Clarkston Calls the Honda Insight 'Biblically Terrible'
 

I looked at one on a dealer lot and it did, indeed, lack Honda's usual 'goodness' as far as fit and finish and material qualities appeared.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...ffset=0&page=1

It also did look wafer-thin.

He really hates the way it drive, though.

that is an awesome article.
I think many tree hugging retards out there forget WHAT it takes to MAKE these cars. I'm glad he brought up that point.

Wow, I'm almost tempted to go test drive one of these.

The review doesn't surprise me one bit. Of course "car guys" are going to hate a piece of crap like this. A car like this will appeal to tree huggers and people who could care less about anything automotive and want something to get from point a to point b as economically as possible without regard to styling, design, ergonomics, comfort, ride quality, etc.

He basically said the Prius is far better than the Insight, with both of them being hybrids, obviously.

Remember people, global warming is due to OUR impact. It's clearly not due to any changes or cycles involving our local star with a mass roughly one million times that of the earth, radiating energy which was produced thousands of years ago at a strength billions of times stronger than an atomic bomb. Oh ya and sun spots also have cycles which effect climate. But obviously, the earth's climate change is our fault. Let's not look to the actual source of heat for answers. Let's look to ourselves.

^lol, +1, agree 100%

global bull shit is what it looks like, its a new trend to make money from the hippys

really? sigh...I'm not going to get in depth here because I have patients coming in, but if you do look at the correlation between the natural warming/cooling of the Earth, the pattern we are exemplifying does not fit into the previously studied patterns. More significantly, the changes are directly correlated with the global increase in factories and the combustion engine; the significance being the release of CO2 and other particles which inhibit ozone production and function, which is the one thing keeping this planet functioning (keeps water from evaporating, burns up micro-meteorites from the friction, repels much of the deadly UV radiation from the sun, while keeping in most of the heat). So yes, humans are directly related to the global climate change and it is not because of changes in the sun.

I'm not going to rant more; if this is a joke, you got me, great job:lol:. If not...:icon_no2:, do your research. There is no question to the fact that there is global climate/weather change and we are the major cause.


Back on topic:
I wonder how the insight will stack up to the new prius?

Ugh... just to state, we are PART of it... we didn't cause the whole thing. For fuck sakes, cows put more pollution into the air then CARS!

Oh... and that's why Mazda should produce the Hydro Rotary engine and market it. It will make everyone happy, especially Jeremy Clarkson. Damn good article too.

their is no facts in what your saying, wow. hippie.blahblahblah

You want facts? I'm to busy to collect facts at the moment. Look them up, but I'm not wasting my time because in the end, you will either realize you are wrong or you will be so stubborn that you will refuse to recognize opposing arguments. And before you say likewise to me, understand that I have actually studied about this as a part of my second major in college...conservation ecology.

So go ahead, search as much as you want, and when I'm done with work, I'll be happy to provide you with links to articles from some of the scientific journals I am subscribed to.

we do a lot more with 1.3 liters.

:)

Just look up www.algore.com :uhh:

Fuck hybrids. You can get comparable mileage with diesel and still have enough torque to actually enjoy your vehicle.

Of course, the way Amerika is headed, hybrids will be all we can buy in 5 to 7 years. I think I'm going to move to Europe sometime in the next decade.

I wish we had more diesels available.

How come Mars is going through global warming too then?? Man's contribution to global warming is akin to spitting in the ocean and saying we're causing the ocean levels to rise. Volcanoes add far and away more green house gasses to the atmosphere than man ever does.

http://environment.about.com/od/gree...olcano-gas.htm

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

OK, I have to get back to patients now. Do some reading and if you still aren't convinced...then that's your problem.

I was being sarcastic.


It's funny to me that in the 70's we were told of the impending ice age.

Issues like this are confusing to lay people like myself, because of the fact that we have plenty of extremely well qualified scientists on both sides of the issue, both offering us explanations which seem plausible to my untrained mind. They can't all be morons, but they can't all be right...


I just wish politics didn't screw this all up for us. Anti industry, anti pollution are popular attractions, so any claim that people cause global warming will surely be popular, even if it might not be true.

For me it comes down to a few simple facts which seem to uphold my extreme skepticism for human fault in climate change:

-The sun is what gives us heat, yet many climate change theories seem to not mention the sun...(this is inexcusable and insulting. Even if we find that the sun is not responsible, by not mentioning the sun to people when talking about earth warming up is incredibly insulting to anyone's intelligence)
-Co2 emitted by humans is only a fraction of total Co2
-Earth's climate is continiously changing anyway. ( for example the climate significantly heated up after the most recent mini-ice age, long before modern industry even started...)

this guy who reads on the internet thinks everything is real, maybe he should click on the winner of a new ipod lol

Continuity is examined by patterns; what we are experiencing is atypical according to our timeline/past pattern. Our contribution is significant; volcanoes typically release 24 million tons of CO2/year, while we add 24 billion tons/year into the atmosphere. This is not only a significant amount, but is something the Earth hasn't experienced in the past, so we are adding 24 billion tons per year on top of the natural amount.

But when we start talking about Co2 at all, it's confusing to me because I have also heard that although there is a correlation, the Co2 does not actually effect temperatures. and of course the reasons behind this are also above me, so either way I just have to say "well ok i guess..."


Not to sound stupid, but is there any way we can detect if the sun is just getting hotter? I mean...The sun spots also create climate change, and in a way we are always in the sun's atmosphere.


I bet if i watched al gore's movie and then watched that newer one which goes against it, I would conclude that everything each video says makes sense, yet they disagree with each other. This is the problem with the average person like me making decisions on global warming.


I know that it is easy to point us towards links of studies down by scientists and disregard our stance as being misinformed and in denial, but would you say that to the hundreds of scientists who completely disagree with you and have a combined study period of hundreds of years? These people clearly know more about it than you...so are they morons? I don't know, and I think that maybe no one does yet.

There are scientist who will say what you want them to for a price; just look at the cigarette trials and the scientists who concluded they are harmless. They are in fact a few nay sayers, but they are extremely outnumbered. Does that make them wrong, no.

CO2 contributions to warming is that it creates a "green house effect". This means that it traps more UV rays from the sun than the ozone typically does. This will increase the temperature, which will melt the frozen ice (poles), creating a much higher sea level, etc etc etc.

If you are curious, read up. The worst thing to do is say "I'm a lay person who would never understand, so I will make my own decision/believe what ever anyone says". Science is a field where you make your own decision and question other peoples decision based on their work, so we (I) encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

IIRC, the government has info on this, in fact, the the EPA web site.

Sun spots, as far as we know, are mostly random and short term (the effects). This would most likely not be responsible to the current weather patterns.

OK, Tuesday night meet. I'm done for now...look at some links.

"short term" does not seem inappropriate for looking at current weather patterns considering that even the last 1000 years of time makes up for less than 1/1000 of 1% of our geological timeline....



The links you posted are interesting. They also seem to try to get people to think that time periods like 10,000 years are a long time, when they are not a long time at all. So what if the earth is hotter now than it has been in the last 100,000 years? That's still way less than 1% of the geological timeline. also, the earth DOES go thru hotter and colder cycles, so just because this particular cylce is a little hotter than the others over the last fraction of 1% of our timeline, that means it's human fault? wtf

but those hotter and colder cycles happen over tens of thousands of years, not decades.

i wish we had more diesels.