are we at 2, already?

3/2/2008 9:45:05 PM

3/2/2008 10:03:56 PM

awwwww.

gwarsh.

thats so special.

3/2/2008 10:40:39 PM

oh wait, i meant to post that in the other thread! lol

3/2/2008 10:58:05 PM

^^^ I can agree with that. But insofar as "god" = nature.

3/2/2008 11:46:17 PM

moral of the story: LSD cures atheism

3/3/2008 12:30:48 AM

Quote :

"I swear to God, a class on this has no credibility if I don't know what department it's in. You took a humanities class on global warming with no technical aspect whatsoever? Whoop-de-fucking do."

mrfrog

What a fucking idiot. Global Warming MLS 501F does, in fact, have "technical aspect[s]"--way to make stereotypical and incorrect assumptions, asshole. In addition, have you ever heard of qualitative data? Qualitative data such as the IPAT Equation, for example, are examined in the course at issue. FYI, the IPCC has used IPAT to study the effects of CO2--but you obviously are ignorant of that fact.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how some of you imbeciles can criticize lack of education concerning a particular subject as reason to summarily dismiss an individual and in the same breath put down another individual who's trying to educate himself about the same subject. Until you've taken a course--any course--on climate change, how about you shut the fuck up running my coursework down, okay?

3/3/2008 12:38:17 AM

Quote :

"NO! STOP TRYING TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING CALIFORNIA!! "

Sure, its that simple...

Whats happening is its not feasible for car companies to meet the regulations, and the lobbyists are making noise at the EPA. It appears California is calling for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions, or basically 30 percent better fuel economy, by 2016.

What that basically means is every car sold in California by then must be a hybrid. Car companies would barely be given two model-redesign cycles to turn all their models into hybrids at the cost of billions, or face whatever penalties the state sets. They may even be forced to stop selling many models in the state due to the costs of implementing hybrid tech or due to the penalties.

Meanwhile, people are supposed to have the freedom to choose which vehicle they want. And it may not be a hybrid, because currently they are much more expensive and do not provide a beneficial cost/benefit ratio for many years, and this is likely to change very little by the deadline.

So, thats probably partly why California is seeing some resistance.



[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2008 1:34:03 AM

Quote :

"I believe that Al Gore and the IPCC are actively engaged in leftist politics; some lawmakers, celebrities, and liberal business people are more than willing to support them; and that it's all one of the biggest scams to ever come down the pike. "

- hooksaw

Quote :

"nd I am talking actual science, NOT speculation, and NOT politics (IPCC). I'm talking about the kind of science that actually seeks to VALIDATE its results before saying "I WAS RIGHT!! WOOOOOOOOO!""

- aaronburron

Quote :

"I cannot and will not support the IPCC blather. Can you understand my position? "

- hooksaw

Quote :

"Really? 'Cause these IPCC folks sure as hell are trying to sound like they understand the "true intricacies of the science": "

- hooksaw

3/3/2008 1:50:21 AM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, people are supposed to have the freedom to choose which vehicle they want. "

I'm sorry, but what the hell does this mean? What 'freedom' are you referring to?

Of course California can regulate which cars are sold in the state. They already do so. Are you not aware that they already have the most stringent emissions standards in the country, and diesel passenger cars are not sold there because they can't meet the requirements?

Quote :

"What that basically means is every car sold in California by then must be a hybrid."

wrong. It means that cars must average about 36 mpg by 2016, which is not unreasonable and can be met by many current non-hybrid cars. The new federal energy plan calls for 35 mpg by 2020, so it's not all that much different.


[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 1:57 AM. Reason : 2]

3/3/2008 1:54:02 AM

Quote :

"It means that cars must average about 36 mpg by 2016, which is not unreasonable and can be met by many current non-hybrid cars."

And those current non-hybrid cars are dinky sub-compacts. 36 mpg without hybrid tech in two model cycles is out of the question for an SUV, and for a mid-size sedan would require a detuned, powerless 4-cylinder, a 500 lb weight reduction, and a little bit of aerodynamic magic.

Quote :

"The new federal energy plan calls for 35 mpg by 2020, so it's not all that much different. "

Certainly the car companies are unhappy about it as well.

Quote :

"What 'freedom' are you referring to?"

Buyers would be forced to pay the premium of the hybrid, or otherwise buy a neutered version, neither of which may meet their needs.

[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 2:34 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2008 2:24:42 AM

^^^ And?

3/3/2008 3:15:09 AM

Quote :

"What a fucking idiot. Global Warming MLS 501F does, in fact, have "technical aspect[s]"--way to make stereotypical and incorrect assumptions, asshole. In addition, have you ever heard of qualitative data? Qualitative data such as the IPAT Equation, for example, are examined in the course at issue. FYI, the IPCC has used IPAT to study the effects of CO2--but you obviously are ignorant of that fact. You know, it never ceases to amaze me how some of you imbeciles can criticize lack of education concerning a particular subject as reason to summarily dismiss an individual and in the same breath put down another individual who's trying to educate himself about the same subject. Until you've taken a course--any course--on climate change, how about you shut the fuck up running my coursework down, okay?"

This isn't about your education. It's about your douchebaggery.

You fucking parade around here saying that have have CREDENTIALS on the subject and won't tell what course it is? You make all these claims about having information beyond what everyone else here does, and won't elaborate on serious, direct questions that people ask you, and respond with insults.

YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I'M GOING TO INSULT YOU.

I have friends in Geology, Marine, Physical science graduate programs. I know State has good shit. I don't know anything about this course, but your over reaction to me calling it a pussy humanities course says volumes more about it than I could ever have come up with myself.

[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 7:21 AM. Reason : ]

3/3/2008 7:20:37 AM

Global warming ain't got nothing on this!

3/3/2008 7:26:16 AM

Support Global Warming! Burn an extra gallon of gas today to support the cause! Defeat Global Cooling!

3/3/2008 10:44:45 AM

Quote :

"You fucking parade around here saying that have have [sic] CREDENTIALS on the subject and won't tell what course it is?"

mrfog

You can read, yes?

Quote :

"Global Warming MLS 501F does, in fact, have 'technical aspect[s]'--way to make stereotypical and incorrect assumptions, asshole."

hooksaw

/message_topic.aspx?topic=516572&page=2

And I never used the word "credentials," mrfog. I stated that I have simply been trying to educate myself concerning the subject at issue--which is more than I can say for many here.

3/3/2008 1:19:42 PM

Quote :

"Sure, its that simple... Whats happening is its not feasible for car companies to meet the regulations, and the lobbyists are making noise at the EPA. It appears California is calling for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions, or basically 30 percent better fuel economy, by 2016. What that basically means is every car sold in California by then must be a hybrid. Car companies would barely be given two model-redesign cycles to turn all their models into hybrids at the cost of billions, or face whatever penalties the state sets. They may even be forced to stop selling many models in the state due to the costs of implementing hybrid tech or due to the penalties. Meanwhile, people are supposed to have the freedom to choose which vehicle they want. And it may not be a hybrid, because currently they are much more expensive and do not provide a beneficial cost/benefit ratio for many years, and this is likely to change very little by the deadline. So, thats probably partly why California is seeing some resistance."

FINALLY, someone with some sense addresses this California issue. You can't force technology with government regulations

3/3/2008 1:29:28 PM

MLS 501 the "graduate level seminar on global warming"

Quote :

"MLS 501 Seminar In Liberal Studies Preq: Admission to M.A. in liberal studies Intensive study of an interdisciplinary issue or area. Seminars, varying each semester, address such topics as arts studies, history and literature, sociobiology and social sciences, world trade and world conflict, and technology and social change. "

oh lordy. now hooksaw is pulling rank and gonna bust some chops on teh IPCC and all their silly little Nobel Laureate scientists.



[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2008 3:31:37 PM

^ Get it right, fool:

MLS 501F - Global Warming: Causes and Potential Consequences - Course Description:

Quote :

"This course will take an interdisciplinary approach to the controversial subject of global warming and investigate its potential environmental and social consequences. The science behind global warming will be examined, and opposing viewpoints related to ethical, political, and technological aspects will be discussed. National and international energy policy strategies that mitigate the impacts of global warming will also be evaluated. Another important aspect of our study will be to capitalize on the diverse backgrounds that students bring to class, relying on class information sharing, discussion, and debate to supplement readings, lectures, videos, and other instructional tools."

3/3/2008 3:43:48 PM

Quote :

"And I never used the word "credentials," mrfog. I stated that I have simply been trying to educate myself concerning the subject at issue--which is more than I can say for many here."

yes, you never said you had "credentials above others here". You said this.

Quote :

"At any rate, as probably the only user here who has taken graduate-level courses on both global warming and global sustainable human development, I can say without a doubt that the global warming/global cooling/climate change issues are highly complex."

I am sorry for any misrepresentation I have made.

Quote :

"FINALLY, someone with some sense addresses this California issue. You can't force technology with government regulations "

The big problem I have with this is: Why the fuck is this a national politics problem? I have a car that gets 35-40 mpg, it's not a hybrid. It's a Toyota. The legislation isn't a physical impossibility for consumer cars, so why should the federal government do anything about it?

Let California (and the other 18 states that would ALSO implement these measures) fuck their economy or whatever over by doing this. I don't give a shit, it's their state, let them pass their own laws. They've done a dozen or two of this sort of legislation over the past 2 decades and the national government rubber stamped it. Now, that the big auto companies start crying about it they stop the most significant legislation yet.

Our federal government should never have done this, and should not get away with it.

3/3/2008 6:23:51 PM

Quote :

"The science behind global warming will be examined by folks who haven't taken a single calculus-based physics class, and opposing viewpoints no matter how hare-brained and ill-informed ... will be discussed with a straight face. Another important aspect of our study will be to capitalize on the diverse backgrounds that students bring to class, relying on class information sharing, discussion, and debate to supplement readings, lectures, videos, and other instructional tools such as papier mache sculpting, and macaroni and glitter artwork projects, interpretive dance routines, and poetry readings."

yeah MLS 501. "intro to CHASS grad school."

i took several 500-level engineering courses as an undergrad. big deal. i can only imagine what a seminar roomful of creative writing and philosophy majors evaluating scientific theories must have been like





[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 7:47 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2008 7:46:39 PM

papier mache sculpting sounds fun. We could use that in some of the engineering courses.

3/3/2008 7:55:29 PM

Quote :

"I have learned a lot--some of what I have learned has confirmed my previously held positions; some warrants further examination and consideration. "

This sounds like something a sociologist would say.

3/3/2008 9:13:21 PM

mrfrog does bring up something that I was thinking about earlier today. Where are all of the "OMG STATES RIGHTS!!!1" people now? Where the fuck are you? This should be something right up your alley. Big, bad gubment trying to tell a state that it CAN'T regulate its own pollution. But instead it's all *crickets* *crickets* because it's a supposed "lefty" issue and since their narrative thrives on the notion that all lefties are for more gubment involvement they sit on their hands.

3/3/2008 9:25:02 PM

Quote :

"Where are all of the "OMG STATES RIGHTS!!!1" people now? Where the fuck are you? "

Present and accounted for.

Of course California has the right to regulate the cars sold in the state, and the EPA is on the wrong end of a legal argument that will likely get overturned in court. Hell, they know as much, as evidenced by an internal memo that got leaked.

3/3/2008 9:33:50 PM

^, ^^ yeah, i knew it had like zero public support, but I didn't think that it was like complete suicide on the part of the EPA, which it sort of seems like now. Or maybe I'm HOPING it will be.

And right, this also kind of shows how different parts of the political spectrum DON'T get together

state's rights != a left issue

but this is a left issue, and a states right issue. Fits very strongly in both of those. So if we want to be stereotypical, I think the left seems more in favor of central government. Just look at red vs. blue states, lol.

--
Back to the issue, the EPA slowed California down. Big time. They had something like 2 years to sign off on the bill, but didn't, and now they still haven't signed it and it's in the courts. From what I was reading however, it sounds like California has every intention of taking it as far legally possible...

Just like emission-free car requirement some years ago...

[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2008 10:46:08 PM

Quote :

"The big problem I have with this is: Why the fuck is this a national politics problem? I have a car that gets 35-40 mpg, it's not a hybrid. It's a Toyota. The legislation isn't a physical impossibility for consumer cars, so why should the federal government do anything about it?"

Maybe b/c you can't make a 40mpg family vehicle that seats 5-7 in comfort that the average family can afford. Its still unrealistic at this point. I really wish automakers would invest more money/R&D in lightweight materials. With all the ridiculous bulking up of the average automobile I feel like this is the most promising area of advancement.

HockeyRoman, please don't lump this CA issue into the generic "states right" argument. CA deserves their own special status, bunch of loons over there...

3/3/2008 11:29:11 PM

on yet a different issue, I'm not sure how effective "caps" are. The way it works as far as I understand is that the government sets a certain average value for something, and then shapes policy to achieve that goal.

like if there's a government decree saying that there should be an average of xx mpg, then there are cars sold with less than that. How do you manage the average? As far as I understand it, there are penalties/incentives on the dealers to make them sell more efficient cars.

I'm more of the opinion that you should just start with regulating the types of cars made, and let the average fall where it will. It's unrealistic to think you can place the financial burden on the dealer. In the end, the cost of making cars more efficient will fall on the consumer.

3/3/2008 11:57:47 PM

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=18&article_id=6453

See "It Ain't Over Until the Courts Sing" and the linked column about attribute-based CAFE

These columns give a little more detail about California's actions and the new federal CAFE. You can ignore much of what I said before, as I was just speculating based on what little I knew at the time. The consequences for auto makers may not be as terrible as I guessed, and they could actually profit from it.

3/4/2008 12:09:08 AM

Quote :

"HockeyRoman, please don't lump this CA issue into the generic "states right" argument. CA deserves their own special status, bunch of loons over there..."

You are right. There is nothing "generic" about this. The most populous state in union is taking a stand against pollution that goes above and beyond mandates of the Environmental Puppet Agency. Meanwhile Bush & Co. seek to oppose this because it goes against the interests of Bush's pals in the oil and automotive lobbies. Will US automakers be adversely effected? Probably in the short term but this is the writing on the wall and it seems that Japanese car makers have seen it coming for a while. People want fuel efficient vehicles and clean air. If that is only something that should be valued by the "loons in California" then I sure as hell don't want to be your apathetic type of "normal".

3/4/2008 10:12:25 AM

Toyota proved itself to be smarter and more maneuverable than GM 2 decades ago. From here on out, you're just going to see the gap widen as the U.S. manufactures continue to fight change and the rest of the world adapts to it.

3/4/2008 10:30:54 AM

I think that GM is starting to turn the ship around and will be headed in the right direction over the next few years. They have invested a lot of money into development of new technology.

3/4/2008 11:05:42 AM

Ford has for some time now adopted Toyota's lean manufacturing model. they learned the lesson a lot earlier than GM.

3/4/2008 12:35:15 PM

Quote :

"yeah MLS 501. 'intro to CHASS grad school.' i took several 500-level engineering courses as an undergrad. big deal. i can only imagine what a seminar roomful of creative writing and philosophy majors evaluating scientific theories must have been like"

JoeSchmoe

If your position is correct, how does Al Gore's BA in government qualify him to evaluate and pontificate on the "scientific theories" of global warming and climate change?

BTW, your "intro to CHASS grad school" comment is laughable--yes, it's a 501-level course, but I've moved well beyond the introductory level in grad school. I've already taken the required number of MLS seminars for my degree program, among the public administration and higher education courses I'm taking for my concentration. I took the Global Warming course simply to help educate myself about the subject--a concept that some of you seem rather selective in appreciating.

Quote :

"roomful of creative writing and philosophy majors"

So far off the mark it's shocking. But that's the problem with too many engineers I've encountered--which took you about two lines to declare to us in your post, BTW--you think you know every goddamned thing, but you don't. To borrow HUR's annoying method: I'M AN INGUNEEEEEER--AND YOU'RE NOT!!!1 I CAN DO THE MATH--YOU'D BETTER RECOGNIZE!!!1

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 1:34:30 PM

3/4/2008 2:33:23 PM