The good old days - were they so good?

[Guest]

Mr. Moon<BR>I started not to answer your remarks because it seemed to me that you had misunderstood what I said and any further discussion would quickly degenerate into a shouting match, but I thought about it and realized that that is exactly what the econazis (as I call them use as a tactic to silence reasonable discussion). Since you are obviosly a reasonable man I knew that you wouldn't want me to just go away. I repeat my first statement-I am all for clean environment. You will never convince me that people that would ban such things as freon without ANY conclusive proof that it was harming the environment are logical and have anything but the preservation of their jobs at heart. And how about the farmer in S. Ga. that was fined over $100,000.00 because he drained a pond on his OWN land to plant food crops. Seems waterfowl stopped at the pond. Or what about the loggers that had to go on welfare because a spotted owl was in the forest. I am sorry but when we put the welfare of a bird that has little known value to the earth over people then I call it indefensible and illogical. Hence the term econazis.

[Guest]

Yep. Consider the contradictions of the Environmental Heroes too. Several such people i know will have a fit if a little oil leaks from their car onto their driveway or garage floor or even on the road in front of their house. BUT YET, they routinely have the pest control contractors come into their house to spray poisons all over it.<P>When i point that out to them they just look at me as if i have insulted their mother of something.<P>What we have here with the entire Eco thing is a Synthesis/Antithesis plot.

[Guest]

I have a problem with limiting this thread to ONLY automotive issues. <P>Our entire society is affected by the automobile, and conversely the automobile affects our society.<P>So peterg, how about not trying to restrict this thread from rambling where it wants to go.<P>hvs

[Guest]

RE : "rambling"...off the subject matter<BR> in any given "caption"<P>I disagree - rambling is fun - and we already have a "RAVES" section for that. If you want to "ramble"...well..I think we can all benefit more from this terrific new form of communication, if we STICK TO THE SUBJECT CAPTIONS !<P>or else !<P>(If you guys dont get back in line, I WILL give you a full and complete discussion on <P>1) How I REALLY feel about those damn<BR> whales pissing in MY ocean...<P>2) Britney Spear's latest dance video...and,<BR> THIS time, if you guys dont start<BR> sticking to the subject, not ONLY will<BR> I discuss every wriggle of her lovely<BR> young, fertile thighs...I will ALSO<BR> review her LYRICS...line by line...!<P>(only thing GOOD...about the good old<BR> days...is that they are GONE...! )<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Sorry, I just read my first post and realized I left out the word not in the last line. Also I can't swear to the air purification statement, but if there more cars on the road now than in 1970 and these same cars are being driven more miles then how can the air be cleaner if they are not helping purify it? Or am I using econazi logic?

[Guest]

hvs: you 110% correct. The automobile has impacted every corner of our society. IT IS the American auto industry to which we SOLEY owe our greatness that is second to none and without even a close second.<P> All technology and inventions combined taken from the beginning of time lack any significant impact on the world compared to the automobile.<P> The signicance of WWII and all that came out of it (including the phenominal human efforts) in a few short years is also a social phenomina that makes all discoveries and efforts prior to AND SINCE (including computers) nearly archaic in comparison. <P>One thing is for sure, had it not been for the American Auto Industry, America today would be a 3rd world country.<P>There is little that can be discussed without the automoble haveing some impact.<P>The automobile itself is a psycho/sexual phenomenon of world civilization.

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

I tend to agree with Terry. I want a clean environment, but I don't think it's as dirty as some would have you believe. It is my theory that the "hole" in the ozone layer has always been there. It varies in size, always has, always will. There are those who will start measuring it when it is small, stop measuring it when it is large, and use this "scientific evidence" to convince the whole world that something needs to be done, when in fact its just part of nature. <P>I feel the same way about global warming. I feel that global temperatures have varied from the beginning of time. Somebody homes in on one of the warming trends and preaches it for the gospel that the whole world is coming to an end if we don't stop doing this that and the other. <P>Hell, before too long, the extinction of the dinosaurs will be blamed on the white european male and his industrialized society.<P>You want to clean up the environment? Stop having babies!<p>[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: MODEL A HAL ]

[Guest]

Bravo Hal on your final observation in the previous post. <P>The world is screwing itself into armageddon. <P>I know, I know. This has nothing to do with the automobile except when it occurs in the back seat. ~ hvs

[Guest]

Pete ~ If we are to be expected to move to the raves section and begin a new thread every time something in a "general" thread caused our minds to move to a somewhat different thought, I doubt that this forum would survive. Too much jumping around on the "dial" tends to cause one to lose interest.<P>It is the "ramblings" of our assorted characters on this Forum that makes it interesting and fun. After all, this thing should not become a straightlaced technical journal devoid of all humor and digression.<P>You forget Britney and I'll forget KK. Fat chance of that happening. ~ hvs

[Guest]

who is KK ???????

[Guest]

<h1><A HREF="http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000184" TARGET=_blank>KK BS</A></h1>

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Tod, I'm not sure I quite understand your question. My dictionary defines theory as a set of assumptions or statements devised to explain a phenomenon. #2 def is abstract reasoning or speculation. <P>I'd like to think that my usage fits the first definition, but I'm sure that there are others who will claim it's closer to the second.

[Guest]

i'm not real sure what 'cleaner' or 'dirtier' air really means anyway! Not real sure about the people making the determinations either.

[Dave@Moon]

Terry,<P>Don't have time to read and answer everything right now but:<P>1. The waterfowl lost a lot more than the GA farmer. And quite likely, you and I lost the waterfowl (which number about 5% of what they did nationwide 100 years ago).<P>2. The loggers wound up on welfare because they were'nt smart enough to learn a second trade. They went on welfare (at the <I> <B>very</I> </B> most) two years earlier than they otherwise would have because of the spotted owl. <P>There are a lot of other "facts" that you weren't learn if you limit your knowledge intake to what Mr. Limbaugh and his buddies at <I>Fox News</I> want you to hear. <P>But then there wouldn't be any evil people destroying America from within to have fun with!

[Dave@Moon]

Oh yeah, I forgot.<P><I> <B>SCREW THE WATERFOWL!</I> </B><P>There, I thought I'd save a few people some time.

[ply33]

Hal,<P>In science a theory must be testable. To be testable the theory must be able to make predictions that, if wrong, will prove the theory wrong.<P>In essence, you can't prove a theory correct. You can only prove a theory wrong. And if the "theory" does not allow for being proved wrong, it is not a scientific theory. As a result, a lot of science is to actively try to find evidence that theories are wrong.<P>As an example, assume a "theory" of a deity creating the world in 7 days of 24 hours each and that the deity purposely buried layers of debris on the planet to fake a multi-billion year history. You can't disprove that. Any evidence you find that seems to indicates a long geological past can be explained as being intentionally left to fool you. So what you have is not a scientific theory. It can be called a "belief", but not a "scientific theory". Sadly, this explanation of the earths history fits your dictionary's definition of theory. The next thing you know somebody will want to label it "Scientific Creationism" and force it into our school science curriculum.<P>The fact that your dictionary does not include the scientific meaning of theory is unfortunate. I think the general public has no real concept of the scientific process. Since much of science is looking for the faults in theories and the data that is used in justifying the theory it is always possible to find scientists that do not agree with the "accepted" current theories in any given field. This is good because if you are not looking for errors you are less likely to find them.<P>But it also means that non-scientists (businesses, governments, activists of any flavor) with an agenda can always find a scientist with an alternate view to quote. Just remember that at any given time our best guess as to how Nature works are the current "accepted theories" in each field.<P>By the way, the current accepted theory by those in the field is that global warming is real and that it has a significant human activity component. Is it correct? Time will tell. If it is correct and we choose to ignore it what will the consequences be? Nobody knows for sure. Does that mean we should ignore the situation or say it does not exist? I hope not.

[Guest]

OK folks... lets bring this back to the original subject: "Considering we are all car fans lets compare today?s cars and transportation issues to ?the good old days?."

[Dave@Moon]

As you might guess, as someone with two Master's degrees in the environmental sciences there are probably a few more things here I'd like to respond to:<P>Skyking:<P><B> "...There all a group of suits that never had a real job, or know what a real job is. It must be easy to sit around a desk and make rules, and get paid too!"</B><P>If you wanted to demonstrate absolute ignorance on a subject, you couldn't have done a better job. The people who protect your kid's well being via the environmental sciences work harder, under more difficult circumstances, at more complex problems, and for less reward, <I>than anyone you've ever met.</I> The only way statement's like your's are ever made is if the work they're doing is beyond your level of comprehension, much like feral aborigines giggling at a camera or lighter. <P>And by the way, the only times I wore a suit in my old job was when I cost somebody a couple million dollars on the stand in court.<P>I'd entertain further discussion, but there'd be no point.

[Dave@Moon]

PackardV8,<P>If <B>"i'm not real sure what 'cleaner' or 'dirtier' air really means anyway! Not real sure about the people making the determinations either",</B> shouldn't that alert you to information that you don't have? Shouldn't it spur you into checking out sources of information beyond those that you've already heard? <P>Acid rain, global warming, ozone depletion, P-A-N (smog) formulation, etc......, all of these are decades old hypothesis in the scientific community. (I knew the chemistry of how freon attacked ozone in the upper atmosphere 20 years before it was banned.) There are literally truckloads of true scientific examination of each subject available, most of which can be aquired through the internet or on interlibrary loan. <P>And yes, there are a few partisan pamphlet studies released that purport to debunk some or all of the above. If you have a comprehension problem, and sticking to these is all you can achieve, then perhaps leaving your understanding as it is is best. If not, however, <I>dig in and learn!</I> The world needs people to do that.

[Guest]

Someone just sent me an e-mail commenting on my relative absence from the forum discussions. I explained that being continually reminded that, "Thou shall not stray from the opening subject" is the new watchword of this Forum, I feel somewhat limited in my desire to participate within such narrow parameters. <P>Yes, we have the rants and raves section, but I want to neither rant nor rave nor always be starting new threads. I also wonder how many of us wander to the bottom of the page, and if we occasionally do, how often? We seemed to have a good time in the past with all of the ramblings and even social commentary. Where has that gone? <P>I know, those were "the good old days" and the "good old days" weren't supposed to be so good.<P>Time passes and things change. Is it always for the better? ~ hvs <p>[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: hvs ]

[Dave@Moon]

And more to the subject of cars (to make PeterG happy ):<P>ply33:<P><B>"If (global warming) is correct and we choose to ignore it what will the consequences be? Nobody knows for sure."</B><P>That's not <I>entirely</I> true. When heat is added to any largely closed system (i.e. the atmoshpere), the first observed reaction is always some sort of instability. This is best observed by heating a clear glass container of water at the base, where a swirling of hotter and cooler masses of water are visisble inside the container. Heat is never absorbed by a media (air, water, etc.) uniformly, and is most often spread throughout by material interchange as much as heat exchange within the media. <P>So if global warming is a reality, the most logical first consequence will be widespread weather extremes on an increasingly frequent basis. <P>Is this occurring? Most climatologists (again, egghead scientists to those of you who are lost at this point) say yes. I'm not a climatologist, but I know enough to know that my <I>opinion</I> doesn't hold as much weight as their <I>education</I>. What I can say is that at my last home in Pittsburgh over 13 years I saw the hottest, coldest, wettest, and snowiest days (and weeks) that city had in 150 years, as well as it's two worst drought periods and record rainfall for week, month, and year time periods.<P>The main fear for global warming among scientists isn't melting polar ice or regional climatic change. It's unpredicatble shifts in weather that prevent the reliable growing of crops. That would be the first symptom that'd really effect society. If it were to occur rapidly, there probably wouldn't be any society any more.<P>What does this have to do with cars? California is about to propose air quality standards for "greenhouse gases" which cause global warming, notably carbon dioxide. The <I>only</I> way to reduces CO2 emissions is to reduce gas consumption, so this will be in effect a mandatory increase in CAFE standards in California. And, from what I understand, the SUV and Minivan quotient in the mix will no longer be allowed to masquerade as "trucks",as if anyone's out there hauling manure in their Explorer. <P>Why does this have to be done when it's "only a theory"? How much do <I>you</I> want to risk your life on it? <P>Of course now it's time for someone to try and convince us that the evil environmentalists have a plan for getting rich by improving our country's aggregate fuel economy. It's a..... Well..... You see they want to...... <P>Oh Hell, I'm sure they'll find a way to keep believing in corporate America and the "Republican Right".

[Dave@Moon]

And Terry:<P>Most of your other comments that I'd disagree with are answered above. However, you stated:<P><B>"....but if there more cars on the road now than in 1970 and these same cars are being driven more miles then how can the air be cleaner if they are not helping purify it? Or am I using econazi logic?"</B><P>Well, here's a clue: Thanks to the "econazis", the average car of 1967 emits more aromatic hydrocarbons parked (with the engine off) than the cars of today emit while running. Of course, you know, they did this for you and your well being so I'm sure they really appreciate being called "econazis" in return. <P>

[Guest Skyking]

Model A Hal, I agree with you on the dinosaur issue. If these dam enviromentalist were around during the prehistoric days we'd be dealing with "Save the dinosaurs". There all a group of suits that never had a real job, or know what a real job is. It must be easy to sit around a desk and make rules, and get paid too!

[ply33]

Unregistered User PackardV8 - KK is Krispy Kreme.<P>Unregistered User Terry posted:<blockquote>Sorry, I just read my first post and realized I left out the word not in the last line. Also I can't swear to the air purification statement, but if there more cars on the road now than in 1970 and these same cars are being driven more miles then how can the air be cleaner if they are not helping purify it? Or am I using econazi logic?</blockquote>You are certainly using non-Aristotelian logic that can be debunked by anyone who finished a reasonable grade school science education.<P>Model A Hal - Do you know the scientific use of the word "theory"? As far as I can tell, no one outside of science or engineering uses that word correctly. The latter part of you post you state that you "think that...." This is good usage. I agree with, but have no theory to prove, your final statement.

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Tod,<P>Unfortunately, good detailed records of temperatures have only been being kept for a short period of time as compared to the age of the earth, so it will likely be thousands of years before one could conclude whether global warming is real. Maybe it is, but I'm not convinced that anyone has enough information to make that call.<P>By the way, it is my "belief" that the earth was created by a Deity, but over the course of millions of "our" years. This is one of the reasons I highly doubt that the white european male and his industrialized society can destroy it within a matter of a few years.

[Guest]

someone wrote:<BR><<<<<<..I knew the chemistry of how freon attacked ozone in the upper atmosphere 20 years before it was banned..>>>>><P>Ok. WAHT is the next thing to be banned???. about when??? AND who will offer up a replacement?????

[Guest]

This is a very interesting topic. Facts versus conjecture. Old versus new. Young versus Old? It is easy to defend any position using 1/2 facts or conjecture. ANY position can be supported. Why am I so distrustful of the environmentalists, then? Lets see- when I was young the evil cars were responsible for global cooling. There were even predictions of possible future Ice Ages. Years later the evil cars were causing global warming which would ultimately turn large ares of the planet into deserts. Now, we learn that instead as the temperature of the planet rises we will suffer extremes of weather! Same people-different story. Facts versus conjecture. Fact-air is cleaner than in 1970. Fact-new cars emit less hydrocarbons than 1967 cars. Fact-Cars are driven more miles per year now than in 1967. Conjecture- Cars clean the air. Fact- loggers lost there jobs because of a bird. Conjecture-The were too LAZY to find other jobs. Conjecture- They would have lost their jobs in two years anyhow. Fact-Scientific data (tree ring growth and geological studies of soil deposits) prove that there have been extreme variations in the climate on a regular periodic basis as far back as we have been able to study (millions of years). Conjecture-Our piddling efforts are going to destroy the planet. There are several troubling things about the entire environmetal group. I could go on and on about things like stationary sources of pollution vs. mobile pollution but the fact remains the current environmental mania has little credibility because of their holier than thou attitude and consistent use of conjecture. Q- How do you recognize and environmentalist? A-He drives 60 miles in his SUV so he can ride his bicycle through the woods to attend a save the planet rally with 200 others.

[Guest c.johnson]

The good old days?<P>Maybe no one remembers a time that was marked by Presidential scandal, that gave the press a hayday. When America was ruled by gangs who controlled drugs, prostitution, and weapons.<BR>The Government was spending far too much, and was inept and without scurples.<P>Or when skirts became so short that morality must and common sense must have gone out the window.When sex became a popular topic for college students - (by the way, the latex condom was invented also.) When women became out of control, loose, and free from the restraints of the modern day, and surely the world would come to an end soon, because of the debachery and imorality of man<BR> <BR>That is how some viewed not "generation X" of today, but the "lost generation" of the 1920's. <P>That is also why my 1920 Oakland has that interesting "Art Deco" upholstry <P>cj

[Guest]

someone wrote:<BR><<<<<<...When women became out of control, loose, and free from the restraints of the modern day, and surely the world would come to an end soon, because ..>>>><P>Isn't that all it takes to make some 'good ole days'????? Sounds good to me!

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

PackardV8,<P>If one wanted to be REALLY cynical, they could speculate that maybe DuPont supports the environmentalist theory (there's that word again) that R-12 will bring about the end of the world so that they could charge outrageous prices for R-12 for several years, then have a monopoly for the next several years on the production of R-134A to take its place.<P>I'm NOT saying I believe this, but I have heard some say it. <P>I added the "NOT" to the statement above. Sorry, must have been the public school system.<p>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: MODEL A HAL ]

[Guest]

Or perhaps the patent was about to expire on r-12?

[Guest]

Some of us still believe that the greatest threat to the environment and to the entire world is overpopulation <P>But since doing anything constructive in that area is opposed by some religions and their dedicated followers, as well as those who feel they must foist their own beliefs on other person's bodies, we are doomed to continue overpopulating the earth. <P>But, it is ever so much easier to attack the automobile than a religious belief. <P>See, I stayed on the subject of the automobile. hvs

[Guest]

One good thing about the "Good Ole Days", before the development of the internet, you only got some of these asinine statements at a bar!<P><BR>I love how only the Republican Right are destroying the Earth. Oh, I better not forget we greedy capitalists. I hope I sell some more cigarettes today. <P><BR>Thank you, God, for giving us do-gooders to protect us!!!! <p>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Alan Terek ]

[Guest]

Peter this time I will talk about vehicles, promise. How are the enviromentalists going to profit? Well, lets see- the econazis belong to the Clinton party which stays in power by providing everything to the non productive, poor chosing masses. I know how about mass transit! Take a big white bus anywhere you want to go courtesy of your friendly demogod(crat). Love those buses with cheap fare subsidized by all the rest of us.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, the only thing we have learned from all of this is that 'we' (i.e. ME) should go to the library and read books that the 'eco-nazis' have written so 'we' can educate ourselves. This has become a mexican stand-off. OF course we all know who will win in the end: The Eco-Nazi's.

[Guest]

Disclaimer: Dave Moon, i am confident that YOU act in good faith as an environmentalist and believe in trying to be helpful and humanitarian with genuine concern. However, can you genuinely claim that there is not significant corruption with in the Environmental Policy makeing body?????

[Guest]

damn whales.....screw em... ( all they do is pee in the ocean...) ( what about "dropping a dime" on the whales...to the EPA....?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest Skyking]

I believe we are doing more harm to this earth today than we did in the good old days. We never had huge oil & gas spills then like we do today. In Florida, space shuttles are leaving almost on a daily basis. Talk to any native Floridian and they will tell you how much the weather has changed since they been launching these space ships. Yet our government does nothing about it. They keep blaming the auto industry. I would like to know how many cars it would take to pollute the air on one shuttle take off.

[Dave@Moon]

A few facts:<P>The head of the EPA (currently former NJ Governor Christy Whitman) makes less money than many urban car dealership sales managers. And in the environmental game, I'm afraid that's as good as it gets. If you want to help the world in your line of work, you're going to pay a personal price for that. Priests, teachers, social workers, and environmentalists are all in the same bag.<P>(Kind of makes you wonder why someone would give up a Governors seat for the job, doesn't it? Especially in this administration!)<P>Myth: <B>" the econazis belong to the Clinton party ".</B> In <I>fact</I>, before the right wing of the Republican party was hyjacked by business interests in 1980 using a smiling, familiar face and pretty surise backdrops, <I>conservation</I> was a <I>conservative</I> aesthetic. That's why they have the same root word! When Ronny Reagan started to go off the deep end during the 1980 campaign criticizing the "econazis", he was very subtly reminded that the largest pro-environment organization in the U.S., the National Wildlife Federation, was at that time comprised of <I> <B>85% registered Republicans!</I> </B> (Ask a political statistician how often he sees a correlation that high sometime.) <P>He kept his mouth shut on that subject until his buddies got what they wanted. One third of the EPA technical staff was laid off during 1981 and 1982, and the industry never fully recovered. That is why people like me have to give up their careers when their kids are born. I was the lead hazardous waste investigator in one of the most important industrial areas in the U.S. After 8 years, 2 Master's Degrees, and 2 major upgrades I'd made it to the lofty salary of $11.16/hr. Most likely, the guy or girl keeping Bhopahl from happening in your neighborhood is making less than that right now.<P>Yeah. We're in it for the money.<P>You people should be ashamed of yourselves sometimes. <I>Think</I> instead of believing what you're told once and a while. You could be correct and not even know it.<P>A few other observations:<P><B>"Or perhaps the patent was about to expire on r-12? </B> Gee, I though I was the only one who knew why it took almost 20 years to fix the problem. <P> <B>"Unfortunately, the only thing we have learned from all of this is that 'we' (i.e. ME) should go to the library and read books that the 'eco-nazis' have written so 'we' can educate ourselves. This has become a mexican stand-off. OF course we all know who will win in the end: The Eco-Nazi's."</B> --Yeah. That's it! It's the <I>information</I> that's the problem. Suppress <B>all</B> information and we can go about our lives as our American God wants us to. <I>Didn't some guy named Hitler try that in his country at one time?</I> <P>Hal: <B>"By the way, it is my "belief" that the earth was created by a Deity, but over the course of millions of "our" years. This is one of the reasons I highly doubt that the white european male and his industrialized society can destroy it within a matter of a few years."</B> <P>My deity both made me fundementally flawed and gave me "dominion over the earth." I think accepting responsibility for our actions <I>may</I> be part of my deity's game plan.<P>Terry, Terry, Terry: <B>"Fact- loggers lost there jobs because of a bird. Conjecture-The were too LAZY to find other jobs. Conjecture- They would have lost their jobs in two years anyhow. Fact-Scientific data (tree ring growth and geological studies of soil deposits) prove that there have been extreme variations in the climate on a regular periodic basis as far back as we have been able to study (millions of years). Conjecture-Our piddling efforts are going to destroy the planet. There are several troubling things about the entire environmetal group. I could go on and on about things like stationary sources of pollution vs. mobile pollution but the fact remains the current environmental mania has little credibility because of their holier than thou attitude and consistent use of conjecture."</B> <P>Where do I begin? Apparantly some instant trees were going to spring up and save the loggers' jobs. Translating "not smart enough" into "lazy", and then criticizing <I>others</I> for using conjecture. Equating "extreme" variations in <I>climate</I> with extreme variations in <I>weather</I> (there's a difference, look it up--or did econazis write the dictionary too?). Translating superior education and/or intellect on a subject as a "holier than thou attitude". I'll bet you tell the doctor what's wrong with you as soon as you walk into his/her office, don't you. <P>And at that point, we find the real Mexican standoff. I won't believe anything contrary to what I already believe if the person presenting it is smarter than me. <P>Go ahead. Use all the semantics you want. Try to redefine <I>that</I> position. I bet it can't be done without redefining me (How presumptive of me to assume that 2 Master's Degrees somehow make my knowledge on the subject substantive! ). <P>How sad.<P> <p>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Guest]

SkyKing brings up a GOOD point. What DO the Environmentalists have to say about all of those space rockets polluting???