Now the RX-8 beat the G35C in the C&D comparison with only 238 horsepower.

Flame on!

*hides*

Oooo good retaliation! Touche! :)

However, I was talking about the overall package it offers :p

Makes me think though.... now that the RX-8 is pushing out 238hp as advertised, and runs a 5.9 in the dash to 60 still (as per C&D's tests), makes me wonder what a 300+ horsepower RX-7 would do that's even lighter :D

Originally posted by Hercules
Oooo good retaliation! Touche! :)

However, I was talking about the overall package it offers :p

Makes me think though.... now that the RX-8 is pushing out 238hp as advertised, and runs a 5.9 in the dash to 60 still (as per C&D's tests), makes me wonder what a 300+ horsepower RX-7 would do that's even lighter :D

We all know that 280 HP RX7 that weights around 2700 lbs. will beat 350z, and s2000 easily. It'll be like last gen. but a little bit faster.

Originally posted by Hercules
Now the RX-8 beat the G35C in the C&D comparison with only 238 horsepower.

Flame on!

*hides*

It was still a pre-production car (with perhaps a more tuned Renesis). I'll "wait for a test of the production model" before I give this or any of the tests much weight.

Incidentally, was it not interesting that the RX8 was tested in all the US car mags extensively BEFORE the production model hit our shores (and perhaps got detnued at the port delay??)?

hehe, Hercules, you know~ you could have just sent me a PM if you wanted to talk to me. :D

btw: you do know the 240hp 02 5MT Altima and 240hp 6MT Accord have both been tested to do 0-60mph in 5.9 seconds, on par with the RX-8. (*with crappier tires, FWD, and being grocery getters that sells for thousands less*)

Oh yeah, the next RX-7 will be great, let's hope Mazda's RX-8 power issue won't hamper their plan for the RX-7. Remember, the RX-Evolv was supposd to be under 2900lbs, 280hp, gets 25mpg and look at what happened? If they do built it, I have no doubt the RX-7 will out perform the 350Z and S2000..... The question is, can it compete with the next M3, GT-R, Supra, and Lancer Evolution IX? This will be 2005 we are talking about anyways.

Oh yeah, the C&D 5.9 seconds, that's a preproduction model.... which usually means JDM exhaust spec. How do we know the actual production model RX-8 has a more powerful engine than the preproduction? Either way, when the Integra R overtook the RX-8 in the second straight on Tsukuba, it was already clear to me the power is not there. Even Japanese publications claimed minicscule difference between 250ps model and 210ps models.

Your turn~ ;)

With the power - fuel economy/emissions efficiency of the renesis, its going to have a very difficult time competing. Unless, they put something modestly more potent in a miata-sized car or extremely limted production volumes, its going to be tough to compete in the US. People laugh at emissions and fuel economy, but as we can see they ARE quite important even for sports cars.

I think I forgot to mention both the Accord and Altima (and most Nissan VQ35 powered cars) have better emission and gas milage than the RX-8. I realized this back in Febuary when Mazda Japan released the gas milage and emission figures. The Renesis is a clean engine, for a rotary, but not for a brand new engine this day and age.

can you post emission figures? ive wanted to look for these but had no idea where to look.

Yap, just look at the window stickers on new cars. I am not sure if there is an organized list for all these figures. I know Nissan has tuned most if not all their cars to higher emission standards to save on tax.

who cares abt emissions when u r getting a sports cars? ppl will start going cat-less sooner or later if they want to squeeze more hp from the engine.

Originally posted by R8N8SIS
who cares abt emissions when u r getting a sports cars? ppl will start going cat-less sooner or later if they want to squeeze more hp from the engine.

We don't care about the emission, but Mazda USA and the big dogs up in Capital Hill certainly do. A lower emission standard on a brand new car means higher tax bracket in the auto industry. That is exactly why Mazda chose to put on a restrictive CAT or ECU to lower emission at the expense of performance. Let's not forget the death of the Supra TT, Skyline GT-R and RX-7 TT due to modern emission regulations. Now the only thing I don't understand is why punish performance cars for their emission and leave out the fat ass American trucks and SUV's? Imperialism economic policy at work here~ how typical.

I am just shocked Mazda chose not to release this information to the consumers knowing full well the US spec emission vehicles would hamper the power rating.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac


. Now the only thing I don't understand is why punish performance cars for their emission and leave out the fat ass American trucks and SUV's? Imperialism economic policy at work here~ how typical.



i m on yr side!!!

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Now the only thing I don't understand is why punish performance cars for their emission and leave out the fat ass American trucks and SUV's? Imperialism economic policy at work here~ how typical.



Boy does this sound familiar. I agree with you 100% and said the same thing yesterday - -"why punish performance cars for their emission and leave out the fat ass American trucks and SUV's".

Why are you assuming "fat ass American trucks and SUV's" have poorer emissions than your RX-8? The idea that modern pickup trucks and SUVs are smog-dealing monsters makes for a nice headline for that crazy Huffington b**** but before you jump on her bandwagon know this...if sports cars were as popular with the American driving public as they once were, they would undoubtedly be the current target of her wrath. Given the apparent resurgence in sports car popularity, I'm sure they'll be next.

jds

Originally posted by RX-8 Zoomster


Boy does this sound familiar. I agree with you 100% and said the same thing yesterday - -"why punish performance cars for their emission and leave out the fat ass American trucks and SUV's".

Originally posted by bureau13
Why are you assuming "fat ass American trucks and SUV's" have poorer emissions than your RX-8? The idea that modern pickup trucks and SUVs are smog-dealing monsters makes for a nice headline for that crazy Huffington b**** but before you jump on her bandwagon know this...if sports cars were as popular with the American driving public as they once were, they would undoubtedly be the current target of her wrath. Given the apparent resurgence in sports car popularity, I'm sure they'll be next.

jds



Are you by chance a "Soccer Mom"? ;)

Originally posted by bureau13
Why are you assuming "fat ass American trucks and SUV's" have poorer emissions than your RX-8? The idea that modern pickup trucks and SUVs are smog-dealing monsters makes for a nice headline for that crazy Huffington b**** but before you jump on her bandwagon know this...if sports cars were as popular with the American driving public as they once were, they would undoubtedly be the current target of her wrath. Given the apparent resurgence in sports car popularity, I'm sure they'll be next.

jds




"Soccer Mom",

Ok, on a more serious note. Why am I assuming this? Although I don't have the EXACT emissions outputs of the RX-8 and "fat ass American trucks and SUV's", it is usually common knowledge that more gas consumed = more pollutants. Not all cases, but usually. Also, the efficiency of exhaust filtering out pollutants vary. Anyway, most "fat ass American trucks and SUV's", get less MPG then my RX-8. Which means they burn more fuel, they give off more pollutants.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
I think I forgot to mention both the Accord and Altima (and most Nissan VQ35 powered cars) have better emission and gas milage than the RX-8. I realized this back in Febuary when Mazda Japan released the gas milage and emission figures. The Renesis is a clean engine, for a rotary, but not for a brand new engine this day and age.

actually, emmissions wise, the rx-8 is well below the average
________
EASY VAPE REVIEW (http://vaporizers.net/vaporizers)

bureau13, check with bureau12. Trucks are exempt from passenger car emissions standards because they are work vehicles and lots of farmers (who have farms and lobbyists) have trucks...or at least they did back in the 70s when these emissions were first considered. Back then there were no SUVs, only UVs. Now SUVs get to slide in with their dishonest and shiny ways. The problem is how do you include bright, shiny SUVs while excluding the dusty, dented, real farm/ranch/work vehicles.

To bring this back on topic again..

I think I pissed off a 350z owner when I out drove him in this.

http://www.rx7club.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=2054398

1989 GTUs

Yeah he had me in the straights but on the corners? It was no comparison. The GTUs is about 2800 lbs thou and just like in Initial D once the corners came I was pushing him up the track. Eventualy he admited defeat from a NA rotary and waived me by :D

I got to drive an RX-8 and it drove better than any FC I had ever been in so you guys will be SMOKING on the track :)

Oh that's not my car.. that's my buddy RarestRX's

Car&Driver test data

_____________ 5-60mph ___ EPA city

Infiniti FX35 ____ 7.2 s ______ 17 mpg

Mazda RX-8 _____7.5 s ______ 18 mpg


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article_id=6857&page_number=1

Both cars have NA engine and RWD.

The FX35 is auto whereas the RX-8 is manual.

Not sure what the point of this comparison is, though you'd be hardpressed to find any SUV-owners tracking their vehicles..

Originally posted by Supercharger
Car&Driver test data

_____________ 5-60mph ___ EPA city

Infiniti FX35 ____ 7.2 s ______ 17 mpg

Mazda RX-8 _____7.5 s ______ 18 mpg


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article_id=6857&page_number=1

Both cars have NA engine and RWD.

The FX35 is auto whereas the RX-8 is manual.

Originally posted by bureau13
Why are you assuming "fat ass American trucks and SUV's" have poorer emissions than your RX-8? jds



Because in the USA there is an exemption for trucks, and SUV's based on truck chassis, to the current emmissions and fuel economy laws.

They only have to meet a spec equivalent to the 1996 standards.

Read about it here:
http://www.vehiclechoice.org/truck/emission.html

And here:
http://www.airquality.hamilton.on.ca/events/truck-emissions.asp

Originally posted by canzoomer


Because in the USA there is an exemption for trucks, and SUV's based on truck chassis, to the current emmissions and fuel economy laws.

They only have to meet a spec equivalent to the 1996 standards.

Read about it here:
http://www.vehiclechoice.org/truck/emission.html

And here:
http://www.airquality.hamilton.on.ca/events/truck-emissions.asp

Thanks canzoomer for references to support my argument with bureau13.

Oops, I forgot I had responded in this thread :-)

No, I'm not a soccer mom. I'm not a mom, I drive a '93 RX-7 that gets poorer fuel economy and has nastier emissions than the Trailblazer I also drive, and I think footballs should have pointy ends (i.e. not a soccer fan).

Now, on to the other stuff. I asked for evidence that SUVs were evil emissions monsters, and you guys posted stuff about them being exempt from car laws. This is one of those classical mistakes of logic, but I can't remember which one. :-) Seriously...just because they are exempt from the law doesn't mean they necessarily pollute more. I unfortunately don't have any links to the factual data, but I did read something in one of my magazines...maybe Car and Driver...about this very thing.

The other thing...if I can haul 5-7 people in an SUV and you can take 4 in your RX-8 (or 2 if you have an RX-7) then even if the SUV is polluting more and using more fuel, its probably not as bad as the two or more cars you'd need to take the same number of passengers. I know, I know...there are plenty of SUVs on the road with a driver and no one else....but it IS a factor to consider.

I need to state one other thing for the record here...I am in no way an anti-sports car, pro-SUV person. I'm pro people driving what they want to drive and leaving the federal government out of the decision as much as possible. That, and I find it ironic when sports car people complain about SUVs from an emissions or fuel economy perspective, given that sports cars have historically been victims of these kinds of attacks, and undoubtedly will be so again.

jds

Originally posted by RX-8 Zoomster


Thanks canzoomer for references to support my argument with bureau13.

Originally posted by bureau13
The other thing...if I can haul 5-7 people in an SUV and you can take 4 in your RX-8 (or 2 if you have an RX-7) then even if the SUV is polluting more and using more fuel, its probably not as bad as the two or more cars you'd need to take the same number of passengers. I know, I know...there are plenty of SUVs on the road with a driver and no one else....but it IS a factor to consider.

jds



How about a law that states a SUV can't be driven unless it has more than 2 passengers? :p


btw: back to the original topic~ am I supposed to be pissed off about something? I don't get it.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
btw: back to the original topic~ am I supposed to be pissed off about something? I don't get it.
Not really... just stupid fun :)

The more troubling issue about the emissions standards is that there is absolutely no reliable evidence that anything humans do causes global warming. Avoiding air pollution and smog are admirable goals, but the idea that car emissions (SUV's, gas guzzlers, etc.) cause the environment to get warmer is without any basis in fact. Yet, in the mainstream media it seems to be a forgone conclusion. Sorry, thread drift......

Because I doubt that any of us have the time nor inclination to go research this somehow and interview with people whose job is relevant to the issue, its safe to say we are way OT. But while we are and before its closed, even if there is no evidence that "anything humans do causes global warming", I think the burden of proof for subtantiation of that statement is to show that humans DONT cause global warming.

Actually I do have a question. Does anyone know what rating (is it a CARB rating) like LEV, ULEV, SULEV (ha ha) the RX-8 carries?

Actually in science the burden of proof is with the person claiming something is happening (i.e. people claiming cars cause global warming).

Using your argument I could claim I can levitate using telekinesis and you would be required to prove I can't.

The general consensus from the scientific community is that Global Warming is real. Any scientific theory can be found to have holes. I think SOME action should be taken at a level consistent with the probobility of occurence and ultimate cost (economic, social, environmental). I'm not a reserarcher who studies it, but I listen when intelligent people (in large numbers) come to this conclusion.

oops, there goes some more global warming again, darned flatulence. Now if only there was a way I could harness that raw stuff and pipe it back to the gas tank I could probably get better mileage, hmm, I wonder.... There's no way my car would pass emissions tests tho, but it sure would pass my emmissions..

revhappy wrote: "The general consensus from the scientific community is that Global Warming is real."

That is not true. Listening to the mass media and NPR and you'd be tempted to assume it's true but the legitimate scientific community has proven that there is a direct correlation between the activity of the sun, our position in the galaxy (what we are passing through) and the temperature on the earth. There is ABSOLUTELY NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HUMANS DO HAS A CAUSATION EFFECT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. None. Just misinformed people with a political agenda.

In fact, the two studies most often cited (at Kyoto for example) have been totally discredited because they cannot even predict the past and their measurement methodology is flawed.

The geological record proves that it was consistently warmer about 1000 years ago, when there were no hydro carbons or other man-made chemicals in the atmosphere.

It is a pet peeve of mine how the media consistently gets their science wrong. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Here is some information, if you are interested, on the topic. You can cut and paste these into the URL of your browser.

www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-050503A
www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,93466,00.html
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-080503F
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-061803D
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-072303C

By the way. I love my RX-8.

Originally posted by LesPaul
revhappy wrote: "The general consensus from the scientific community is that Global Warming is real."

That is not true. Listening to the mass media and NPR and you'd be tempted to assume it's true but the legitimate scientific community has proven that there is a direct correlation between the activity of the sun, our position in the galaxy (what we are passing through) and the temperature on the earth. There is ABSOLUTELY NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HUMANS DO HAS A CAUSATION EFFECT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. None. Just misinformed people with a political agenda.

In fact, the two studies most often cited (at Kyoto for example) have been totally discredited because they cannot even predict the past and their measurement methodology is flawed.

The geological record proves that it was consistently warmer about 1000 years ago, when there were no hydro carbons or other man-made chemicals in the atmosphere.

It is a pet peeve of mine how the media consistently gets their science wrong. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Here is some information, if you are interested, on the topic. You can cut and paste these into the URL of your browser.

www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-050503A
www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,93466,00.html
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-080503F
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-061803D
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-072303C

By the way. I love my RX-8.


A Fox news and some obscure web site are not going to convince me. Attached are two links that support global warming (and indicate a consensus of the scientific community):

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/testimony.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/106332.asp

We can always find dissenting scientific opinions on almost any scientific issue. For example there are creationist scientists who make some logical -sounding opinions, but we all know its a bunch of bs.

Now is the Global Warming Theory set in stone? No! However as of now, if the majority of the scientists most educated in the matter have this opinion, then I'll go with that (I'm not a climatologist or meteroligical scientist). Isn't it smart to hedge the risk based on a probability of occurence and ultimate cost (economic, social, environmental)?

Of course, one can go with super-cynical conspiracy therories where the scientists are deliberately lieing to get funding. However, if anything, I think those against it have a stronger incentive to lie (i.e. Power companies, automakers, oil companies, etc.).

It's not really an obscure source, and even if it is, the links to established sources in the material are pretty persuasive. There are countless sources of information on the topic and I suppose we can agree to disagree. IMHO based on research over the past several years, the "humans cause global warming" theory is baseless. I respect your right to think otherwise.

Actually there's no *reliable* evidence to suggest putting your finger in a light socket causes death. Most people who do so just *happen* to die of a heart attack. Damn fuzzy pseudo-science. BTW, any Fox News citations instantly dismiss all credibility.

Anyway, I drift.

Originally posted by LesPaul
It's not really an obscure source, and even if it is, the links to established sources in the material are pretty persuasive. There are countless sources of information on the topic and I suppose we can agree to disagree. IMHO based on research over the past several years, the "humans cause global warming" theory is baseless. I respect your right to think otherwise.

I agree to disagree too!!! Still, a lot of psuedo-science or bad science can look quite persuading. Take a look at some creationist scientists, they make some nice sounding ideas, but we know they are all baseless (and their conclusions predetermied). I still think we should hedge the risk (measured on the probability of occurence and ultimate cost).

BTW..a lot of these people adamently state "Humans can have no effect on climate." On a local level, they sure can. Go to a major city on a clear, calm night and then go 10 miles out into the country. Sometimes you will see a temperature difference of 20 degrees or more due to the heat island effect.

eskimo wrote: "Actually there's no *reliable* evidence to suggest putting your finger in a light socket causes death. Most people who do so just *happen* to die of a heart attack. Damn fuzzy pseudo-science. BTW, any Fox News citations instantly dismiss all credibility."

I guess you're being funny, but you kind of help me make my point. In all the reading I've done I've found no credible evidence linking human activity to global warming. There is credible evidence that 110 volts at 25 amps will kill a person. And it's the "damn fuzzy pseudo-science" that makes up most of the human cause theory. (Alan Robock is well known in some circles as a Green, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that he wears his political agenda on his sleeve). By dismissing Fox so easily you betray your political bias.

revhappy wrote: "Still, a lot of psuedo-science or bad science can look quite persuading." Exactly my point. This is even more evident when mainstream media presents it as fact, or sources claims "consensus" where none exist.

As for the Creationists, again an example of a large number of people believing a huge lie. They pile on bits and pieces of disjointed information, discard contrary views and end up with what passes for a scientific "proof" where not exist.

rev, you seem well informed and demonstrate a productive thought process. I'm just suggesting that the truth of the matter may not be as it is presented in mass media and that further investigation of the facts at hand may lead you to question "conventional wisdom". I suspect you may be open to that since you are into the rotary.

Originally posted by LesPaul
I guess you're being funny, but you kind of help me make my point.

Yes, I was *trying* to be funny. sorry for the lame attempt, and I have no problem with betraying my political bias. If anyone wants to call me a *Liberal* :-o *gasp* I will accept the label proudly. By citing Fox News as a source, you betray yours as well. So now we've brought tons of political baggage into the discussion. But this discussion has been done before, and thousands of knowlegable scientists have concluded that we do have an effect on global warming. Some argue the point, but I always notice those that do have conflicting interests that betray their political bias. Fox News (not a scientist) also has a major conflict of interest and Roger Ailes has betrayed his political bias. But even the pResident of the US comissioned a study to prove that humans have no effect on global warming, and he had to admit the study showed they do.

Sorry eskimo, but you are wrong on just about every point you make. I have no desire to convince you otherwise. Live long and prosper.

Originally posted by eskimo
If anyone wants to call me a *Liberal* :-o *gasp* I will accept the label proudly. By citing Fox News as a source, you betray yours as well. So now we've brought tons of political baggage into the discussion.Ahh, Fox News, the official news channel of the Ministry of Homeland Security.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/06/26/faux_news/story.jpg

Well, since this thread is about "In order to piss off G35C owners more...", I think we can be sure that we have accomplished this and pissed off owners of the RX-8, 350z, TT and others also. Well done fellow authors!

As someone who subscribes to Scientific American, Popular Science and other science journals (and even reads them occasionaly ;)) I would say there is as much evidence for global temperatures to drop over the next 500 years as there is for temperatures to go up. A lot of scientists in the 70's expected a new ice age within a few hunderd years, and after a decade or two of global warming predictions (caused more by flatulent cows than by cars in most studies) the ice age theory is starting to make a comeback.

Personally I don't think we have enough evidence to know how things will turn out for sure even just 100 years from now. I do agree that humans should tread lightly and take what steps are possible to leave the planet in a 'natural' climate state as we seem to have an accelerating impact on natural trends - whichever way the climate ends up going.

Finally, scientists go where the grant money is. If there is a lot of government grants to research in to global warming then scientists will make a lot of noise about it, and people who say 'no problem exists' typically don't get their grants renewed - but eventually the truth gets out (whatever that is). Based on the amount of research and money put into these studies so far I would expect more persuasive results by now.

My uncle is one of the top applied mathematicians in the world. When Chaos Theory was all the rage in the media he would tell me that anything with the word Chaos in it would get funded to the exclusion of other important things, even though it was nothing new (already a reasonably well understood phenomena decades earlier).

BTW in a somewhat related note there is a lot of evidence that humans are making the ozone hole bigger. Hopefully we will have the technology in the next 50-100 years to fix it.

[ OT ]
LesPaul, did you invent that guitar?

:-)

I like your name.
[/OT]

Sorry, don't want to piss anyone off. I just get worked up about this environmental stuff. I've seen a lot of change in my life, especially in the SF Bay Area.


edit: D'oh, I forgot the title of the thread.

Originally posted by pelucidor
BTW in a somewhat related note there is a lot of evidence that humans are making the ozone hole bigger. Hopefully we will have the technology in the next 50-100 years to fix it. If the hole was over the USA or Europe, you can bet it would be getting a lot more funding. But since it's only the Aussies who are getting skin cancer, it seems that other research is more important.

Originally posted by eccles
If the hole was over the USA or Europe, you can bet it would be getting a lot more funding. But since it's only the Aussies who are getting skin cancer, it seems that other research is more important.

you're beginning to move into a vien which i'd like to tack onto the Global Warming debate, in that although it's a fairly unproven theory about which much ado is being made, that can still have a very positive influence on things like local-area pollution. anyone among us cannot possibly contend that lowering vehicular, general commercial, and general industrial emissions (even in the name of a false cause) can't possibly be a bad thing in the long run.

whether global warming is true or not, environmentalists aren't all silly tree-hugging alarmists. (not that i'm saying anyone here is... :))

Please raise your hand:

Who is willing to trade 30 HP at the crank from your RX-8 for EPA regulations addressing an unproven environmental issue...all the while getting no real explanation from Mazda?

You can't see, but my hand is not raised.

Originally posted by LesPaul
revhappy wrote: "Still, a lot of psuedo-science or bad science can look quite persuading." Exactly my point. This is even more evident when mainstream media presents it as fact, or sources claims "consensus" where none exist.

As for the Creationists, again an example of a large number of people believing a huge lie. They pile on bits and pieces of disjointed information, discard contrary views and end up with what passes for a scientific "proof" where not exist.

rev, you seem well informed and demonstrate a productive thought process. I'm just suggesting that the truth of the matter may not be as it is presented in mass media and that further investigation of the facts at hand may lead you to question "conventional wisdom". I suspect you may be open to that since you are into the rotary.

Thanks for the compliment , Les :) Climate actually is a VERY complex topic, so its difficult to prove this theory as easily as a simple scientific phenomenon. The issue that Global Warming is a completely disputed topic and no consensus is reached in the scientific communtiy is not correct. Some holes in the theory? Sure. Some dissenters? You betcha. However, the overwhelming majority of educated researchers support it. It makes sense to me (look at Venus), but I realize I don't have the background or information to make an educated assessment on my own. Therefore, I will leave it to the scientific community to decide. IMHO, assess the chance of it occuring, multiply it by the present value of the ultimate cost, and that's the limitation of any action you should take.

That is on contrast to what Bush is doing: "more research and do nothing", which is clearly a stalling tactic IMHO. Somehow, that stance is remarkably similar the action they take on accepted pollutants.

pelucidor, youve struck me as a semi-intelligent person, my hat goes off to you


anyway...

in the end, any insulating compound that is retained in the atmospher will retain energy, and thus warmth, "heating up" the earths overall climate. is global warming a real issue? no.
can it become one over time? yes

if i had my way...well, i never will, so it doesnt really matter
________
ASS FRENCH (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/150/french/videos/1)