Is traffic so bad due to Toyota's fault?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Is the SUV Loophole Finally Closed?
Next: wrong group! sorry Re: hey evan post proof! (was: hey evan post proof!)
From: TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu on 4 Apr 2010 16:44 On Apr 4, 9:17 am, Hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:06:16 -0400, Mike Hunter wrote: > > I guess THAT explains why we hear so much in the media about Toyotas > > seemingly running out of control, it is just the Toyota owners trying to > > run from all those millions of GM vehicles on the highways. LOL > > Actually, it's trying to dodge all those people driving BMWs and Mercedes > that should have never gotten a driver's license in the first place. They could be running away from Toyota Land Crushers as well. Toyota has its share of dinosaurs and luxury cars, and the Toyota mowing machines are only for the sheep. Actually, some of them are cute, but probably low on performance and boring too. Maybe some day I will drop by a Toyota dealer to see if they are giving more importance to us monkeys.
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle on 5 Apr 2010 13:27 Perhaps I'm getting too deep into the jungle for Toyota owners to figure it out, but it has to do with Toyota, so here I shoot... On Apr 5, 9:44 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > In <5c86eb8a-57c3-44e9-80aa-db534fda0...(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu wrote in part: > > >>article, "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet," he argues that while > >climate change gets ample attention, species loss and nitrogen > >pollution exceed safe limits by greater degrees. In addition, other > >environmental processes such as ocean acidification and stratospheric > >ozone depletion are also moving toward dangerous thresholds.' > > >http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/is_earth_past_the_tipping_ > >poin.php > > Stratospheric ozone depletion, as it turns out, is looking to me like a > disaster averted by nearly eliminating production of CFCs and nearly > eliminating release into the atmosphere of CFCs and halogenated > hydrocarbons in general. > > Gas/Vapor 1998 Concentration 2009 Concentration > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CFC-12 269 ppt 242-244 ppt (down 9.3%) > CFC-11 533 ppt 536-538 ppt (up .75%) > CFC-113 84 ppt 76-77 ppt (down 8.9%) > carbon tetrachloride 102 ppt 88-89 ppt (down 13%) > > Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are still increasing, with HCFC-22 being the > main one, but they are less damaging than the CFCs that they replaced. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases > > http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html > > One thing interesting about the second link: Total anthropogenic > radiative forcing (change in radiation balance assuming constant surface > temperature since before the Industrial Revolution), from listed > greenhouse gases, as of 2009 was 2.98 watts per square centimeter. CO2 > was responsible for 1.66 of that in 2009 and 1.46 of that in 1998. The > four chlorine compounds that I mentioned above accounted for .269 W/m^2 in > 2009 and .28 W/cm^2 in 1998. > > The above 4 plus HCFC-22 accounted for .31 W/cm^2 in 1998 and .302 > W/cm^2 in 2009. > > For that mater, total anthropogenic ozone depleting gas EECI is down 10% > from its peak in 1994 and still declining: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cfc_trends.png > > Not that radiative forcing is the mechanism for statospheric ozone > destruction, but stratospheric ozone presence has stabilized both where it > is most-monitored (in the Antarctic) and in a larger global measure: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TOMS_Global_Ozone_65N-65S.png > > http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-10%25P1Y_ > G%5e360X240.LSH.mpg > (Animation of how the month of October fared from year to year, which I > selected because October is a bad month for Antarctic stratospheric ozone) > > http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_10.html > > (If one needs a different version of the animation) > > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) While we may argue forever whether Climate Change is "debatable" (until it's too late), we may still argue the need for change based on building a "better world." What's a better world? Certainly not one dictated by machines and predatory economies. We should be aiming, for example, for more free time to ride bikes and walk, not for an artificial, enslaving way of life where you drive a "jungle vehicle" (SUV) in the middle of the city. I quote here... "It has been suggested by experts that this shift towards civilization, through domestication, has caused an increase in diseases, labor and psychological disorders." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#List_of_ungoverned_communities In other words, we should be questioning whether the "sheep" is a necessary outcome of the "wild monkey." Well, they still act like a wild monkey when they drive an SUV --or like a domesticated sheep when driving a little Toyota.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 5 Apr 2010 13:33 "TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle" <nolionnoproblem(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:23d0d70a-3465-4a50-ae18-0cd6cee9cdd5(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > While we may argue forever whether Climate Change is > "debatable" (until it's too late), we may still argue the need for > change based on building a "better world." What's a better world? > Certainly not one dictated by machines and predatory economies. We > should be aiming, for example, for more free time to ride bikes and > walk, not for an artificial, enslaving way of life where you drive a > "jungle vehicle" (SUV) in the middle of the city. Excellent point(s). In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the following question, which NEVER gets a response: "Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing emissions? This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it." Now, sit back and watch what happens next. Or what doesn't happen next, if history is any indication.
From: dr_jeff on 5 Apr 2010 14:05 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle" > <nolionnoproblem(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:23d0d70a-3465-4a50-ae18-0cd6cee9cdd5(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > > >> While we may argue forever whether Climate Change is >> "debatable" (until it's too late), we may still argue the need for >> change based on building a "better world." What's a better world? >> Certainly not one dictated by machines and predatory economies. We >> should be aiming, for example, for more free time to ride bikes and >> walk, not for an artificial, enslaving way of life where you drive a >> "jungle vehicle" (SUV) in the middle of the city. > > > Excellent point(s). > > In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the > following question, which NEVER gets a response: > > "Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing emissions? > This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it." > > Now, sit back and watch what happens next. Or what doesn't happen next, if > history is any indication. Are you suggesting that decreased emissions mean decreased imports of oil, which means lowered trade deficit?
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 5 Apr 2010 14:10
"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:74ydnQ8YB83huyfWnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> "TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle" >> <nolionnoproblem(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:23d0d70a-3465-4a50-ae18-0cd6cee9cdd5(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>> While we may argue forever whether Climate Change is >>> "debatable" (until it's too late), we may still argue the need for >>> change based on building a "better world." What's a better world? >>> Certainly not one dictated by machines and predatory economies. We >>> should be aiming, for example, for more free time to ride bikes and >>> walk, not for an artificial, enslaving way of life where you drive a >>> "jungle vehicle" (SUV) in the middle of the city. >> >> >> Excellent point(s). >> >> In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the >> following question, which NEVER gets a response: >> >> "Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing >> emissions? This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with >> it." >> >> Now, sit back and watch what happens next. Or what doesn't happen next, >> if history is any indication. > > Are you suggesting that decreased emissions mean decreased imports of oil, > which means lowered trade deficit? No. And if you can't come up with the other reason, I'll need to ask you for the 100th time why you no longer practice medicine. |