bpmurr

Hollywood North GT,

Remember a little thing called Global Cooling from the 1970's. Heck at one time they suggested melting the polar ice caps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Honestly summers feel just as hot as when I was a child. Winters are about the same and overall it just seems to go in cycles every few years. The earth my very well be getting warmer at the moment but I don't want it preached to me like it's fact. People have taken climate change and turned it into politics and that is what makes me sick. I have no problem getting rid of some of our modern way of life style if it’s actually going to help. However at this point I haven’t seen anything solid saying humans are going to make or break mother earth. That said I’m all for being good stewards of the earth but doing it with common sense and without politics.

RRRoamer

Cars have to meet the emission requirements for the year they were produced. No more. No less. Heck, a 2004 Mustang GT, brand spanking new would NOT be able to meet the emission standards of the 2005 Mustang GT. Just the fact that it doesn't have the inlet vapor recovery thingy would fail it for a required equipment point of view.

And just for the record, cars have been fitted with emission equipment since the mid to late 60's. That's the last 40 years or so. As the years have gone by, the equipment required to meet the tightening standards have changed a lot.

Hollywood_North GT

Did you read these sentences in the opening paragraphs of that page >>

At present, the dominant (consensus) theory amongst scientists is that Earth as a whole is not cooling, but rather is in a period of global warming attributed to human activity.

The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968. Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects, and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

Emphasis on the word known, not "suspected."

No disrespect intended, but I'm more interested in what the vast majority of the world's most respected scientists have to say than I am in "feelings."

I agree, the politicization of it is disgusting...as is the commercialization of it for personal gain. But that doesn't negate the overriding problem. And if it turns out to be as serious as scientists say, then now do they get the message out to members of the public - like people on this board - who think it's all a big hoax?

There is little any one person can do, frankly. It will require a massive worldwide push on the part of industrialized nations to make changes, much the way Kennedy committed resources in 1962 to take America to the moon...and GOT IT DONE within the decade. Then you have to force the developing nations to do the same. And corporations have to go along as well. Personally, I don't see it. And I think our grandchildren will live in a fundamentally different world in 100 years.

And nobody said we were going to "break mother earth." If you'd read my earlier post you'd have noticed that I said Mother Earth is tough to beat. The Earth will recover in time, but perhaps not in time to prevent humanity's way of life from changing profoundly.

Like I said, there's little we can do about this problem as individuals. It will require fundamental and sustained change across the world.

Anyway, enough about this issue. I'm out of this discussion, since it's obviously too polarizing, which, unfortunately, is a big part of the problem.

Fireball1

I earned a professional degree from a world-renowned environmental science college. It's ranked as a top 50 public university by US News & World Report. I also worked in this field for years. Here's what I learned:

In the 1960s leftists in America became enamored with European socialism & communism. They tried to sell the American public on this political paradigm, but Americans are different than Europeans because Americans have an implicit individualist philosophy. They do not want collectivism. So when people like Jane Fonda failed to convince Americans to go communist, leftists discovered environmentalism and its advocates. Authors like Rachel Carson were catapulted into positions of authority to sell the American public on the validity of environmentalism. After that, leftists began advocating global cooling as a result of man's productive activity. This culminated in the 1980s with Popular Science magazine running a cover story with the earth covered in ice, declaring that industry is causing the world to freeze. Of course, leftists wanted to control & drain industry, business and producers in the name of global cooling. That ploy failed.

So in the 1990s leftists such as Al Gore flip-flopped their position and started preaching global warming: that man's productive activity is causing the world to melt. No surprise that leftist politicians & lawyers are now suing Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota and other great companies in the name of global warming. All such actions have one goal: to control & drain the producers so those leftists can parasitically live off others without having to put forth productive effort.

Note: not all leftists are bad and many serve as a valuable counterbalance to the irrationality of the religious right.

rrobello

You dont need to go to a specialized school and major in this stuff to realize anything you just said, just open your eyes and be mindful instead of believing all the crap that someone tells us on the tv. Its obvious that every time the leftist find themselves in a jam politically, especially it seems over a war that they totally agree which causes a problem for them, they have to oppose their political opponents because hell no one can simply agree publicly on something, that would just be ludicrous, and they cant fight against it because they agree so they always seem to pull out the old "save the world" card. Heck in the 80s they had everyone scared that the world wasnt going to make it into the new millenium if they didnt join in on their campaign slogan of the time, the 3 Rs "recycle, reuse and something else I dont remember"...lol sorry. And now that here we are 2007 the new catch phrase is "Green" and once again people are running scared afraid that we are going to kill the planet and everything on it, instead of paying attention to the important things that are going on RIGHT NOW, not a million years from now.

you do realize you were using wikipedia as a reference dont you?

and space travel.....moon landing.....bah it was all done in a hollywood basement JK.

PolkThug

Just swap your exhaust out once a year when its inspection time.

Every_Mn

That's what I've always thought...

Hollywood_North GT

I was going to stay completely away from this topic, but some of you doubters may want to read this story which discusses the findings of the new International Climate Report released by one thousand of the world's top scientists. The report included these likely effects of global warming >>

- Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

- Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

- Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

- By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.

- About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

- Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.

- Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.

- At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.

There IS no more debate. The seriousness of the consequences are unequivocal.

If you STILL choose not to believe, ask yourself the following question >> When was the last time you could get FIVE people to agree on ANYTHING...never mind ONE THOUSAND?

Time to wake up and smell the CO2 people.

Emu Hunter

I hope somebody thinks to export anti-smog regulation over to China before the next 5-10 years undoes the controls placed on those weekend warrior Bel Air's being driven around in California. Global Warming is a GLOBAL problem. I have no problem with CA and MA being on the usual forefront of trying to "make a statement" with controls, but it won't do the planet much good if China and oh I don't know 1 BILLION drivers within 25-50 years does nothing?

metroplex

NJ used to have annual emissions and safety inspection. They switched to every 2 years a few years ago, along with requiring new cars to be inspected 4 years after it was purchased instead of 2 years.

Emu Hunter

I personally think the purpose of electric and hybrid cars is three-fold:

1) there's apparently a market full of green-friendly suckers willing to buy them

2) they soften the introduction of change away from the fossil fuel engines

3) if the technology got big, they may lead to more centralized fossil fuel use at those major power plants, where regulations may be easier to implement and pollution easier to monitor/control

but I doubt enough will ever be sold to make a real difference.. I think the government should get behind hydrogen and start pushing.

silverGTvert

Power plants make more pollution than cars. I say we just go Nuclear. We can maybe borrow a flux capacitor from the DeLorean.

Emu Hunter

yes yes yes, power plant = more pollution than your one car. But the power plant in theory should be easier to control. Whereas the private car owners are like herding ants. I think fleet vehicles switching to alternate fuels first, is sort of related to the point I was trying to make.

rrobello

youre kiding yourself if you think people like Al Gore are going to start cracking down on gross polluters like power plants any time soon. They would loose so much money, both political and personal/business, and it is much easier and cheaper to just pull the wool over the voters eyes to please them and get reelected all while not solving the problem and continuing to make money while doing so. The point is Hybrids are not the solution and in fact the more that are sold the more they will compound the problem. The world would be much better off with the cars we have now, versus everyone driving a Hybrid.

05fordgt

Boy, Jay Leno will be a bit Pi$$ed if this law gets passed. Though, he has the cash to make sure they pass the smog tests.

Fireball1

Even left-wing scientists & professors are cringing at Al Gore overplaying his global warming hand. This is reported in the most left-wing newspaper this side of Moscow: The New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/sc...in&oref=slogin

Hollywood_North GT

When was I talking about Al Gore? I don't recall saying anything about Al Gore.

I was talking about this study, released yesterday.

Fireball1

Al Gore is the Pope of the religion of global warming. Gore's left-wing soul mates -- the Associated Press, Reuters, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Air America, Newsweek, Time, Scientific American, the UN, many university professors -- all follow his lead. Yet they, Gore's followers -- including the tax-funded scientists who contributed to that study -- are worried Gore is over-extending himself and will cause this whole manmade global warming charade to come crashing down.

Hollywood_North GT

You just listed 14 of the 20 most important and respected media outlets in the United States and inferred that they, 1000 of the world's top scientists, and mankind as a whole are all participating in a mass charade.

What planet are you living on?

Just curious.

No, really.

P.S. We're ALL out to get you. No-one else. Just YOU. Yes, that's right...YOU. DON'T TURN AROUND...I'M TALKING TO YOU, sitting at the computer locked away from the real world. We're gonna getcha!

Fireball1

Maybe I should have stated this explicitly: the liberal mainstream media is destroying America with it's left-wing agenda of anti-business, anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. For an pro-business, pro-industry, pro-capitalist view try Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Fox News, Drudge Report, conservative talk radio, National Review (just ignore the religious nonsense).