My First BMW and after a month, I have a few QUIRKS to share?

Thanks for the Earth Day rant Psych but I'm with Garbaj on this one.
Get the government out of my face.

Originally Posted by BobRBob

Thanks for the Earth Day rant Psych but I'm with Garbaj on this one.
Get the government out of my face.

Ever see what unrestrained laisez-fare industrialization can do? Did you see the Beijing Olympics? You know, the one where every single day was so poluted you couldn't see more than 100 yards? Centralized regulation of the rape of the earth is necesary unless you like this....

OH OH, I started an environemental rant thread.....LOL

Originally Posted by PsychDoc1

Ever see what unrestrained laisez-fare industrialization can do? Did you see the Beijing Olympics? You know, the one where every single day was so poluted you couldn't see more than 100 yards? Centralized regulation of the rape of the earth is necesary unless you like this....

I hate it when that happens...

I just went to hug a tree, and feel better now

Originally Posted by GARBAJ

I tell you what "pardner" it won't EVER be illegal in Texas... Start it up, and let it get warm or cool inside. Nothing makes me more mad than enviros/social justice freaks dictating what I should or should not do...

"Chilling" isn't it?

Originally Posted by GARBAJ

I tell you what "pardner" it won't EVER be illegal in Texas... Start it up, and let it get warm or cool inside. Nothing makes me more mad than enviros/social justice freaks dictating what I should or should not do...

Tell you what. Stop telling women what to do with their pregnancies, and the guys who share a house down the street what they can do in the privacy of their own homes, and we can talk about the role of government involvement in people's lives.

Originally Posted by planet

Tell you what. Stop telling women what to do with their pregnancies, and the guys who share a house down the street what they can do in the privacy of their own homes, and we can talk about the role of government involvement in people's lives.

Bravo!!!!

You nailed it Planet.

[/quote]Gotta love your moniker, GARBAJ. Kind of like the whole world is your personal GARBAJ heap, huh?
[/quote]


Well what a pleasant enlightened comment from a highly educated person. Oh, wait! Pysch is a soft science and it is widely known that greenies ignore hard data (in the hard sciences) when it doesn't fit their agenda, e.g. the effects of the last one day Iceland volcano eruption that negated all global efforts for three years against warming [and that doesn't even add in the the other eruptions that happen around the world all the time. And then there's the latest data from the new NASA satellite that shows even the environmental radical's most conservative global warming model is so far off it's a joke. That's why Gore went apoplectic in CO just the other week. There's some more smoke for your mirrors. Glass house and all that.

Gotta love your moniker, GARBAJ. Kind of like the whole world is your personal GARBAJ heap, huh?
[/quote]


Well what a pleasant enlightened comment from a highly educated person. Oh, wait! Pysch is a soft science and it is widely known that greenies ignore hard data (in the hard sciences) when it doesn't fit their agenda, e.g. the effects of the last one day Iceland volcano eruption that negated all global efforts for three years against warming [and that doesn't even add in the the other eruptions that happen around the world all the time. And then there's the latest data from the new NASA satellite that shows even the environmental radical's most conservative global warming model is so far off it's a joke. That's why Gore went apoplectic in CO just the other week. There's some more smoke for your mirrors. Glass house and all that.[/QUOTE]

Hey sarge. Because I know you're such a renowned "hard" scientist, mind telling me what happened to the polar ice caps?

Oh, that's right, who cares? Just as long as we can preserve our god-given right to rape the environment at our will.

Well, one reasonable theory that has been put forth (imo) is that we (humans) haven't been around long enough yet to know just how long and interactive the different cycles of this planet are. Before you jump on my case about nuclear dating do a serious research about the assumptions and accepted constants in that regard and you might come away with a different view on that dating method.
Have the caps receeded a bit over the past few years? Sure. But the Polar bear population contrary to the hoakum spewing fanatics has actually increased. Could it be because the caps are smaller and it's now easier for the bears to get game or is there something else at work? Bottom line what I'm trying to say is stop all the spewing of junk science and reactionary mandates from unproven models and incomplete data. There is plenty of good out there that can be done like what Ohio did in stopping the burning of the Cuyahoga river. BTW the fish are back in lake Erie and they are edible again.

The Arctic ice cap is shrinking.
The Antarctic ice cap is growing.

And last winter was cold as hell. Where's that remote starter when I need it?..

Actually:

The fact that the release of CO2 has increased drastically during the last 100 years is very well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that atmospheric concentration has risen drastically over the last 100 years is very well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that the natural means to sequester CO2 has shrunken drastically over the same time is well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that CO2 concentration is a big factor along with methane from cattle, in raising the temperature is well documented from several reliable sources.

There is no junk science in this.

The junk as it were, is in the counter-arguments made by those who's interest is in opposing climate legislation for what can only be seen as their own myopic and selfish reasons... and the naivete of those willing to support the counter-position out of ignorance and paranoia, or because they are paid to. But it really all comes to tin, when we see that those that oppose usually do so zealously, instead of acting at least as if it 'might be true' and thus act responsibly just in case it is for real. It really looks a lot like the emperor's new clothes. And as we pointlessly argue at length with the disingenuous and their minions, the future looms closer. It may already be too late to fix it. If so, then does anybody really win?

Q

Originally Posted by Quacker

Actually:

The fact that the release of CO2 has increased drastically during the last 100 years is very well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that atmospheric concentration has risen drastically over the last 100 years is very well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that the natural means to sequester CO2 has shrunken drastically over the same time is well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that CO2 concentration is a big factor along with methane in raising the temperature is well documented from several reliable sources.

There is no junk science in this.

The junk as it were, is in the counter-arguments made by those who's interest is in opposing climate legislation for what can only be seen as their own myopic and selfish reasons... and the naivete of those willing to support the counter-position out of ignorance and paranoia. But it really all comes to tin, when we see that those that oppose usually do so zealously, instead of acting at least as if it 'might be true' and thus act responsibly just in case it is for real. It really looks a lot like the emperor's new clothes. And as we pointlessly argue at length with the disingenuous and their minions, the future looms closer. It may already too late to fix it. If so, then does anybody really win?

Q

To quote David Byrne, "stop making sense."

It makes the natives restless.

***Sent from the inerwebs using technology that's way above my pay grade***

Question: What was it before CO2 and what is it going to be after, and after that?

Originally Posted by MSgtMel

Question: What was it before CO2 and what is it going to be after, and after that?

You might consider the ozone hole as the one before - but that was a small one and, a-hemm..., government regulation has abated the problem.

Climate change in full bloom will bring so many big problems, many life-threatening, that you won't need anything else to keep you busy for a very long time

Today I was behind a car that had no fewer than 8 pro-gun stickers on the back including, "keep honking, I'm reloading" and "If Guns Kill People, Pencils Make Spelling Mistakes".

Then I pulled by the driver and he had his hair pulled back in a girl's plastic barrette.

These arguments make about as much sense as that dichotomy.

I'm still awaiting my new 550 but in my 3 I press the engine stop, which leaves the radio on only until I open the door. I never found it to be an issue -- kinda one of those things you learn to ignore, like when cars first started leaving the headlights on for 30 seconds after exiting the vehicle. For a while it was odd but then people just got used to it.

p.s. I like the double-pull of the door but I have had passengers who stayed in the car pressing the window switch, trying to find the unlock button after I got out. Always funny to hear first time passengers panic a little thinking they were locked in. Haha

Well, we all know that the data from the IPCC is completely reliable and verifiable, as the ClimateGate e-mails have proven.

And of course, new research that supports that non-human factors have a much larger role in the climate than previously thought.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08...first_results/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05...nce/page3.html

I also find it very "Al Gorish" that many who believe the AGW malarkey tend to have lifestyles that don't align with their green thinking. Talking about things like sustainability and efficiency while on a forum dedicated to performance vehicles is like Jenna Jameson advocatin abstinence while accepting an award for best DP at the AVN awards.

Originally Posted by alewifebp

I also find it very "Al Gorish" that many who believe the AGW malarkey tend to have lifestyles that don't align with their green thinking. Talking about things like sustainability and efficiency while on a forum dedicated to performance vehicles is like Jenna Jameson advocatin abstinence while accepting an award for best DP at the AVN awards.

So if some moron with a cigarette in his mouth tells you not to smoke because it's dangerous, does that negate the message?

***Sent from the interwebs on technology that's way beyond my pay grade***

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Today I was behind a car that had no fewer than 8 pro-gun stickers on the back including, "keep honking, I'm reloading" and "If Guns Kill People, Pencils Make Spelling Mistakes".

Then I pulled by the driver and he had his hair pulled back in a girl's plastic barrette.

These arguments make about as much sense as that dichotomy.

I agree. Unfortunately this is the problem with politics. If you're a conservative you have to get in bed with the religious nuts and the trigger happy bozos. If you're a liberal you've to get in bed with a bunch of hippies, drug users and people who want to live off the state.

This is why I am an ardent supporter of making voting rights proportional to tax contribution. It will depower the morons.

Originally Posted by Stealth.Pilot

I agree. Unfortunately this is the problem with politics. If you're a conservative you have to get in bed with the religious nuts and the trigger happy bozos. If you're a liberal you've to get in bed with a bunch of hippies, drug users and people who want to live off the state.

This is why I am an ardent supporter of making voting rights proportional to tax contribution. It will depower the morons.

All parties should be abolished or at least re-thought. There is way too much pressure to align one's thoughts (candidate) based on the money coming into a party. Independent thinking is gone on both sides.

Oh good grief, I wake up to this? Going back to sleep. Wake me up when the car thread starts back up

Originally Posted by Quacker

Actually:

The fact that the release of CO2 has increased drastically during the last 100 years is very well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that atmospheric concentration has risen drastically over the last 100 years is very well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that the natural means to sequester CO2 has shrunken drastically over the same time is well documented from several reliable sources.

The fact that CO2 concentration is a big factor along with methane from cattle, in raising the temperature is well documented from several reliable sources.

There is no junk science in this.

The junk as it were, is in the counter-arguments made by those who's interest is in opposing climate legislation for what can only be seen as their own myopic and selfish reasons... and the naivete of those willing to support the counter-position out of ignorance and paranoia, or because they are paid to. But it really all comes to tin, when we see that those that oppose usually do so zealously, instead of acting at least as if it 'might be true' and thus act responsibly just in case it is for real. It really looks a lot like the emperor's new clothes. And as we pointlessly argue at length with the disingenuous and their minions, the future looms closer. It may already be too late to fix it. If so, then does anybody really win?

Q

Give me strength.