An Inconvenient Truth

[rickoshadows]

Actually Rick, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. In the good ole US of A, that is exactly the case - the government is required by law to spend the gas tax on highways maintenance and capital spending relating to highways. Did you ever wonder why the mofo's have such NICE roads? Ever wonder why there is not a single highway in Canada (outside of Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City) that is built to anything resembling US Interstate standards?

Compare the miles of highway per capita between the countries. BTW the original interstates was buying votes asphalt (actually concrete). Buying votes with asphalt was also done by provincial governments during the 60s and 70s. In the case of Alberta, that scheme is paying dividends today. The highways in northern BC still haven't payed for themselves. Our highways are more expensive to maintain, for the most part, as nearly all are subject to freeze and thaw whereas only the highways in the north of the USA approach the same maintenace costs.

There is also the cost of EMS which are completely borne by the local governments. We pay for that out of our property taxes. There is a propsal my the municipalties to require EMS for accidents on highways to be payed for by the insurance companies(driver). This should also include all medical costs as well, similar to WCB, therefore taking some pressure off of Medicare.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

BTW the original interstates was buying votes asphalt (actually concrete). Buying votes with asphalt was also done by provincial governments during the 60s and 70s. In the case of Alberta, that scheme is paying dividends today. The highways in northern BC still haven't payed for themselves. Our highways are more expensive to maintain, for the most part, as nearly all are subject to freeze and thaw whereas only the highways in the north of the USA approach the same maintenace costs.

All governments / parties buy votes. Be that with asphalt, Olympic sponsorships, free/subsidized daycare etc. At least with asphalt you get more bang for the buck in terms of job creation.

 

[citylover]

I guess ignorant ideologues just have to hate someone, & just have to ignore the most rudimentary level of science to believe drivel.

Anyone who thinks they can convince someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, logic, argument for the most bizarre and obscure sources of support is almost a big a fool as the fool they're trying to convince, IMHO

Keep spreading out that company line, y'all will get someone somewhere to believe you

 

[Randy Whorewald]

I guess ignorant ideologues just have to hate someone, & just have to ignore the most rudimentary level of science to believe drivel.

Anyone who thinks they can convince someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, logic, argument for the most bizarre and obscure sources of support is almost a big a fool as the fool they're trying to convince, IMHO

Keep spreading out that company line, y'all will get someone somewhere to believe you

Where are your facts to support this statement? Oh I see its just a GUESS.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

I believe it. If you watched the the Gore movie, they covered both topics. Polar bears can and do swim, but like all living creatures they have limits to their endurance. No polar ice caps = no place to stop and rest. This causes the bears to get tired and drown.

Really? The polar bears in the zoos don't seem to have any problems with the heat. It gets pretty hot in Calgary, why haven't the bears died in that zoo?

Sure is a sunny day up there in the artic since it's the middle of winter and all.

 

[threepeat]

Really? The polar bears in the zoos don't seem to have any problems with the heat. It gets pretty hot in Calgary, why haven't the bears died in that zoo?

Sure is a sunny day up there in the artic since it's the middle of winter and all.

Isn't the point of that article that thin polar bears don't float as well and don't hold body heat as well? Then you factor in that they have further distances to swim to the next block of ice and they are more vulnerable. Sounds like a reasonable conclusion. The fact that some polar bear is quite happy sitting on his ass in the Calgary zoo doesn't really help the ones up north that have swim several hundred miles. I don't see the connection...

 

[Randy Whorewald]

The connection Threepeat is to get this type of picture out there and win people over to their side. Its just another media/propaganda campaign.

I watched the garbage Al Gore had on the Oprah show where he had to use a computer generated video of a polar bear swimming in the water because there is no ice left. He couldn't come up with any real images.

This is how desparate they are; they have to create videos and selective images.

All I see in this image is some bears wanted to do some platform diving.


Here is a parody on the matter:


Hunter Jeremiah Johnson comforts a polar bear that had collapsed from heat exhaustion before he could shoot it.
(Cold Bay, Alaska) Warming temperatures in polar regions are causing an increasing number of polar bears to collapse from heat exhaustion, local hunters report.

Jeremiah Johnson, a local hunter who tracks and kills polar bears "because they are there" has seen three of the behemoths collapse before him in just the last month. "It just isn't sporting to shoot one of these creatures when they are suffering like this", Johnson said as he recounted his attempts to revive a bear he was ready to shoot.

Local TV meteorologist Sky McCloud explained, "Average annual temperatures in the area have risen from 20 degrees below zero to 15 below zero in the last 30 years, and these giant creatures simply can not withstand the excess heat."


source:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-heat.htm

 

[sdw]

I believe it. If you watched the the Gore movie, they covered both topics. Polar bears can and do swim, but like all living creatures they have limits to their endurance. No polar ice caps = no place to stop and rest. This causes the bears to get tired and drown.

Also covered in the movie was the rate at which the ice melts. Ice reflects sunlight, water absorbs it. Therefore once a large ice mass starts to melt, it can melt to nothing relatively quickly.

This is the problem with having a hypocrite like Gore be the poster boy for the problem of global warming.

Gore is simply incapable of not lying.
If there was no ice in the north, there would be no ice on the Saint Lawrence river. This picture was taken December 29, 2006 http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/photo545277.htm

Then we get to what Polar Bears eat. They eat seals. Seals do their basking and birthing on shore. Therefore Polar Bears are on shore. If the shore moves, the seals and bears move.

Anyone who has been up north knows that Gore is full of shit when he talks about Polar Bears.

The ease at which we can show that Gore is full of shit is why it's easy for the people that have other agendas to debunk the reality of global warming and prevent us from seeking any real solutions.

 

[threepeat]

The connection Threepeat is to get this type of picture out there and win people over to their side. Its just another media/propaganda campaign.

I watched the garbage Al Gore had on the Oprah show where he had to use a computer generated video of a polar bear swimming in the water because there is no ice left. He couldn't come up with any real images.

This is how desparate they are; they have to create videos and selective images.

All I see in this image is some bears wanted to do some platform diving.


Here is a parody on the matter:


Hunter Jeremiah Johnson comforts a polar bear that had collapsed from heat exhaustion before he could shoot it.
(Cold Bay, Alaska) Warming temperatures in polar regions are causing an increasing number of polar bears to collapse from heat exhaustion, local hunters report.

Jeremiah Johnson, a local hunter who tracks and kills polar bears "because they are there" has seen three of the behemoths collapse before him in just the last month. "It just isn't sporting to shoot one of these creatures when they are suffering like this", Johnson said as he recounted his attempts to revive a bear he was ready to shoot.

Local TV meteorologist Sky McCloud explained, "Average annual temperatures in the area have risen from 20 degrees below zero to 15 below zero in the last 30 years, and these giant creatures simply can not withstand the excess heat."


source:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-heat.htm

So your quoting a parody site as a counter argument? That's not very strong, unless you simply refuse to believe that fat doesn't help an animal float and that having to swim further doesn't make them tired.

 

[Mr.O]

OK sdw I checked the links...

Where did I talk about bicycles?
As to the rest:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/consump.html
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/energy/eng-11.cfm
http://www.airlines.org/NR/rdonlyre...EEE790C47B/0/HeimlichJetFuelWritten060215.pdf
http://www.airlines.org/NR/rdonlyre...8CF9-35A0216476CC/0/fuelchallenges_iar206.pdf
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://climate.dot.gov/docs/atvm_final.pdf

... & not one of them gives any of the data that you posted!

So... just on the off chance that I missed it why dont you call it out chapter & verse otherwise you are:

<img src="http://img1.jurko.net/loserr.gif" border=0 alt=' Woo Hoo!'></a>

 

[therealrex]

Actually Rick, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. In the good ole US of A, that is exactly the case - the government is required by law to spend the gas tax on highways maintenance and capital spending relating to highways. Did you ever wonder why the mofo's have such NICE roads? Ever wonder why there is not a single highway in Canada (outside of Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City) that is built to anything resembling US Interstate standards?

The US interstae highway system is a product of the Cold War it was intended for Civil Defense a way for tanks and troops to be mobilized quickly and the gas taxes that are collected only account for about 50% of the maintenance costs the fed picks up the rest.

 

[sdw]

OK, since you are incapable of looking at anything and drawing a conclusion from the data.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_23.pdf
There is a column titled Trucks
In 2004 the average Truck traveled 27,719 miles and used 4,147 gallons of fuel giving the average truck a fuel economy of 6.7mpg while carrying 65,000 pounds. This gives a fuel use of 1 gallon per 15.67 pounds.

A Boeing 737-100 travels 2137.516 miles and uses 4,725 gallons of fuel giving it an a fuel economy of 0.452 mpg while carrying 37136 pounds. This gives a fuel use of 1 gallon per 0.606 pounds.

The AAR says they get a ton moved 400 miles for each gallon of fuel. http://www.aar.org/getFile.asp?File_id=364

The 8 largest container ships carry 9600 containers 8000 miles with 25000 gallons of fuel. That is 0.32 mpg while carrying 312000000 pounds of cargo. (Xin Los Angles and her sisters)

Corrected the mistake on railways

 

[rollerboy]

Ho hum

So, how are you Canadians going to cut your CO2 emissions by 30% within 5 years, as obligated under Kyoto?

Call me a skeptic, but...I'd say the odds of that happening are between zero and zero, give or take zero.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

So your quoting a parody site as a counter argument? That's not very strong, unless you simply refuse to believe that fat doesn't help an animal float and that having to swim further doesn't make them tired.

I didn't expect that you'd get the message which is being conveyed here. The point is that the picture of the bears on the tiny ice flo is bullshit. The temperatures have increased only a couple of degrees a fact that is well documented. The picture I'm referring to is sweltering hot and the polar bears in it don't look like they've been starving by any means.

 

[therealrex]

So, how are you Canadians going to cut your CO2 emissions by 30% within 5 years, as obligated under Kyoto?

Call me a skeptic, but...I'd say the odds of that happening are between zero and zero, give or take zero.

The real joke of this whole global warming argument is that even if the scientists are right and CO2 is the cause cutting our CO2 by 30% won't make any difference to what's happening.

 

[rollerboy]

The real joke of this whole global warming argument is that even if the scientists are right and CO2 is the cause cutting our CO2 by 30% won't make any difference to what's happening.

During the Jurassic Period, average CO2 concentrations were 1800 ppm. The Cambrian Period, which spawned almost all existing phyla, saw CO2 levels of nearly 7000 ppm, 18 times the present level.

The present CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 376 ppm, which clearly implies that the planet is about to burst into flames.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

The present CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 376 ppm, which clearly implies that the planet is about to burst into flames.

I agree rollerboy, there is just too much fearmongering going on with this whole CO2, global warming thing. In fact, people who are not jumping into the fray are being unfairly ostracized:

Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'
By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 12, 2007


Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.
"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."
Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.
"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats."
CEI, which previously listed Mr. Legates as an "adjunct scholar," has published multiple reports questioning the science behind global-warming theories and has been criticized for accepting donations from companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp.
Mr. O'Keefe said his organization doesn't deny the existence of global warming but questions the methods used by individuals and groups advocating for new government restrictions to combat the phenomenon.

link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm

 

[Mr.O]

Ok I'll grant ya...

OK, since you are incapable of looking at anything and drawing a conclusion from the data.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_23.pdf
There is a column titled Trucks
In 2004 the average Truck traveled 27,719 miles and used 4,147 gallons of fuel giving the average truck a fuel economy of 6.7mpg while carrying 65,000 pounds. This gives a fuel use of 1 gallon per 15.67 pounds.

A Boeing 737-100 travels 2137.516 miles and uses 4,725 gallons of fuel giving it an a fuel economy of 0.452 mpg while carrying 37136 pounds. This gives a fuel use of 1 gallon per 0.606 pounds.

The AAR says they get 400 tons of cargo moved for each gallon of fuel. http://www.aar.org/getFile.asp?File_id=364

The 8 largest container ships carry 9600 containers 8000 miles with 25000 gallons of fuel. That is 0.32 mpg while carrying 312000000 pounds of cargo. (Xin Los Angles and her sisters)

... the train is better than truck one.

This is from the data You referenced:
"On average railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks."

They also say:
"2005, railroads moved a ton of freight nearly 414 miles, on average, per gallon of diesel fuel..."
This no where near the amount you claim above.

Now where’s the data for these stats?

Trains 1600 times more efficient than jets - check

Ships 100,000 times less fuel than a jet for same cargo & distance - check

 

[citylover]

Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'
By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 12, 2007

oh gawd, no one is too foolish to cite if they support the company man's pet set of bullshit

Now the in-house rag for the Moonies is considered on a par w/ objective scientists; almost as funny as citing the Cato Institute (another wholly owned enterprise by Global Business Interests)

These fools are TOO funny for words... when will the rest of you get in on the joke, not even THEY can believe this drivel, they just like to tie y'all up in knots trying to argue their nonsensical points

Glad to see Exxon got something for its money -- I just hope these flacks are actually getting some, instead of giving their gullibility away for free


Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. ...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Let's see, oil industry flacks & moonies & right wing Gore hating nuts & their lapdogs putting out BS on one side, scientists w/ nothing to gain on the other -- whom should we listen to?

 

[citylover]

Have a closer look at the wing nuts from Hollywood..
They live in 10,000 plus square foot homes. How much energy does it take to heat and cool those monster homes. Let's start by place a huge tax on any home that exceeds 2000 sq ft....but it is the Hollywood elite that buy the fuel to gas up their Lear jets.

Exxon spend millions on disinformation and this guy's biggest concern is a hollywood mansion?

Methinks me smells the stink of another company man playing the ideologue!

Too cute for words