 standards" and "CO2 Credits" schemes in order to hamstring them and decrease their influence. Why is it that first world economies have to comply (that already try to control the impact on the environment) as opposed to third world toilet countries that exhibit indifference toward the environment, population control, and sanitation?
Give me a break and stop with that "global warming" crap.
If you want to be a tree-hugging hippie like our Legislature then trade in your 'Stang and get a Prius!
Global warming is a fraud perpetrated on the most powerful economies of the world to cripple them with phony "CO2 standards" and "CO2 Credits" schemes in order to hamstring them and decrease their influence. Why is it that first world economies have to comply (that already try to control the impact on the environment) as opposed to third world toilet countries that exhibit indifference toward the environment, population control, and sanitation?
Give me a break and stop with that "global warming" crap.
3/6/07, 11:00 AM
#26
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
They recently released data showing that MARS is warming up also. So unless there are a LOT of Martians hiding out on Mars that we haven't found, then I have a feeling that our Sun just might be the true root cause of global warming.
But there is no money to be made showing the Sun is the problem (what are you going to do about it? Pass a law saying the Sun has to turn down it's output???), so everyone (a large portion anyway) has jumped on the green house gas "problem" and are activily trying to prove humans are the cause of gobal warming. Because they can't get grants to show what the real cause is.
Follow the money. Science at it's best.
The problem with hybrid (or even electric cars) is everyone is acting like they are the only solution. Heck, my data was driving a VW Golf diesel that was getting 55 mph back in 90's! And the so called "zero emisions" vehicles simply move the emissions somewhere else. They are NOT "zero" emissions by any means. Not to mention the problem with all those batteries.
3/6/07, 12:36 PM
#27
TMS West Coast Correspondent
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Posts: 3,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey rrobello,
So much was said above and didn't have time to read all of it but I felt like I needed to say something.
1. You and others like you in California have to fight this stupid law. It is aimed at a small number of vehicles that will have such a small effect on pollution that you will not be able to measure it.
2. Your elected heros propose stupid laws like this to make themselves look like they are trying to do something to protect the enviroment. So they can campaign on it in the next election. They figure that you will not do much because your numbers are so small.
3. Your elected heros are really a bunch of spineless jellyfish. They go where the current takes them. If you flood them with respectfull e-mails, phone calls and old fashioned letters they will pay attension.
4. rrobello, Im sure SEMA is against this so contact them and see what they say.
5. As far as "Global Warming" is concerned the main number one culprit is that bright thing in the sky called our sun
So much was said above and didn't have time to read all of it but I felt like I needed to say something.
1. You and others like you in California have to fight this stupid law. It is aimed at a small number of vehicles that will have such a small effect on pollution that you will not be able to measure it.
2. Your elected heros propose stupid laws like this to make themselves look like they are trying to do something to protect the enviroment. So they can campaign on it in the next election. They figure that you will not do much because your numbers are so small.
3. Your elected heros are really a bunch of spineless jellyfish. They go where the current takes them. If you flood them with respectfull e-mails, phone calls and old fashioned letters they will pay attension.
4. rrobello, Im sure SEMA is against this so contact them and see what they say.
5. As far as "Global Warming" is concerned the main number one culprit is that bright thing in the sky called our sun
I will agree that global warming will not harm the earth over a period of geologic time. Mother nature is hard to beat. But we could wipe out ourselves and the other species we share this planet with through our own ignorance - and frankly, narcissism - over the next 100 years...a mere drop in the bucket in geological terms.
As to certain scientific principles only being theories, it's true. They were all theories to begin with. All scientific methodology begins with a hypothesis. You then set about trying to prove that hypothesis. But certain sciences are now pretty exacting, and without them we wouldn't have things like penicillin, or air travel...or the Mustang.
I think the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support human contributions to global warming is pretty irrefutable at this point. Pretty much the only "scientists" who dispute it are lone wolves bought and paid for by special interests.
As to certain scientific principles only being theories, it's true. They were all theories to begin with. All scientific methodology begins with a hypothesis. You then set about trying to prove that hypothesis. But certain sciences are now pretty exacting, and without them we wouldn't have things like penicillin, or air travel...or the Mustang.
I think the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support human contributions to global warming is pretty irrefutable at this point. Pretty much the only "scientists" who dispute it are lone wolves bought and paid for by special interests.
Sadly very true. Having worked in the field doing research on many things like diseases and trying to find a cure, the sad reality of it is that there is no money in fixing any problems, the money lies in treating the problems not curing them. If the problem went away then you just lost your source of income. And science and research are very much a business where everything pretty much is at a stand still because as a business there is competition and no one wants to work together to solve problems because they want all the money for themselves, where if they were to share the information they come up with and combine efforts there would already be cures for many things like AIDs, most cancers, have a way to live life without polluting the air and water, engines that dont run on gasoline, ect ect.
All this talk about global warming aside,
The original post was about older cars being subject to smog inspection. I for one see NOTHING wrong with that. All cars in operation, including those 15yrs old and older should be required to meet the emmissions requirements that they were built to. Therein lies the confusion. Many folks screaming about the new emmisions testing laws think thier precious 65 Mustang is going to be required to meet the same standards as a new 2008 or be scrapped. That is ludicrus. The 65 will have to meet the standards in force for a 65. Which there really were none. What happens as time goes on is that cars that DID have emmisions requirements are now older than 15yrs. That 1987 Cavalier next to you on the freeway belching blue fog is now 21 years old. It should be required to meet the emmissions standards for a 1987 model year vehicle. It currently does not. I see nothing wrong with forcing these cars to meet the requirements or taken off the road until they do.
Ok, flame suit on. I am going to get if for this one but have no idea why.
The original post was about older cars being subject to smog inspection. I for one see NOTHING wrong with that. All cars in operation, including those 15yrs old and older should be required to meet the emmissions requirements that they were built to. Therein lies the confusion. Many folks screaming about the new emmisions testing laws think thier precious 65 Mustang is going to be required to meet the same standards as a new 2008 or be scrapped. That is ludicrus. The 65 will have to meet the standards in force for a 65. Which there really were none. What happens as time goes on is that cars that DID have emmisions requirements are now older than 15yrs. That 1987 Cavalier next to you on the freeway belching blue fog is now 21 years old. It should be required to meet the emmissions standards for a 1987 model year vehicle. It currently does not. I see nothing wrong with forcing these cars to meet the requirements or taken off the road until they do.
Ok, flame suit on. I am going to get if for this one but have no idea why.
3/6/07, 03:00 PM
#28
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, as I see it, there are several SEPARATE issues here >>
1. Global warming is REAL, regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support it (as opposed to opponents who trot out bullsh!t science about "they say the sun is causing it" or express what they "feel" is causing it, yada, yada, yada).
2. Human beings are contributing to the problem.
THAT debate is over in the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific community.
Now, having said all that, here's the other side of the coin >>
- There are many hypocrites who tell us we all need to do something about it, meanwhile they don't practice what they preach.
- At the end of the day, the Prius ends up being no more efficient than almost any other car. Better to run a diesel, frankly. Between highway miles and the environmentally unfriendly batteries hybrids use, there is no net gain.
- I see no problem with anyone being concerned about the environment and acknowledging the problem, and yet driving a car - even cars like ours - because at the end of the day, until world governments MANDATE a full scale migration from fossil fuels to some other form of power; until poorer nations stop clear cutting rainforests; until developing powers like China decide to go in another direction to power their cars other than oil; and until world population growth is put in check, individuals on their own cannot possibly make a difference to a climate change juggernaut that is already in full swing.
- Unquestionably there is an enormous "green" industry that has popped up as a result of global warming - one with its own political and monetary agenda - and that is sad, because it distracts from what is a very real problem and a clear and present danger.
1. Global warming is REAL, regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support it (as opposed to opponents who trot out bullsh!t science about "they say the sun is causing it" or express what they "feel" is causing it, yada, yada, yada).
2. Human beings are contributing to the problem.
THAT debate is over in the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific community.
Now, having said all that, here's the other side of the coin >>
- There are many hypocrites who tell us we all need to do something about it, meanwhile they don't practice what they preach.
- At the end of the day, the Prius ends up being no more efficient than almost any other car. Better to run a diesel, frankly. Between highway miles and the environmentally unfriendly batteries hybrids use, there is no net gain.
- I see no problem with anyone being concerned about the environment and acknowledging the problem, and yet driving a car - even cars like ours - because at the end of the day, until world governments MANDATE a full scale migration from fossil fuels to some other form of power; until poorer nations stop clear cutting rainforests; until developing powers like China decide to go in another direction to power their cars other than oil; and until world population growth is put in check, individuals on their own cannot possibly make a difference to a climate change juggernaut that is already in full swing.
- Unquestionably there is an enormous "green" industry that has popped up as a result of global warming - one with its own political and monetary agenda - and that is sad, because it distracts from what is a very real problem and a clear and present danger.
3/6/07, 04:13 PM
#29
Guys,
I love the spirited debate here and the fact that everyone seems to be respecting each other. However, things are off-topic
I personally can break this thread up and move all the environmental stuff into its own thread if everyone agrees. If not, carry on
My take on the emissions laws, as things seemed to be a bit vague at the first post.
I am pretty sure the older vehicles have to pass an emissions test relevant to the year the car was made, or the year the engine block was cast, whichever is newer. This should be easy for an older car if it maintained properly.
In Ontario, when cars are emissions excempt, they still need to be running the full smog equipment that the car came with as OEM (no gutting of cats, etc). Friends have been busted by the smog police for this. I'm sure the same type of thing applies to all excepmt cars.
The extra money collected to crush cars is a hit or miss proposition. While I think its great that we crush all the gross-polluting beaters on the road, the classics that have some value in terms of parts or restoration should not be crushed just to be green.
I love the spirited debate here and the fact that everyone seems to be respecting each other. However, things are off-topic
I personally can break this thread up and move all the environmental stuff into its own thread if everyone agrees. If not, carry on
My take on the emissions laws, as things seemed to be a bit vague at the first post.
I am pretty sure the older vehicles have to pass an emissions test relevant to the year the car was made, or the year the engine block was cast, whichever is newer. This should be easy for an older car if it maintained properly.
In Ontario, when cars are emissions excempt, they still need to be running the full smog equipment that the car came with as OEM (no gutting of cats, etc). Friends have been busted by the smog police for this. I'm sure the same type of thing applies to all excepmt cars.
The extra money collected to crush cars is a hit or miss proposition. While I think its great that we crush all the gross-polluting beaters on the road, the classics that have some value in terms of parts or restoration should not be crushed just to be green.
3/6/07, 04:40 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: August 23, 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxie hit the nail on the head.
I think SEMA is trying to spread some misinformation here. They make it seem like all old cars are going to be pushed off the road. But remember this doesn't apply to cars pre-1976, and even for the later cars they have to meet the standards of the year in which they were produced.
The problem is, new cars are becoming so clean that we don't have the test equipment to even measure the amount of pollutants coming out of the tailpipe. Considering that an old car can have 100 times the pollution of a new car, it seems foolish to send 100 new car owners to smog check just to make up for one old car owner.
Again this has zero to do with global warming.
I think SEMA is trying to spread some misinformation here. They make it seem like all old cars are going to be pushed off the road. But remember this doesn't apply to cars pre-1976, and even for the later cars they have to meet the standards of the year in which they were produced.
The problem is, new cars are becoming so clean that we don't have the test equipment to even measure the amount of pollutants coming out of the tailpipe. Considering that an old car can have 100 times the pollution of a new car, it seems foolish to send 100 new car owners to smog check just to make up for one old car owner.
Again this has zero to do with global warming.
3/6/07, 04:59 PM
#31
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bovine population of the world combined with exponential increase in latent H2O in the atmosphere from the pumping of subsurface aquifers has more of an effect on "global warming" than cars. Period.
Face the facts, we just came out of an ice age and this warming trend is par for the course for the past half dozen million years. In actuality, the current rate in which sea level is increasing from a corresponding overall temperature increase is relatively very mild to sea level changes that took place in even the past 500,000 years.
I'm an enviromental geologist, pollution is bad -- but this is going a bit far even for frenzy mucking politicians.
Face the facts, we just came out of an ice age and this warming trend is par for the course for the past half dozen million years. In actuality, the current rate in which sea level is increasing from a corresponding overall temperature increase is relatively very mild to sea level changes that took place in even the past 500,000 years.
I'm an enviromental geologist, pollution is bad -- but this is going a bit far even for frenzy mucking politicians.
3/6/07, 06:09 PM
#33
TMS West Coast Correspondent
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Posts: 3,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SECTION 1. Section 44012.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
44012.5. (a) The department shall incorporate annual inspection
of motor vehicles 15 or greater model years old into the motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program by July 1, 2008.
(c) (1) All motor vehicles not subject to biannual inspection
shall also be exempt from annual inspection.
to read:
44012.5. (a) The department shall incorporate annual inspection
of motor vehicles 15 or greater model years old into the motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program by July 1, 2008.
(c) (1) All motor vehicles not subject to biannual inspection
shall also be exempt from annual inspection.
Now for the slightly confusing part: currently there are two groups of smog yrs, the bi-annual and the newer batch that go 4~5yrs. the bi-annual are those from somewhere around 2000 all the way back to 1976. What California is trying to pass here is that they are going to remove the exempt status on cars older than 15yrs. 15yrs back takes us to 1992 and those cars are currently smogged bi-annually. So here is what will happen. As stated in the exception in (c) Pre-1992 will now have to smog annually (that means all the way back to the very first car ever built), from 93-2000 (or whatever the current cut off is for bi-annual) will continue to be smogged bi-annually, and lastly everything after (new cars) will continue to be smogged every 4-5 years as they do now.
as long as the gov. sells "smog credits" (you can polute all you want if you pay).. all smog legislation is BS. Its not about clean air... its about $.
Real sources of pollution are industrial plants, semi trucks that displaced rail, and all the emerging third market economies. It is so much easier to scapegoat the people who do not have powerful lobbies.
Yes it may very well be a losing battle to try to fight this because it isnt about air pollution, its about money and the majority of the left leaning, environmentally concious voters in the state look at us (car enthusiasts) as the problem. Convincing them otherwise....well they all believe Al Gore hook line and sinker. Which, speaking of emerging third market economies, how about the coal it takes to heat Al Gore's house, a nice $1200 a month bill. I am sure that his driving the Prius for milk also offsets all the plane trips associated with his book tour. But no matter how futile it may be it is worth a shot, this bill is completely lame!
3/6/07, 06:09 PM
#34
V6 Member
Join Date: January 23, 2007
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as I see it, there are several SEPARATE issues here >>
1. Global warming is REAL, regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support it (as opposed to opponents who trot out bullsh!t science about "they say the sun is causing it" or express what they "feel" is causing it, yada, yada, yada).
2. Human beings are contributing to the problem.
1. Global warming is REAL, regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support it (as opposed to opponents who trot out bullsh!t science about "they say the sun is causing it" or express what they "feel" is causing it, yada, yada, yada).
2. Human beings are contributing to the problem.
3/6/07, 06:26 PM
#35
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 18, 2006
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admittidly, I have not read the entire bill yet, BUT, your first post states the following.
So how am I missing something here????? If the new bill is called A.B. 616, pre 1976 cars remain exempt (not affected by) the new bill.
So what is the big difference here??? Mainly I see it as they are trying to force annual inspection instead of biannual. And footing some extra money for scrapping POS cars that should be scrapped as they are not within emmisions spec.
Yes, it is a pita. But on all my cars 1976 and newer I run cats and keep them legal anyway. All my older ones are excempt.
You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee.
So how am I missing something here????? If the new bill is called A.B. 616, pre 1976 cars remain exempt (not affected by) the new bill.
So what is the big difference here??? Mainly I see it as they are trying to force annual inspection instead of biannual. And footing some extra money for scrapping POS cars that should be scrapped as they are not within emmisions spec.
Yes, it is a pita. But on all my cars 1976 and newer I run cats and keep them legal anyway. All my older ones are excempt.
3/6/07, 06:33 PM
#36
[quote
But here's two things that aren't total BS >>
- Global warming is real; it is happening; and it is going to profoundly alter our planet (i.e. melting arctic ice destroying the polar bear habitat, etc.). How much of it is planetary cycle and how much of it is human cause, is still open to debate in some quarters, but here's the thing: even if there's only a 50/50 chance that we are making it worse, don't we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to do something about it?
- That said, all these measures so far are a band-aid approach. What we really need is to stop burning fossil fuels ACROSS THE BOARD, en masse, and find a new solution (which would have the side benefit of getting us out of the Middle East once and for all) for powering industry and transportation. The solutions are actually out there now, but there is little movement (thanks to the oil lobby) to adopt it across the board.
And those are the facts.[/quote]
But here's two things that aren't total BS >>
- Global warming is real; it is happening; and it is going to profoundly alter our planet (i.e. melting arctic ice destroying the polar bear habitat, etc.). How much of it is planetary cycle and how much of it is human cause, is still open to debate in some quarters, but here's the thing: even if there's only a 50/50 chance that we are making it worse, don't we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to do something about it?
- That said, all these measures so far are a band-aid approach. What we really need is to stop burning fossil fuels ACROSS THE BOARD, en masse, and find a new solution (which would have the side benefit of getting us out of the Middle East once and for all) for powering industry and transportation. The solutions are actually out there now, but there is little movement (thanks to the oil lobby) to adopt it across the board.
And those are the facts.[/quote]
3/6/07, 08:13 PM
#38
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, that's very magnanimous of you, given that you've made all of seven posts at the time of this writing. Thanks. 
That's your perogative.
I didn't realize we had so many PhD level environmental scientists on this board. Who'd have thunk it? 
Over 90% of the world's most respected scientists have proven that global warming is not a "hoax." The Earth is getting warmer. The only thing still being debated is how much human beings are contributing to the equation.
Now, at the end of the day, people are going to believe whatever they want, depending upon their world view and whether or not they have an agenda that is directly impacted by the findings. And I would argue that muscle car fans have a pretty good agenda for going around calling it a hoax.
The bottom line is that none of us individually can do a thing about it anyway.
That's your perogative.
Average temperatures on Earth have increased 0.6 degree in the last 100 years. Temperatures on planet Earth vary across time and have done so long before human beings arose. This cyclical rise and fall of average temperatures is natural. Humans contribute less than 1% of CO2 via burning fossil fuels. This means that if Al Gore & his left-wing cronies outlawed our industrial civilization (and ended life for 99% of us), planet Earth would still increase its average temperature slightly for the next several millenniums...until the next ice age begins.
Over 90% of the world's most respected scientists have proven that global warming is not a "hoax." The Earth is getting warmer. The only thing still being debated is how much human beings are contributing to the equation.
Now, at the end of the day, people are going to believe whatever they want, depending upon their world view and whether or not they have an agenda that is directly impacted by the findings. And I would argue that muscle car fans have a pretty good agenda for going around calling it a hoax.
The bottom line is that none of us individually can do a thing about it anyway.
3/6/07, 08:16 PM
#39
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
But here's two things that aren't total BS >>
- Global warming is real; it is happening; and it is going to profoundly alter our planet (i.e. melting arctic ice destroying the polar bear habitat, etc.). How much of it is planetary cycle and how much of it is human cause, is still open to debate in some quarters, but here's the thing: even if there's only a 50/50 chance that we are making it worse, don't we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to do something about it?
- That said, all these measures so far are a band-aid approach. What we really need is to stop burning fossil fuels ACROSS THE BOARD, en masse, and find a new solution (which would have the side benefit of getting us out of the Middle East once and for all) for powering industry and transportation. The solutions are actually out there now, but there is little movement (thanks to the oil lobby) to adopt it across the board.
And those are the facts.
What are ya...twelve?
