[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Every single peer reviewed scientific paper written in the last 5 years confirmed number 2. Not a single scientist disagreed. Why do you?

That's like using "every single children's Christmas book has confirmed the existence of Santa Claus" to prove a point. Yes, documents created by people with a preconceived notion by those who share their views (left-wing education elites) will tend to agree.

The fact is, LOTS of competent, professional experts in the field disagree and have shown the flaws in the "man made warming as fact" theory.

(ps. no, I don't think that peer reviewed scientific papers are the same a fictional children's story. That's not my point, so stop before you start that one. My point is that "appeals to authority" are illogical at their base. Especially when you can point to other authorities which credibly refute the others).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

The United States is first by far in terms of diplomatic incompetence, as well as in military buffoonery. It's also winning the race in terms of 'fastest western country to trade human rights for a thin veneer of false security'.

What place there for a man who values honesty and scientific competence?

Hyperbole. Not to mention dishonest.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nath 

No. More of a strawman/derail combo actually. And we all know you're very much against those.

No it wasn't. He was making a valid point.

Regardless, a mod should at least have the self-respect to be embarrassed about behaving in such a way.

He wasn't behaving badly. You should have the self-respect not to be dishonest in your attacks of other people.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I agree, the Palestinian Authority is an authority of the nation of Palestine. It is not itself a nation.

[edit] n/m I hadn't read vmark's smackdown before posting my reply.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

(ps. no, I don't think that peer reviewed scientific papers are the same a fictional children's story. That's not my point, so stop before you start that one. My point is that "appeals to authority" are illogical at their base. Especially when you can point to other authorities which credibly refute the others).

Your example is completely nonsensical. Any scientist out there is free to write about global warming. In the past, there were some who either denied it was happening or denied that humans were responsible. They've disappeared because the evidence is now so convincing that to argue otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat. You can bet your bottom Dollar that there's a nice grant waiting for anyone who's prepared to say that global warming is not happening or isn't caused by human activity.

And yet, no scientist has come forward and written such a paper. Why is that? If your best answer is that it's because every single scientist on the planet is part of a global conspiracy, then good luck with that argument. It's patently so facile, only the converted will listen to your preaching. Just as there are people who BELIEVE the earth is flat, there are people who believe, like you, that we are not responsible for global warming. Good luck to those people. However, government policy should not be based on airy-fairy beliefs but on facts.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ok, here we go.

As I said, it was a simple mistake of Nath using the word "state" instead of "nation". Palestine (not the Palestinian Authority) is a nation. I don't want to derail this any more than you already have, but perhaps while you're at Wikipedia, you should look up "nation".

A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent.
Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, as I said, Palestine is a nation. The Palestinian Authority is that nation's elected authority. If you gloss over that fact, what other facts are you glossing over?

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Hyperbole. Not to mention dishonest.

I'll accept hyperbole. But where's the dishonesty?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Your example is completely nonsensical. Any scientist out there is free to write about global warming.

...and they do. Quite often.

"Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. "

- Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET Drudge

In the past, there were some who either denied it was happening or denied that humans were responsible. They've disappeared because the evidence is now so convincing that to argue otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat.

I'm not the guy denying the obvious with my head in the sand. Whether you agree with the points that those who disagree make matters little. The fact that you refuse to even concede that there are a lot of scientists (whoops...two new books, one even by SCIENTISTS) who do disagree makes your other claims appear less than credible to anyone with a bit of intelligence who is paying attention. When you can't concede small irrefutable points, it makes your bigger points look all the more outrageous.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

I'll accept hyperbole. But where's the dishonesty?

The whole part I quoted. Unless you care to back such claims up?

And when I say that I don't mean list of things you think the US is doing wrong that causes you TO BELIEVE this.

So get to it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and they do. Quite often.

Sorry. They don't. And until you can show some scientific papers showing disagreement, I'm afraid, your argument is lost. I posted this in the other thread too.

Read this confirming that scientists don't disagree.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

[Kevin]

Ahh the old "Put limits on what you can use for proof until I am right" tactics.

Scientists disagree on alot of things pretty much. It's the nature of the beast.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ahh the old "Put limits on what you can use for proof until I am right" tactics.

Or, also called "no, you can't pull articles off teh intarweb or stuff written by people who aren't even scientists or even in fields related to global climate change as proof that the scientific community is divided on global warming."

Weird how that works.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Or, also called "no, you can't pull articles off teh intarweb or stuff written by people who aren't even scientists or even in fields related to global climate change as proof that the scientific community is divided on global warming."

Weird how that works.

greg

I've documented stuff written by by experts in related fields (see above) and petitions signed by global climate change experts in these threads.

It's not going to matter. His mind is made up, regardless of the facts.

Weird how that works, indeed.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've documented stuff written by by experts in related fields (see above) and petitions signed by global climate change experts in these threads.

It's not going to matter. His mind is made up, regardless of the facts.

Weird how that works, indeed.

Anyone can write a book. It's not a scientific paper. It's not subject to peer review. I could write a book tomorrow on global warming. It would be dishonest to refer to my book as evidence of the scientific debate going one way or the other. The status of any argument in the scientific community is determined by looking at the scientific debate in papers written in scientific journals - NOT by looking at press articles and the Amazon best seller list.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He wasn't behaving badly. You should have the self-respect not to be dishonest in your attacks of other people.

Let's remember your often-stated definition of dishonest when throwing it around so easily, Kev.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Anyone can write a book.

Only a scientist who is an expert in his field can write a book by a scientist who is an expert in his field. One who does this, which disagrees with the idea that there is/will be cataclysmic disasters due to man made global warming, shows that there IS disagreement. You don't need a scientific "paper" to establish that.

As we've seen in recent news, the government likes to try to censor those who feel too strongly about global warming's worse case senarios, and institutes of higher learning and the intellectual elite (those who are gatekeepers for "papers") try to censor those who disagree with the "cataclysmic disasters due to man made global warming" crowd.

Appeals to authority don't cut it. Sorry.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only a scientist who is an expert in his field can write a book by a scientist who is an expert in his field. One who does this, which disagrees with the idea that there is/will be cataclysmic disasters due to man made global warming, shows that there IS disagreement. You don't need a scientific "paper" to establish that.

As we've seen in recent news, the government likes to try to censor those who feel too strongly about global warming's worse case senarios, and institutes of higher learning and the intellectual elite (those who are gatekeepers for "papers") try to censor those who disagree with the "cataclysmic disasters due to man made global warming" crowd.

Appeals to authority don't cut it. Sorry.

Saying "This book is important just because somebody cool wrote it" is an appeal to authority. Saying "This article has been validated through a thorough scientific process" is not. You're doing the former, he's doing the latter.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Saying "This book is important just because somebody cool wrote it" is an appeal to authority. Saying "This article has been validated through a thorough scientific process" is not. You're doing the former, he's doing the latter.

You've got the argument wrong:

A. The book was written by not only someone "cool", but a "scientist". The very category of person he claimed that there were none in disagreement.

B. "Validation" is approval given by an authority. It's not the scientific merits themselves (which are debatable, to which scientists disagree)) that he rests his argument, but rather the authority he claims that gives the science credibility as fact. 200,000 experts can say that grass is purple and dogs moo, but that doesn't provide a credible argument from which to rebut the facts.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You've got the argument wrong:

A. The book was written by not only someone "cool", but a "scientist". The very category of person he claimed that there were none in disagreement.

B. "Validation" is approval given by an authority. It's not the scientific merits themselves (which are debatable, to which scientists disagree)) that he rests his argument, but rather the authority he claims that gives the science credibility as fact. 200,000 experts can say that grass is purple and dogs moo, but that doesn't provide a credible argument from which to rebut the facts.

So, basically, science is completely irrelevant to what you believe?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So, basically, science is completely irrelevant to what you believe?

Judging by his wild comparison on top and his backpedaling later on, I'd say reality is irrelevant to his beliefs.

[Face Ache]

"Peer review" are the important words here.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You've got the argument wrong:

A. The book was written by not only someone "cool", but a "scientist". The very category of person he claimed that there were none in disagreement.

B. "Validation" is approval given by an authority. It's not the scientific merits themselves (which are debatable, to which scientists disagree)) that he rests his argument, but rather the authority he claims that gives the science credibility as fact. 200,000 experts can say that grass is purple and dogs moo, but that doesn't provide a credible argument from which to rebut the facts.

A. Is the scientist in question who wrote the book a climatologist? Has his methodology and conclusions been reviewed by other scientists in the field of climate study? Is there a preponderance of agreement among those in the field of climate study that the conclusions drawn in this book are scientifically valid and sound?

If you can answer "Yes" to all these questions then you can use this book as evidence to support your point. Otherwise, your claims don't have a whole lot of scientific merit to support them. This reminds me of some of the evolution debates where somebody tried to support their argument by claiming a noted scientist supports a specific stance on the issue. In one particular case the scientist in question was a Nobel-prize winning physicist (Dr. Charles Townes, inventor of the MASER and LASER). Unfortunately, the good doctor isn't really qualified to make sound scientific claims regarding evolution. That would be like an evolutionary scientist trying to make claims about the physics of lasers. The same logic applies in this case: Is the author of the book in question a scientist with expertise in the field of climatology?


B. There is no "authority" in the field of science other than empirical evidence that is testable, quantifiable, and predictable. Plenty of scientists do disagree about conclusions drawn from evidence obtained in scientific experimentation. But there is usually a consensus as to the existence and validity of the evidence as supporting A conclusion. However, you seem to be questioning the fundamental assumption that evidence-based scientific practices form a sufficient basis form which to derive conclusions. It seems like you are questioning the whole methodology of scientific study to cast doubts on those scientists who have come to a conclusion with which you disagree.

[Gamoe]

Maybe I should have made this a poll, or maybe it wouldn't have mattered either way. But, I guess the consensus is that he is being honest...?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

Maybe I should have made this a poll, or maybe it wouldn't have mattered either way. But, I guess the consensus is that he is being honest...?

LOL! Way to take the wind out of our sails.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

A. Is the scientist in question who wrote the book a climatologist?

I haven't read the book, but according to the what I can find, the scientist in question's expertise is the subject matter he's writing about.

If you can answer "Yes" to all these questions then you can use this book as evidence to support your point.

Your abitrary limits are noted. All I need is to show that there is disagreement is that there are scientists whose expertise is the subject matter in question, who disagree....in order to show that there are scienists who disagree. You can set up all the hoops and dog and pony shows you want, but my point doesn't have to participate given the facts.

In addition to the book noted, I provided a list of thousdands of people in climate-science and related fields who disagree.

B. There is no "authority" in the field of science other than empirical evidence that is testable, quantifiable, and predictable.

I agree. Which is why simply noting "papers" doesn't provide a good argument as I stated. My point wasn't that those experts in disagreement were right, but simply that they had a scientific basis to which to disagree and did so. If someone wants to make the argument that the experts in question is wrong, based on the empirical data OTHERS have offered (maybe in a specific paper), that's fine. Data can be interpreted multiple ways though. The scientists in question disagree with the interpretations in question.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Regardless of any political agenda, the science behind his views is sound and without doubt. So you've got to applaud him for using solid evidence.

greg

What!? What sound evidence does he use? Is Al gore A scientist? There is still much debate amongst Scientists whether or not Global warming is "caused" by Mankind. He as well as many others continue to perpetrate this Fraud they call Global warming. If we are such a cause of it why not go back to the 1800's when we didn't have all these Modern advances then we could lessen our effect on global warming.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The whole part I quoted. Unless you care to back such claims up?

And when I say that I don't mean list of things you think the US is doing wrong that causes you TO BELIEVE this.

So get to it.

You're asking me to substantiate an expression of opinion? I can begin hotlinking related material if you like.

Edit: Here Goes ... Diplomatic Incompetence

Gingrich blasts 'diplomatic failure' at State Department

Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt United States

Korea goes nuclear...another Bush diplomatic failure

Arrogance and Ignorance Guarantee Bush's Diplomatic Failures

Measuring diplomatic failure by the kilotonne

... and military buffoonery:

Blind Into Baghdad

Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan

War in Iraq's aftermath hits troops hard

... Erosion of Human Rights:

Civil Liberties and Human Rights Eroded by Changes to U.S. Law and Policy

Impact of Counterterrorism and Security Legislation on the Work of Human Rights Defenders

... as you know there's a tonne more ... all a matter of public record.

The evidence upon which I base my somewhat caustic expressions of doubt towards your administration's competence is widespread indeed.

Intransigent convictions beget the ridicule they deserve.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by typoon 

There is still much debate amongst Scientists whether or not Global warming is "caused" by Mankind.

Nonsense. See the other thread where after 11 pages of thread, no one has managed to post a single scientific paper disputing the fact that global warming is caused by human activity. You will also find in that thread a review of 950-odd scientific papers on climate change all of which agreed that it's caused by human activity. There is no debate any more.

[smacintush]

Apparently Clima-geddon™ is so urgent that it's ok for China to hold off reducing emissions until America does something first.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Nonsense. See the other thread where after 11 pages of thread, no one has managed to post a single scientific paper disputing the fact that global warming is caused by human activity. You will also find in that thread a review of 950-odd scientific papers on climate change all of which agreed that it's caused by human activity. There is no debate any more.

Nor have you provided sufficient proof that justifies drastically and irrevicobally changing our daily lives for the worst.

Scientists can agree all they want....until they undisputably prove direct cause and effect from man to catastrophic climate change, and disprove all other possible scenarios (such as sun cycles etc) you will not have the public's backing. The burden of proof must lie in the facts not in the scientific authority when you're talking about affecting billions of people. Until you can show me that proof all those papers you rant on about are worth less to me then the papers i use in the washroom.

So far, they have not disproved other possible theories on the matter, and their "proof" lies in lack of a better explanation, and not in rock hard solid fact. Correlation != causation.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nath 

Let's remember your often-stated definition of dishonest when throwing it around so easily, Kev.

I wouldn't have to throw it around if dishonesty wasn't so prevalent with certain people's "arguments"

If that would stop, I wouldn't have the need to point out such things.

Though those that practice such behavior usually despise those that point them doing it out.

I have no real strong feelings about global warming either way. It's irrelevant to me.

But those that are proponents of it aren't being honest with their tactics in here.

And don't like it when you point it out.

[shabbasuraj]

Anyone here see Gore at Convocation Hall?

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I have no real strong feelings about global warming either way. It's irrelevant to me.

LOL! Wow, a major change in the Earth's whether patterns which is heating up the planet (making some cold places hot and some hot places cold) and making sea levels rise (in turn causing inhabited lands to become uninhabitable) is irrelevant to you? What planet do you live on?

[Gamoe]

You know my friends, it strikes me that global warming is both a test and a sign of things to come. It is a calling into maturity and cooperation.

We've gained a lot of knowledge and power over our time on this planet and here we see a consequence of using our power immaturely and irresponsibly. Never has it been more clear that we are all connected and that there is a balance to all which must be kept, and a consequence to all we do. And the only way we can solve this problem is by working together. Not as states or even countries, but as a a species, as a people.

We've lingered enough in our own childhood and adolescence. It's time we grow up and own up to our responsibility as masters and protectors of this planet. It's time we started moving onto the path of becoming the great people that we can be, again not just as countrymen and citizens, but as humans.

Sorry, if that's a bit too poetic for some, but whichever way you put it, we must act together with force, without failure, or we shall continue to suffer evermore dreadful consequences.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

LOL! Wow, a major change in the Earth's whether patterns which is heating up the planet (making some cold places hot and some hot places cold) and making sea levels rise (in turn causing inhabited lands to become uninhabitable) is irrelevant to you? What planet do you live on?

The one just a few years back that scientists told us was going through global cooling and that we all needed to be prepared to live in igloos.

Once the Chicken Littles in the far left scientific academic community start acting responsible, and not political, and understand that there are people who can figure out what they are doing and see both sides maybe there can be some middle ground found.

While the "science" might be valid, their conclusions and assumptions could be just as wrong as the ones they had which had us cooling. At least some prominent scientists believe that to be true. Just because you worship at the Church of Man Made Global Warming, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Oh, it's just always got to come back to the "global cooling argument" when there's nothing else to say. That stunning logic of "we should not change our views on this subject because 30 years ago the prevailing opinion was much different." So clever.

Originally Posted by Typhoon

What!? What sound evidence does he use? Is Al gore A scientist? There is still much debate amongst Scientists whether or not Global warming is "caused" by Mankind. He as well as many others continue to perpetrate this Fraud they call Global warming. If we are such a cause of it why not go back to the 1800's when we didn't have all these Modern advances then we could lessen our effect on global warming.

I'll assume sarcasm on your part, but of course Gore's not a scientist. I said he uses sound science/solid evidence. And he does. There's very very little in the film that today's climate/earth/etc. scientists can point to and say "ahhh, that's not right." Now, whether he applies that science in ways that are entirely appropriate is another judgement call, but of course I said nothing about that in my post.

And of course, we had a significantly large affect on global warming in the 1800s, even when populations were so low. But again, I'm guesing sarcasm from you.

greg

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

While the "science" might be valid, their conclusions and assumptions could be just as wrong as the ones they had which had us cooling. At least some prominent scientists believe that to be true. Just because you worship at the Church of Man Made Global Warming, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

And so we wait around for more evidence, data and conclusions and do nothing while the consequences mount in quantity and severity, unconcerned with emissions and pollution?

[shabbasuraj]

A GeeZEE's film wins THE OSCAR...!!!!!

...very NICE!!!!!!

[Snow-i]

Oh, it's just always got to come back to the "global cooling argument" when there's nothing else to say. That stunning logic of "we should not change our views on this subject because 30 years ago the prevailing opinion was much different." So clever.

You want to drastically change the course of my next 30 years when the prevailing evidence at that time (as history has shown us) has the very real potential of being very different from what you claim.

Then what? Oh well? All that effort for nothing? I can't own a boat (one of my favorite pass-times) since i won't have anything to pull it with? I can't go buy a steak without paying more in tax? I can't take a trip to see my family 2 hours away because i will emit too much gas?

I'm sorry....but you still don't have me convinced that climageddon is impending or even to a lesser extent that we could stop it by reducing emissions.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You want to drastically change the course of my next 30 years when the prevailing evidence at that time (as history has shown us) has the very real potential of being very different from what you claim.

Then what? Oh well? All that effort for nothing? I can't own a boat (one of my favorite pass-times) since i won't have anything to pull it with? I can't go buy a steak without paying more in tax? I can't take a trip to see my family 2 hours away because i will emit too much gas?

I'm sorry....but you still don't have me convinced that climageddon is impending or even to a lesser extent that we could stop it by reducing emissions.

Good god man, it's not WHAT you do so much as HOW you do it?

Having a truck to pull a boat is an appropriate thing to do. Driving all over town in the same truck--when not hauling something--is NOT an appropriate thing to do. So, you have your truck for when you are taking out the boat and you get a smaller, more fuel-efficient, less-polluting car for everything else you do. That same small car would be perfect for taking a two-hour trip to see your family. But, if you were going to take the boat when you go to see the family then take the truck instead. How hard is that to understand? I've got a buddy who is a general contractor and when he is working he drives around his big gas-guzzling Jeep. When he is not working, or doing a small job requiring not a lot of tools, he takes his old Honda. He doesn't want to drive around in his big Jeep and put gas in it all the time when he doesn't need to do so; That is just foolish and eating into his profits.

Here is something really easy you can do to help the environment AND save yourself some money: Change all your incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs. You spend more money up-front on the bulbs but you get more back than what you spent by replacing them less frequently--less capital costs--and having them use less electricity while in use--less operating costs. I have two floor-lamps that are on the same set of CFL bulbs after five years. This includes three different moves among three states. The CFL bulb in my night-stand light is going on four years of use. I literally haven't bought a new light bulb in four years. Now, that is a small savings of maybe $20-$30 over that four years, but it is still a savings.

Here is another easy idea to save money AND help the environment: Turn down your thermostat. Just a few degrees reduction can save $ over the course of a year and $$$ over a decade or more of living in one place. So, maybe you wear a sweater more often. Me, I like wearing flannel shirts and fleece vests so wearing one all the time in the cooler months gives me an excuse to buy myself a new one every year or two. But, I am paying less money in electric costs--more money in my pocket--and the power plant has to work just that little tiny bit less harder to create power; In doing so, it emits just that little tiny bit less of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Now, imagine if a large majority of the country started using CFL bulbs--everyone in Australia will be doing so by 2011--and turning down the thermostat a couple degrees. That cumulative effect will put just a little bit more money in everyones pocket but put a lot LESS greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are a lot of other examples like this of the small things individuals can do to reduce their contribution to the collective production of greenhouse gases. No one is saying you can't drive a truck or use your boat or eat a steak, all we are asking is that you think about ways to do those things such that you reduce the amount of greenhouse gases you produce.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Good god man, it's not WHAT you do so much as HOW you do it?

Having a truck to pull a boat is an appropriate thing to do. Driving all over town in the same truck--when not hauling something--is NOT an appropriate thing to do. So, you have your truck for when you are taking out the boat and you get a smaller, more fuel-efficient, less-polluting car for everything else you do. That same small car would be perfect for taking a two-hour trip to see your family. But, if you were going to take the boat when yo go to see the family then take the truck instead.
.

Right....so you want me to shell out money for two cars...one of which is a more expensive hybrid? This is the kind of thing I take into consideration when you guys can't produce evidence that it would help to cut emissions. Granted my boat is in itself an expensive proposition I surely can't afford/justify two cars for just me...that seems like more a resource waster then having one slightly less effecient car.

The other suggestions are good suggestions and suggestions that don't affect me much day to day. My current residence already uses CFL bulbs to save energy, and in the interest of saving money I already turn my thermostat down.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm sorry....but you still don't have me convinced that climageddon is impending or even to a lesser extent that we could stop it by reducing emissions.

Climate change deniers such as yourself are now in the minority. We don’t have to change your mind; as the laws change, better practices come into popularity (and yes, things will become more expensive --- just look at the rising cost of flying), and better products come online, the rest of society will force you to change whether you like it or not. It’s for your own good after all.

[dcmacdaddy]

And before anyone jumps on me by saying "It is my choice to drive whatever I want", let me just say this: Why would you willing choose to drive a vehicle not appropriate for your needs if you could drive something else more appropriate for your needs AND save money at the same time? Seriously, why would you willingly choose to drive a vehicle that requires you to spend more on gas--because it is less fuel-efficent than a different, equally useful vehicle that gets better gas mileage--than you absolutely have to spend? That just doesn't make sense.

I mean, if you want to drive a big SUV around town you certainly should not be prevented from doing so. But why would you, knowing that you could save a lot more money on gas by driving something smaller and more appropriate for your needs? Why would anyone willingly pour money into a vehicle--in this case literally through the gas tank--that was more substantial than their needs? That seems to me like throwing away money. I don't drive an older Honda because it is so great for the environment; I drive it because a) a new car would be stolen quickly in my neighborhood, b) I don't need anything more than a small Honda, c) I don't really want to be spending any more money than necessary to fill up my vehicle.

Why would anyone want to drive a vehicle that required them to pay substantially more in fuel costs than a different vehicle that would more appropriately suit their needs? I just don't get it. Does anyone here really like paying to fill up their gas tank more than is absolutely necessary?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why would anyone willingly pour money into a vehicle--in this case literally through the gas tank--that was more substantial than their needs?

Pouring money into your gas tank literally won't do your car much good. /pedant

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why would anyone want to drive a vehicle that required them to pay substantially more in fuel costs than a different vehicle that would more appropriately suit their needs? I just don't get it. Does anyone here really like paying to fill up their gas tank more than is absolutely necessary?

I can answer this. Some people really, sincerely don't care about how their actions are impacting the environment.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I can answer this. Some people really, sincerely don't care about how their actions are impacting the environment.

I also sometimes throw rocks in the air, not caring that it might cause the sky to fall. I'm sick like that.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Climate change deniers such as yourself are now in the minority. We don’t have to change your mind; as the laws change, better practices come into popularity (and yes, things will become more expensive --- just look at the rising cost of flying), and better products come online, the rest of society will force you to change whether you like it or not. It’s for your own good after all.

Thank you for your endorsement Nanny-state oppression at its best. It is clear that you prefer this to individual freedom.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why would anyone want to drive a vehicle that required them to pay substantially more in fuel costs than a different vehicle that would more appropriately suit their needs? I just don't get it. Does anyone here really like paying to fill up their gas tank more than is absolutely necessary?

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I can answer this. Some people really, sincerely don't care about how their actions are impacting the environment.

I didn't ask a question about the environment, I asked a question about individuals who would willingly pay more money to drive a vehicle that was not appropriate for their needs. It is a questions about personal economic priorities that is related tangentially to the issue of global warming.

I will re-phrase the question in a general way to make it more clear: Why would an individual willingly buy an item that will incur to them more operating costs over the life of the item when a comparable item, that still serves their needs, is available that has possibly less capital costs and definitely less operating costs?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I will re-phrase the question in a general way to make it more clear: Why would an individual willingly buy an item that will incur to them more operating costs over the life of the item when a comparable item, that still serves their needs, is available that has possibly less capital costs and definitely less operating costs?

Because they can. Hence vmarks' post.

I still don't agree with your nanny-state claim though, vmarks. Individual rights have been curtailed in favour of public safety since the dawn of civilization. Nicko's "it's for your own good" was inappropriately worded; "it's for everyone's health and survival" would have been better. And I fail to see how this constitutes nanny-state oppression; after all, if you disagree with this, then I fail to see how one can logically back the condemnation of many public crimes.

greg

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I will re-phrase the question in a general way to make it more clear: Why would an individual willingly buy an item that will incur to them more operating costs over the life of the item when a comparable item, that still serves their needs, is available that has possibly less capital costs and definitely less operating costs?

penis-envy.