Global Warming

[Dr. Shane]

Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters

|

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> Prez. G.W. Bush

[bevin]

This from the man who has done nothing to control CO2 emission in his entire presidency

Me thinks he can see the writing on the wall, and has realized that he has totally failed as a president, and is desperately trying to find some voter base.

/Bevin

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This from the man who has done nothing to control CO2 emission in his entire presidency

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Oh, I dont know...he's probably held his breath a time or two. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

I have been disappointed in G.W. Bush's record in some areas on environmental issues but regardless if a politician is Republican or Democrat I try to be fair and give credit where credit is due. The President gets a <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> on this one.

[olger]

In my opinion, "global warming" is right up there with lead paint, asbestos fervor, and mold paranoia. I can't believe how easily people can be manipulated with secular fervor.

"warm" regards,

olger

[Dr. Shane]

The debate is over whether global warming is caused by man or by the sun. If it is caused by man it is due to increasing CO2 emmissions. If it is caused by the sun it is due to increased solar activity as seen by sun spots. Both things are happening. We have increased CO2 emmissions and there is increased solar activities.

The President is simply saying that instead of arguing about which is the cause, let's do what we can. My hat is off to him. I don't agree with treaties that restrict our use of greenhouse gases while letting third-world countries produce as much as they want. But I do agree with curbing the amount we contribute within reason. Chasing all greenhouse-gas-producing industries off into Mexico and China isn't going to help the global environment.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"warm" regards

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[]http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h272/IAmelia/animal-smiley-059.gif[/]

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

olger said:

In my opinion, "global warming" is right up there with lead paint, asbestos fervor, and mold paranoia. I can't believe how easily people can be manipulated with secular fervor.

"warm" regards,

olger

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No comment on the other areas but asbestos is a real and present danger. Mesothelioma is a horrible way to go and it does not need much exposure to asbestos fibres. It just happens to be very topical in this country at the moment with a large firm which has produced and used the product without protecting the workers, having reluctantly made plans for a $40 billion dollar settlement over the next few years. They would not part with that sort of money for a misplaced fervour.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters

|

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> Prez. G.W. Bush

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

this is said from a President who killed the Electric car that got 100 miles to an overnight charge, which took care of over 90% of the needs of the American people, a device that could have reduced Co2 emissions, reduce our dependance on foriegn oil and reduce the threat of global warming....

Who is this authoritative dummy, you ask? It's the current President of the United States, George [you can't start a war without a "W"] Bush!

[Dr. Shane]

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Sadly, despite the substantial investment of money and the enthusiastic fervor of a relatively small number of EV1 drivers - including the filmmaker - the EV1 proved far from a viable commercial success.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Although I have not seen the movie or received an advanced DVD as others have from the film's producers, I can tell you that based on what I have heard there may be some information that the movie did not tell its viewers. The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

* GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

* Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

* No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

* A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

* Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

Could GM have handled its decision to say "no" to offers to buy EV1s upon natural lease expirations better than it did? Sure. In some ways, I personally regret that we could not find a way for the EV1 lessees to keep their cars. We did what we felt was right in discontinuing a vehicle that we could no longer guarantee could be operated safely over the long term or that we would be able to repair.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So as right and as good as our intentions were, we understand that the moviemakers see them as wrong. We'll accept that criticism, but don't punish GM for doing a good deed. Rather, work with us and give us credit for taking a necessary first step in developing technologies that hold the potential to change the face of automobile transportation. That's what GM engineers are doing everyday.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] June 23, 2006: Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car? By Dave Barthmuss[/] [:"red"] GM Communications[/]

hmmmmm....This says alot....

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

hmmmmmm.....I never heard of this....Did you? I don't remember any marketing ad campaign touting the benefits of the car...did you???

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Ok, but did anyone of those 5000 people on a list know about this car??? I surely didn't, and the movie that I watched mentioned this and some people who also said that they didn't know anything about this....Granted, not conclusive....but interesting...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Excuse me...but WHAT parts suppliers????

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[:"blue"] EV1 may also apply to the Saab EV-1

The EV1 was the first production quality battery electric vehicle produced by General Motors in the United States and the only vehicle in the history of the company to bear the "General Motors" badge.

GM leased over 800 EV1 cars (out of about 1100 manufactured - [1]) with the proviso that after the three-year leases were up, the cars reverted to the company. They were only available in California and Arizona and could only be serviced at designated Saturn dealers.

GM leased the EV1 mainly to satisfy the Zero-emissions vehicle Mandate in California. GM claims to have spent more than $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1, much of which was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 Billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) project[2] [3]. Despite long, unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feeback from the leasees, GM claimed that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.[4] Every EV1 that was offered for lease was placed in service. The program was stopped in 2003. [5] [6]

A modified EV1 prototype set a land speed record for production electric vehicles going 183 mph (295 km/h) in 1994.

The price for the car used to compute lease payments was $33,995 to $43,995, which made for lease payments of $299 to over $574 per month. "One industry official said each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research and development costs." [7] Normally, the R&D and Marketing costs per vehicle drop as the cars are sold in greater numbers. The vehicle's lease prices also depended on available state rebates. At that time, the cost for the electricity used to power the car was computed to be 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the equivalent amount of gasoline. The current increases in gas prices are making electricity relatively even less expensive.

[/]

[Neil D]

[:"green"] Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Caught Red-Handed Taking $470,578 from the oil industry.

Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM), Caught Red-Handed Taking $397,370 from the oil industry.

Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA), Caught Red-Handed Taking $229,988 from the oil industry.

Representative Bob Ney (R-OH), Caught Red-Handed Taking $127,589 from the oil industry.

Representative Chris Chocola (R-IN), Caught Red-Handed Taking $43,400 from the oil industry.

[/]

And someone tell me again, who these representatives work for??? Who elected them to congress? And tell me again who gets to recieve the windfall profits from the consumers?

[Dr. Shane]

Only Republicans take money from oil companies? <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[olger]

Hi nan.

As a Spray Foam contractor of 22-years, I am up on the realistic side of asbestos fervor since SPF is an approved encapsulation method for asbestos. In order for the asbestos fibers to have a remote chance of ingestion, they have to become friable first. Thus all the removal/disturbance of inert fibers was worse than dumb.

I attended an abatement seminar in Miami Florida in 1989, and the professors who conducted the meetings revealed the ppm (parts per million) for AF to even be a possible danger. It was quite large. One of the professors was on the previous research committee for the EP-nuisance-A and he said that almost half of the 129 people that contacted AF respiratory problems were also heavy smokers and that aspect was conveniently omitted from the EPA's public submittal. Oh well.

Not taking from any legitimate AF problems, just exposing the EPA's less-than-stellar methods of "saving us."

Any government entity that tries to "save us" from invented scares should be cancelled and the buildings used for more productive purposes, like laser tag. Not to mention the 1.6 gallon flushing toilets... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Rant over,

gcw