The Climate Change Climate Change

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...stacking 22 people in an otter is hardly as frivilous as the tools you see driving thier F350's with nothing but thier own stupid ass and thier lunchbox on board!

Do you have some fuel consumption numbers to back that up?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[penniless 0]

Quote

I know I know, you must be unable, too lazy or just troll so, I thought I might help you look at some, not all, of what was metioned. Your welcome

Maybe you can show us EXACTLY WHERE in the article you quoted in the OP these were cited.

Or are you blowing smoke again?

Thanks a bunch.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yet another" I guess me (you) and the government are going to have to tell you (someone you dont agree with) how to live and what to drive cause I (you) am smarter and someone has to straighten your (rushmc for an example) dumb ass out cause you (me) are to damn stupid to know any better" arrogant type post.

it depends on whether you give a shit about anyone or anything other than yourself i suppose.

you can be an asshole if you wish or you can be caring, it is your choice, but to keep this conversation in check;

to ignore human influence on nature and our obvious negative impact is...


.. Fucking stupid!

Quote

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[rhys 0]

Quote

Do you have some fuel consumption numbers to back that up?

22 people can't fit in a C172 but one person can fit in a toyota corolla.

would you take the otter up for 1 tandem?

think about it, driving a F350 or a suburban for one person is stupid. The name suburban for an oversized rv is also stupid.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So I will continue to jump from planes, knowing one day we will not be burning oil in them, but only when those 'in charge' decide they can make a $ out of it.

see? there's no energy crisis

we'll move to something else when it becomes cost effective

that's pretty much a libertarian or a capitalistic view

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Are you still burning gas skydiving? Yes?

That's what I thought...

Considering turbine engines (and piston for that matter) are capable of burning a plethora of different substances, that is hardly my fault now is it.

You can blame your mates (that you probably voted for) and thier high roller friends, that are holding back such technology for the benifit of thier own pockets.

We could be running our cars on salt water right now if it wasn't for them, but you are probably too blind to know about such things.

Planes and oil are not attached at the hip, there are alternatives, but changing the fuel is not in the interests of those that horde the majority of the global finances/power.

So I will continue to jump from planes, knowing one day we will not be burning oil in them, but only when those 'in charge' decide they can make a $ out of it.

Is this a parody response? Please tell me you are kidding. They are making you jump out of these planes? It's their fault you are doing this?

Are you serious?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhys 0]

Quote

see? there's no energy crisis

we'll move to something else when it becomes cost effective

that's pretty much a libertarian or a capitalistic view

shame is, with humans, that it is usually too late when we decide to change.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Is this a parody response? Please tell me you are kidding. They are making you jump out of these planes? It's their fault you are doing this?

Are you serious?

fully serious.

nobody makes me jump from these planes, but me.

But...

There should be alterantive fuels being used already, there have been alternatives for decades(the EV1 for example), but the oil companies wouldn't make much money out of that would they, they have all the money, and they purchase the patents (or kill the inventors if they don't sell).

slowly but surely the alternatives will come out because it is becoming economicly vaible.

until then we are stuck with what we are served.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Do you have some fuel consumption numbers to back that up?

22 people can't fit in a C172 but one person can fit in a toyota corolla.

would you take the otter up for 1 tandem?

think about it, driving a F350 or a suburban for one person is stupid. The name suburban for an oversized rv is also stupid.

So when I take my 5 Star Safety Rated SUV down one of the most dangerous highways in the US to and from work every day, you see less social utility in that than 22 people burning fuel for no other reason than to get them to an altitude that they can leave.

Gee, burning fuel for nothing else than having fun is more caring for the planet and the people of the world than driving my large vehicle to and from work.

Skydiving's social utility is damned near zero. You are gladly burning fuel for an activity that is desirable by you. Because it's fun.

P.s. What would you think if I got a suburban because it is fun? Oooh. That'd be bad. But you burn fuel for no other reason than it is fun is preferable.

Lemme guess - because you car and you've gotta hurt that you care about to show the love.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

nobody makes me jump from these planes, but me.

But...

Yep. It is YOUR choice. Just like someone doing heroin, and blaming others for not having a non-addictive narcotic.

[Reply]There should be alterantive fuels being used already, there have been alternatives for decades(the EV1 for example), but the oil companies wouldn't make much money out of that would they,

[rhys 0]

Quote

So when I take my 5 Star Safety Rated SUV down one of the most dangerous highways in the US to and from work every day, you see less social utility in that than 22 people burning fuel for no other reason than to get them to an altitude that they can leave.

you could drive defensively in a 4 cylinder car with airbags.

Saying behemouth vegicles are safer is laughable, thay may be safer for you but for those around you they are a hazard, especially around schools where they seem to linger.

Quote

Skydiving's social utility is damned near zero. You are gladly burning fuel for an activity that is desirable by you. Because it's fun.

you go to work as a lawyer, i go to work as a skydiver, i walk to work you drive...

we will go in circles with this.

Quote

P.s. What would you think if I got a suburban because it is fun?

i would call you an idiot, you should get a smaller vehicle with a lower centre of gravity and shorter wheel base, then you wouldn't get stuck. suburbans are made for what thier name suggests.

if you want to go off road get a japanese 4wd, they cost less, burn less and go alot further in many more places than a suburban would ever go, because suburbans are made for american mums!

Quote

Lemme guess - because you car and you've gotta hurt that you care about to show the love.

WTF are you going on about now?


I do care, but i am also aware that hauling 3 tonnes of useless shit around with me is a waste of energy when there are other options.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

It's been done!

back in the 1930's
http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME

Quote

Nikola Tesla had an Electric Pierce Arrow back in 1930,

You don't want an alternitive because it will upset the function of America, America is built on oil.

imagine what would happen if cars ran on water? how would society cope with the abolishment of a hundred year old system?

This could have hapened 70 years ago. why has it not?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Do you have some fuel consumption numbers to back that up?

22 people can't fit in a C172 but one person can fit in a toyota corolla.

Which uses more fuel, one Twin Otter load or 8 Cessna 182 loads? I honestly don't know the answer to that question--do you?

If it's the Cessna loads, then aren't most skydivers guilty of "driving an SUV" whenever they can, because almost everyone would prefer that Otter?

Quote

...driving a F350 or a suburban for one person is stupid.

I guess that depends on what other vehicles you have at your disposal. What if you need the F350 to haul your lumber, because you're a contractor? Then would it make financial sense to buy a Corolla to drive sometimes? Would it (in net) increase or decrease your carbon footprint?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but it sounds like you are certain that you do.

Or are you just stereotyping people you see driving around, and assuming that you know all the circumstances of their lives, without actually having any information about them? Of course you wouldn't do that, would you?


Skydiving basically involves burning fossil fuels for our personal entertainment. Living in a glass house like that, it's odd to be throwing stones at the choices that other people have made.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Self righteous much?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhys 0]

Quote

Or are you just stereotyping people you see driving around,

pretty much, go to your local school when it is time to go home, look at all the suv's and ask yourself, is that necessary?

what i would like to know, how many of the SUV's that are on the road, ever get to go places they are supposesdly designed to go?

why the designer mud jobs?

why don't you have an electric train system that would deliver commuters to neighbouring ciites faster than a plane could?

because public transport is for losers right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFpEA

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[lawrocket 3]

Ah! I'd be an idiot. I wouldn't merely be a person with different subjective priorities. Why no! There is the objectively correct thing to do (which, of course, is exactly what you do) and objectively incorrect thong to do (which is what you would not do.). Objectively incorrect actions = idiocy.

>>> You go to work as a lawyer.

Hmm. I can't say I've run across any idiots in my profession. In fact, I know a lawyer (father of six) with a suburban. I don't consider him an idiot. I don't think an idiot could pass our Bar exam. No, you don't need to be a genius to pass it, but idiots need not apply.

Hmm. Why would a father of six choose a Suburban over a 4 cylinder rice rocket?

(Mind you, I would not choose to have six kids, but he supports them and he is no idiot.)

>>> Safer for you

Um, yes. Safer for me. Oh, I get it. "All vehicles must be equally 'Unsafe at Any Speed' thus to ensure no survivors in a wreck." I've got this thought - I'd like to be there for my kids.

Turns out I've never been in a wreck. My only non-parking ticket in 20 years of driving has been a right turn on red. Apparently, I am still dangerous to others.

If interested in others, I suggest you quit skydiving. Your canopy may help you be safe, but you create another hazard for other canopy pilots in the air with you. Why, just yesterday there was a fatality. Had the other canopy pilot (who survived) not been in the air, there would have been no incident.

You may not know this, but defensive driving in pea soup fog is the same for an SUV and a 4 cylinder. Slow down. Low headlights. Fog lights if you've got them. Hobk horn at intersections. Etc. But understand that I consider an SUV as being additional protection in the event that someone else isn't being as careful.

And that's it. It is what I consider important. You disagree - all the more power to you. I don't consider you an idiot for having different priorities.

But I ask that you simply admit that you have no need to skydive. Thus - unnecessary pollution. I don't think this can be reasonably denied. Matter of degree is subjective.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Yet another" I guess me (you) and the government are going to have to tell you (someone you dont agree with) how to live and what to drive cause I (you) am smarter and someone has to straighten your (rushmc for an example) dumb ass out cause you (me) are to damn stupid to know any better" arrogant type post.

it depends on whether you give a shit about anyone or anything other than yourself i suppose.

you can be an asshole if you wish or you can be caring, it is your choice, but to keep this conversation in check;

to ignore human influence on nature and our obvious negative impact is...


.. Fucking stupid!

Quote

There is not yet proven any influence on climate change, to believe so (at this time) is fucking stupid (to borrow a quote from you here)

And caring is, IMO, allowing people to have the freedoms to make choices (something you want to take away) I think caring is giving people the oportunity to be all they can be. (this kind of government law does the oposite.

I give a shit about freedoms within limits defined by society, not those (like you) who would push their agendas on others because YOU feel everyone not agreeing with you is stupid or uneducated or a greedy and a dont give a damn ass.

Buddy, I am none of those.

Now, go get your neck fixed It has gotta hurt right now.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[makeithappen40 0]

Given that you still have a chance to get in an accident and that there is a chance that the SUV won't save you, you don't necessarily need to drive an SUV, either.

I don't think rhys is saying that it is necessary to his existence that he continue skydiving.

Also, because your interpretation of "what is important to me" is merely your interpretation, rhys can also say the same thing about skydiving quite easily. He decides to "waste" the fuel because skydiving is important to him. He feels that skydiving is a much safer sport than others. There are a whole list of things out there that are far more dangerous than skydiving, and there are also many sports that waste much more fuel than do trips in airplanes. Why is your conception of "what is important" more relevant than his?

I don't think it is.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

is that necessary?

No. Cars aren't "necessary.". Food is. Good food isn't.

Limiting to "necessary" is nice for totalitarians.

[Reply]what i would like to know, how many of the SUV's that are on the road, ever get to go places they are supposesdly designed to go?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Given that you still have a chance to get in an accident and that there is a chance that the SUV won't save you, you don't necessarily need to drive an SUV, either.

I don't think rhys is saying that it is necessary to his existence that he continue skydiving.

Also, because your interpretation of "what is important to me" is merely your interpretation, rhys can also say the same thing about skydiving quite easily. He decides to "waste" the fuel because skydiving is important to him. He feels that skydiving is a much safer sport than others. There are a whole list of things out there that are far more dangerous than skydiving, and there are also many sports that waste much more fuel than do trips in airplanes. Why is your conception of "what is important" more relevant than his?

I don't think it is.

You are very correct here. But there is a small thing you left out. He would support the government imposing his views and actions on the rest of us. While disagreeing with him, I do not support law that would force him to drive a big SUV. In my view, HE has the choice. The very choice he would have a government take away under the guise of taxes to push energy agendas that as of yet have no way to survice in the open market with out gov incentives (IE taxes) Wind generation is an example.

He and billvon can and should live as they please within the laws. But dont force me to live that way under the guise of the faulty premise of man made climate change. That is what this is really about.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Also, because your interpretation of "what is important to me" is merely your interpretation, rhys can also say the same thing about skydiving quite easily.

Exactly. There is a differemce between rhys and me. He refers to people who make choices he does not as "idiots.". I have zero problem with his or my choices.

I have problems with people who believe that people who think differently are idiots. You reiterate my point.

Rhys doesn't buy it. There are those who agree with him or there are idiots. Unless, of course, rhys does something that he disagrees with, which is justifiable because people like me drive SUV's. (Read his posts. He wrote it.)

[Reply] Why is your conception of "what is important" more relevant than his?

[makeithappen40 0]

>He would support the government imposing his views and actions on the rest of us

Ok. You also advise that they should live in accordance with laws already set forth. If a law were created against say, SUV's, for a legitimate purpose, would you endorse such a law then?
For how long could the ethical egoists thesis last here? Is it really feasible for each of us to "drive or burn as we wish?" Will there ever be a time where widespread self-interest destroys a population in such a fashion?

I think strict self-interest eventually runs itself into the ground, in one way or another. I think this is why most libertarians adopt a mode of "rational self-interest,"-in an effort to cover-up the problems that a strictly self-interested approach creates; and it, I think, is also the reason people occasionally advocate new laws regarding such matters-like gun laws or emissions laws.
(The egoists problems are the same things that Jesus warned about, you know, like: Greed, Lust, Power, Gluttony, and so-on.) Isn't THAT what this is really about?

[makeithappen40 0]

>What is important to me is relevant to me and me alone.
Unless, of course, it involves chemical weapons or anything that might interfere with the lives of other self-interested human beings.


>Because I value certain things more than others does not make me an idiot, does it? If you think it does, then I disagree with you, too. If not, then you disagree with rhys

Well that all depends. If you value something like the existence of a government that imposes no taxes on its citizens but fully endorse how it spends the majority of those funds, that could make you an idiot. (The idea here is that endorsing a major contradiction would make a person an idiot.)
I mean, I understand that you endorse the notion that all men be self-determining individualistic agents, but at the same time you have to add further instructions or restrictions to that in order to eliminate the undesirable side effects of such a philosophy. (In a similiar way to how a socialist state would want to use capitalistic techniques to spike production)

The pure socialist approach doesn't answer all of the problems it creates, just like pure capitalism doesn't.

(edit)
>I disagree with them because there is no right or wrong in subjective preference. Right. But does that mean that there is no right or wrong in evaluative standards? Nope, because we simply do not know at this point in time which set of ethical standards is "morally correct" and which ones aren't, other than the obviously false ethical sets that aren't even consistent.

[lawrocket 3]

>>>What is important to me is relevant to me and me alone.
Unless, of course, it involves chemical weapons or anything that might interfere with the lives of other self-interested human beings.

Okay. So, therein lies the double edged sword. Whose values are more important? My desire to have an SUV versus his desire that I not have one? Or his desire that I not put more CO2 into the air than he deems necessary.

Rational minds may differ. I am not an idiot for my choice, am I?

>>> If you value something like the existence of a government that imposes no taxes on its citizens but fully endorse how it spends the majority of those funds, that could make you an idiot. (The idea here is that endorsing a major contradiction would make a person an idiot.)

So when I say, "I drive an SUV because my priority is the safest vehicle I can get" I have no contradiction. Find the contradiction in my words of my post to you or to him and I will own it.

I can find contradiction in him. I do not believe, however, the rhys is an idiot. I would disagree with you if you said he was an idiot.

>>>I mean, I understand that you endorse the notion that all men be self-determining individualistic agents, but at the same time you have to add further instructions or restrictions to that in order to eliminate the undesirable side effects of such a philosophy. (In a similiar way to how a socialist state would want to use capitalistic techniques to spike production)

I "have to add" nothing. That being said, I believe certain limitations on human behavior are necessary to avoid another person's infringement on the quiet enjoyment and quiet enjoyment of others.

But, such side effects that I consider "undesirable" may be considered "desirable" by you. See? "Desirable" has no objective sense.

I say "my SUV may not be desirable to others.". Rhys may find skydiving to be a desirable means of pullution. Some find "eat, fuck, skydive" to be all that is important. Me, "drink, fuck, skydive" is more desirable, but that is just me.

>>>The pure socialist approach doesn't answer all of the problems it creates, just like pure capitalism doesn't.

Obviously. The difference is that in capitalism I have the choice to fix my problems and the market has a rationailty all its own.

Let's say I'm the only person on earth who wants an SUV. I won't be able to find one because nobody will be building them.

If rhys is correct, SUV's will go the way of the typewriter, which the market did a fine job of killing because of its inefficiency


>>>I disagree with them because there is no right or wrong in subjective preference.
In epistemology this is an invalid argument, because we simply do not know at this point in time which set of ethical standards is "morally correct" and which ones aren't, other than the obviously false ethical sets that aren't even consistent.

So you've proven my point. We do not know what is "morally correct." Rhys thinks he does, hence reference to those who disagree as idiots.

I am not saying that my SUV is morally correct. I am saying that my SUV is morally incorrect.

I will put it this way. There is a whole difference between saying someone is an "idiot" for disagreeing on something subjective. For example, any person who would have sex with a guy is an idiot because women are way hot and I've never seen a guy I thought was hot. Thus, choosing a guy is idiotic and a person who chooses a guy is an idiot. (Note - I understand the logical issues with this).

If rhys had simply said, "I believe that the harm fromskydiving operations is small enough to justify the continuing of the operations" then I absolutely cannot objectively disagree with him. He would have stated his beliefs - something I respect. (My view of morality respects the beliefs of others even if I disagree. I'll let him keep jumping.

On the other hand, I will disagree with objective assertions of idiocy because of subkective disagreement.

I will ask again - does my preference for an SUV objectively make me an idiot? You've skirted that.

Note - I pointed out how you inherently used subjective analysis. It is not wrong - it's expected from everyone. But it creates logical and ethical problems, does it not?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,990]

>So when I take my 5 Star Safety Rated SUV down one of the most
>dangerous highways in the US to and from work every day, you see
>less social utility in that than 22 people burning fuel for no other
>reason than to get them to an altitude that they can leave.


=================
The Myth of SUV Safety Superiority
By Jim Motavalli

There was big news out of Bloomington, Illinois this week: SUVs are no safer for kids than are passenger cars, largely because of much greater rollover risk! It astonished me to see this in big headlines everywhere, because I've been reporting on it for years. It's true, read my lips: SUVs are not safer than cars. Don't buy an SUV thinking it's the ultimate protection for your children, and don't buy one to insulate you from the dangers of winter driving, either.

. . . .

Despite the SUVs weighing an average of 1,300 extra pounds (a measure of safety in the public mind), a study of accidents involving almost 4,000 kids under 16 found nearly identical 1.7 percent child injury rates. The extra weight did increase safety (reducing injury risk by a third), but in the case of top-heavy SUVs that gain is balanced by their propensity to roll over at more than twice the rate of cars. And kids in rollovers are three times more likely to be hurt.
==================

Now, if you really like that big SUV, and it makes you feel good, then go for it. But saying that your frivolous usage is "smart" and other people's usage has no social utility isn't really supportable.