Edmunds: The "global warming score"

teeb said:
Playing devil's advocate :

How is knowing roughly how much emissions your car gives out a bad thing? We take into account MPG when buying cars already (well, many people do - I suspect people here, not so much).
Click to expand...

because the mpg figure has relevance and meaning, co2 doesn't, honestly, whether we turn out to warm up the earth massively with our cars (which is extraordinarily unlikely) or not, i won't care about it, i don't even care too much about fuel costs, and i'm certainly not flush with cash. but as long as fuel costs less than 10? a litre, i won't care, because the benifit so far outweighs the cost, still. as for co2, well you can imagine.

the problem isn't really a matter of co2, but the fact that eco friendly cars are all so horrible.


we can run petrol engines on fuels that are unlimitedly available and, argh, carbon neutral, why the fuck don't we use them. it's often said that they're not economical enough, that mexicans are turned into workforce barely distinguishable from slaves in order for people in europe to use fuels from the field, but surely, we came up with a rocket that flew to the moon, an electric car that travels 200 kilometres on 2 tons of batteries or a hybrid that does much, much worse than a normal diesel, and both running, ultimately, on fossil fuels, can't be the best we can come up with, can it?

well the reason why it appears to turn out that way is politics, not science, politics, activism, protest, and general busyness of people, to quote clarkson, whose lifes haven't turned out quite as well as they'd hoped.

i thought we learned our lesson in the eighties and early nineties, and later whith Peta and Greenpeace. but we haven't, and for that reason, i hope i will soon be able to afford something with a massive engine, in order to preserve it - because you know, in contrast to concorde, we do have some choice, still, when it comes to our cars. and we don't have to let them be killed by activists which dodgy goals.

clean and green eco-friendlyness is just too good a weapon for the anti-capitalists, which if you haven't got me by now, are really running the green movement. (edit, put like that, it seems like a horrible conspiracy theory - but i assume you know that i'm not stating fact, just my understanding of the evidence, which could well turn out to be completely wrong)

on the other hand, there are very genuine concerns about the environment, for example, saving people from the harsher conditions that global warming will bring to them in the next fifty years. we shouldn't really be installing wood burning stoves with a 5% less co2 emmision in african shacks with people living in them with far greater problems, such as aids, no water supply, and so on, and so forth. just as an example, if we'd let africa tackle it's Coal and oil ressources, they maybe could build up some industry, giving them enough money to maybe stay alive a little longer than 40 years, and defend themselves from the abuse the west is currently dishing out on them. sure, this is grossly oversimplified, but in essence a big part of the problem with eco-mentalism.

so you see, a simple sticker that appears to be quite helpful could turn out to be a big, big problem, where none need be.

sorry, i seem to go on about this stuff rather a lot.
 
Last edited:
Being that this is America, I can't wait for the impending lawsuits over this blatant politicking bullshit.

I need a sticker for my truck that says: "Global Warming Score -2/10". That will make the smell of all the unburnt gasoline my truck emits that much sweeter.
 
tigger said:
Being that this is America, I can't wait for the impending lawsuits over this blatant politicking bullshit.

I need a sticker for my truck that says: "Global Warming Score -2/10". That will make the smell of all the unburnt gasoline my truck emits that much sweeter.
Click to expand...

Or

"For every gallon of gas you save, I will burn three"
 
airmenair said:
No facepalm yet? I wonder if it's possible to get a negative score...I want a bumper sticker showing how low my rating is!
Click to expand...

I'll do the honors:

facepalm.jpg
 
And yet they all create less global warming than cows. Are we going to sticker cows?
 
MPowered said:
Ugh, does the CARB think we're all this dumb that we'll just look at a number from 1 to 10 and go "ooh, this car is a 9 and that is an 8. I'll get the one that's a 9." Maybe so.
Click to expand...

No. What they think is that someone looking for an environmentally friendly car that does what they need now can make that choice easier. If they have 2 cars to decide between that are seemingly an even match (civic vs corolla) they have one more thing to edge them one way or the other.

I think this could be a good idea. As companies build these better high performance engines like the ecoboost and GM's DI-turbo-Ecotec, people might start to realize that buying something that goes fast doesn't mean killing the environment.

I honestly don't get why so many people have to give the retarded response of "oh I'll just get the one that is exact opposite of the ecomentalists, har har har" (/sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
thedguy said:
I honestly don't get why so many people have to get the retarded response of "oh I'll just get the one that is exact opposite of the ecomentalists, har har har" (/sarcasm)
Click to expand...

Because it is our solemn duty to piss off any and all religious, political, environmental or any other extremist cult-type group, trying to legislate and control normal peoples' lives with some silly rulebook, be it the Bible or some horrid manifesto cooked up by Al Gore.

Unless what you meant was from the environmentalist point of view, which is what "why so many people have to get the retarded response" literally means, in which case I'd probably argue in a similar fashion: because only retards end up being part of an extremist group.
 
Ugh....

I understand the smog part, that's a big problem over there in California, yes? But a global warming scale? Oh dear. Expect all the fun cars to be at the bottom of the scale! :D
 
How about making the Global Warming sticker in Standard Equivalent Cow Farts (SECF). Just have a picture of how many cows produce the same global warming temp in a year as the car.

Maybe then it will be in a proper perspective.
 
Blind_Io said:
How about making the Global Warming sticker in Standard Equivalent Cow Farts (SECF). Just have a picture of how many cows produce the same global warming temp in a year as the car.

Maybe then it will be in a proper perspective.
Click to expand...

Aw snap! That'd shut people up.
 
Dsemaj said:
Ugh....

I understand the smog part, that's a big problem over there in California, yes? But a global warming scale? Oh dear. Expect all the fun cars to be at the bottom of the scale! :D
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that many cars wouldn't be far off of the average or above average stuff... IE, the gap would be very small except for the twin turbo v12 G-wagons maybe :lol:
 
frankiess said:
Because it is our solemn duty to piss off any and all religious, political, environmental or any other extremist cult-type group, trying to legislate and control normal peoples' lives with some silly rulebook, be it the Bible or some horrid manifesto cooked up by Al Gore.

Unless what you meant was from the environmentalist point of view, which is what "why so many people have to get the retarded response" literally means, in which case I'd probably argue in a similar fashion: because only retards end up being part of an extremist group.
Click to expand...

Hmm, don't agree with global warming but your argument has a problem. Extremist is a volatile word, and can be used whether the group is right or wrong. Ex: anti-slavers in the early days of the US were known as "rebels" whereas those who wanted full rights for blacks were called "extremist". Were they wrong, or crazy, etc, though? No.

No, I don't believe any fringe faction of a movement should be allowed to control our lives. But occasionally, if the arguments are sound and logical (as is not the case with global warming or religious fanaticism), there is no denying the theory is right- and even if it means sacrifice on the part of those not defended by the theory, it is true nonetheless.
 
freeferrarisdonotexist said:
No, I don't believe any fringe faction of a movement should be allowed to control our lives. But occasionally, if the arguments are sound and logical (as is not the case with global warming or religious fanaticism), there is no denying the theory is right- and even if it means sacrifice on the part of those not defended by the theory, it is true nonetheless.
Click to expand...
If people didn't believe their extreme views weren't sound and logical, they wouldn't believe them. That's the problem; no person who holds an extreme view goes "it doesn't make sense, but it's what I believe".
 
We can't compare cows to cars, see cows are necessary and are God's creatures while cares are completely unnecessary and are man made thus evil. Even though cows populations increased thousands of times because of our NEED for food and milk. /sarcasm
 
nice...so when we go in to buy a car, just get the ones with lower numbers since they will be more fun. kinda helpful if you ask me :D
 
Dogbert said:
If people didn't believe their extreme views weren't sound and logical, they wouldn't believe them. That's the problem; no person who holds an extreme view goes "it doesn't make sense, but it's what I believe".
Click to expand...

Sure they do. In the early years there are many accounts of Christians stating that they knew their religion was hard to believe. That's why it's called a faith, because no one really knows anything. We just read it out of a book and choose to believe it.

The difference between an extremist and someone who merely chooses to believe something is pretty simple, really. An extremist will do anything to make it known that they are of a certain disposition or belief, and a "normal" person won't or doesn't care. In other words, an extremist will act upon their views if at all possible, regardless of what other people think/want/care, and a "normal" person will try his best to accommodate other people's views.

Example, the "normal" person buys energy efficient appliances and as many natural products as possible because they believe that it is good for the planet. An extremist tries to pass legislation forcing people into their viewpoints or runs ads on TV trying to "convert" people.

Another, less pertinent example. I'm a "normal" Christian. I would never try to "witness" someone or berate them for doing something I consider "wrong". I used to live next to an extremist family that would try to tear you a new cornhole if you so much as mentioned another religion in their house or presence. I, of course, being a "normal" person, politely ignored this behavior.
 
MadCat360 said:
Another, less pertinent example. I'm a "normal" Christian. I would never try to "witness" someone or berate them for doing something I consider "wrong". I used to live next to an extremist family that would try to tear you a new cornhole if you so much as mentioned another religion in their house or presence. I, of course, being a "normal" person, politely ignored this behavior.
Click to expand...

I, being an an asshole, would do everything I could to piss them off and argue with them about religion anytime I was bored :lol: :rolleyes:
 
MadCat360 said:
Sure they do. In the early years there are many accounts of Christians stating that they knew their religion was hard to believe. That's why it's called a faith, because no one really knows anything. We just read it out of a book and choose to believe it.

The difference between an extremist and someone who merely chooses to believe something is pretty simple, really. An extremist will do anything to make it known that they are of a certain disposition or belief, and a "normal" person won't or doesn't care. In other words, an extremist will act upon their views if at all possible, regardless of what other people think/want/care, and a "normal" person will try his best to accommodate other people's views.

Example, the "normal" person buys energy efficient appliances and as many natural products as possible because they believe that it is good for the planet. An extremist tries to pass legislation forcing people into their viewpoints or runs ads on TV trying to "convert" people.

Another, less pertinent example. I'm a "normal" Christian. I would never try to "witness" someone or berate them for doing something I consider "wrong". I used to live next to an extremist family that would try to tear you a new cornhole if you so much as mentioned another religion in their house or presence. I, of course, being a "normal" person, politely ignored this behavior.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with your post. Obviously, if you find something extremely repulsive morally, or if a person blatantly denies facts and makes things harmful for others, than even a non-extremist would probably make a stink about it. But just someone with differing views? Non-extremists try to accomodate, accept, create an understanding with, or "gently" debate or convert. Extremists, on the other hand, know they don't have a leg to stand on/or know that the issue is a matter of "faith" but pursue absolutes anyway.
I visited Houston when I was 19 and met a deeply christian family that personified the "extreme" viewpoint. Pretty insane, they were. Their rhetoric made me go :?. But, I don't judge christians like that- you, for example, are not that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top