Environmentalists and Musclecars

[AKcharger]

Actually I'd say there is reason for concern. "Radical" enviros care about "appearance" of action as opposed to an actual solution, it's much much easier to demonize something/someone and scare people rather than work a lasting solution...some examples:

- PETA yelling at or throwing paint on people wearing firs...to save Bunnys
- Earth 1st spiking trees so when a band saw hit the spikes the blade shatters and kills/ injures sawmill workers...to protect trees
- Arson of Colorado Ski lodges...to save the earth???
- Arson/destruction of SUV's...to end gas-guzzler vehicles

I don't think it's far-fetched to find people protesting outside Carlisle or the Nats in years to come along with someone telling a news reporter how "the fuel used to power these old cars could power the city of Oshkosh for 4 days!" Add in some some vandalism of a few cars for good measure and "they" would be pleased to punish the cars that started global warming and end a wasteful stupid hobby.

[hemihead]

Why don't these tree huggers ever mention the air pollution put out by the active volcanoes?They are natural but the gases and smoke put off by one of these natural occuring land forms is 20 times worse than anything man has done.

[Mean 318]

When Helen went, it released more CO2 than man has ever done.... since the humanity has been in existence.... EVER!!!!!! The evaporation of ocean water every year.... Humanity is a drop in the bucket!

[Mike DC]

   
At this point there's no doubt that temps are indeed getting hotter in recent decades.  The big question is whether it's naturally-occurring or whether it's human activity.  (I don't think we have any idea what's really going on.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Musclecars will be little more than a scapegoat if anything is done to them.  It certainly won't make any real difference in the problem. 

Honestly, I think that musclecars (the 1960s-70s ones at least) are already past the point of being the automotive "bad guys" in the public's mind.  Maybe not the enviro-wack-jobs, but I'm talking about the everyday man on the street that will or won't put up with these kinds of laws.  I think when average Joes think of worthless hot-rods & gas-guzzlers, they currently think of rice-burners in the hands of kids and SUVs in the hands of grownups.  Most people of all ages seem to be at the point where they LIKE the sight of a restored 1970 Charger or something over the sight of an Explorer or a Civic.

 

[Guns N Rotors]

Wow... I didn't think Algore's electric car could go 75 MPH!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/186938_gore19.html

[Steve P.]

    Just curious how everyone thinks the environmental/global warming movement pushed by environmentalists is affecting or how it could affect us old Charger freaks. It kinda scares me when I see how much the environmentalists froth at the mouth over musclecars...and knowing that their initiatives are going to be the ones observed now that everyone wants to turn "green". I wonder if there is anything in the future for folks like us...or if we're going to all be driving styrofoam Honda boxes and paying $25 a gallon to fuel our Mopars.

   

"It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period."  - Al Gore, Earth In The Balance, pages 325-326.

More people wanted him for president, than Bush, based on popular vote (not state by state).  That is scary to me.  One day you may see Chargers only in museums.  Looked at all the other stuff they classify as hazardous to the environment, and then ban.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about in *production* vehicles, and I agree with him entirely.  Probably 90% of the cars being driven regularly right now are from the last decade, so if you can ensure that *NEW* cars don't pollute at all, then in a few years gasoline vehicles will become a rarity.  Problem solved without 'banning' anything.

I have not read his book, but I did watch a FLORIDA POLITICS CHANNEL show with Al Gore and in a nut shell Gore said that he is talking about todays and tomorrows production cars. He was asked about old non-pollution controlled cars. His answer was that he loves old cars. They are part of what makes us who we are. Also said he wishes he had more time to go to some shows. (Till then I'll have to watch CAR CRAZY on TV). 

That may not all be word for word, but it's as best I can remember. I loved the Car Crazy mention..


And I think the .5% mentioned earlier is a bunch high. Maybe .005% is muscle cars...

[69bronzeT5]

Down with enviromentalists. Up with Muscle!

[jamie1974]

"When it comes to a car polluting, it doesn't matter how old it is, its how well it is maintained!"


   Well, maybe I'm just too cynical, but I see it more as politics, politics, and politics - along with media, media, media.

   I don't think most of the people who run either of those two machines are very interested in truth as much as they are ratings and votes.

   And the fastest way to gain favor with the general public is to target performance cars. Going after musclecar owners, and locking down on the production of new ones like the Challenger is the easiest way to get the vast majority of voting people excited. Because most of them aren't into musclecars, they don't have a personal interest in owning them or preserving them, so they don't care. And they also have that "stigma" tied to them...of burping up huge amounts of pollution with their "loud, obnoxious engines".

   So for politicians and the media, going after performance musclecars first, regardless of the fact of whether or not they actually polute, is as easy as hitting the broad side of a barn when winning votes and gaining public approval. They're going to go after the low hanging fruit first.

   People who don't own them aren't going to know they're not actually driven that often, or that they actually don't pollute much when they're well tuned/maintained. The media will whip them up as unnecessary diesel farting dinosaurs. I can just picture it now...on the news...the news segment would start out with a camera focusing on the exhaust pipe of a de-tuned 67 Newport blowing out black smoke...then they'll zoom in on a Charger doing a burnout. 


    Then everyone at home will be like "Oh! Those musclecars are AWFUL! We need to get legislation after those greenhouse assasins!!"

    *sigh*

   

[69bronzeT5]

"When it comes to a car polluting, it doesn't matter how old it is, its how well it is maintained!"

[pettyfan43]

Congrats!
you just spun out of control there Mr Petty..   

OK Tell me how?

I have done enough research and found out enough WITHOUT watching the Mainstream Media that I have a pretty good Idea what I am talking about.

[pettyfan43]

There was an article in one of the Mainstream Hot Rod or Car Craft typoe magazine back in the late 80s, or early 90s And what they did was to take a NICE Well maintained big block SUPERCHARGED Pro Street Chevy II and take it on a smog sniffer station.  Then the at the same time they also took a NEW Camaro Z/28.

The No CATS No Smog Pump HOT ROD had about HALF the emissions of the new Z. This was on the SAME machine!

YEP we've come a long way!

[Brock Samson]

your entitled to your opinion and emotions but i just notice how heated and off the subject we get when discussing the stewardship of our planet...
or am i the only one to notice?..
i am in favor of some pretty fundamental changes in our licensing regs and in the number of vehicles allowed.
and not simply because of green reasons...
two stroke motors especially boat motors are very dirty, sat behind any old busses lately?..
in anycase i'll play the devils advocate for the sake of argument..
bring it on.. 

[defiance]

Too many people argue the point that if we give an inch they'll take a mile.  That's called a slippery slope, a logical fallacy.  There's no logical reason for the banning of *existing* performance cars, and there's no political gain either.  It's simply not a political stance which people would care about enough to 'bandwagon' behind, so that simply makes no sense.

Also, I'm getting tired of people WHINING INCESSANTLY about the media.  "O noes!  Teh media is lying to me and everyone all the time and nothing they say is tr00!"  That whole mentality is starting to annoy the HELL out of me.  The media sensationalizes things.  Duh.  So, do some fact checking before you trust a story.  If the subject matter is important to you, you should be doing that anyway!  But dismissing an idea, statement, or position just BECAUSE it is inline with anything the media reports is idiotic, and lately, pretty common.

If you don't believe in global warning, go to the research department of a well-respected college and ask some of the researchers.  They'll tell you: it is fact.  The only question is whether the increased warming is a result of a very long-term natural change or human interference.  They'll also tell you that there are pretty strong correlations between human factors and warming trends.  They will readily admit that this is not absolute evidence (correlation is not causality), but they will follow up by saying that it is certainly enough evidence to be cautious (i.e., reduce emissions) until the causality can be more definitively determined.

I'm sure you can google plenty of web sites offering "evidence" against this - there are plenty of groups publishing "findings" that differ, but if you look at the groups, dig through the credentials of the "researchers", look at the sources of their funding, their credibility suffers.

Find a source that doesn't have anything to gain, however, and they'll all say the same thing: this really does appear to be a problem.


Not to mention, alternative energy source research allows us the opportunity to reduce our energy dependency.  Right now we're extremely dependent upon sources of energy that are seriously influenced by people we're not exactly on good terms with.  If new vehicles were being produced to use energy sources we could retrieve or produce domestically, our economic strength would be greatly improved.

Finally, have you guys seen some of the tech coming out *already* in the realm of alternatively driven vehicles?  Toyota has produced two different 400-Hp+ electric concept cars.  As far as new cars are concerned, muscle doesn't necessarily have to mean gasoline-driven.

[pettyfan43]

I really don't get what you are arguing with?

The fact that the people who are trying to push the global warming thing down our throats are liberals is no secret. The fact that we are only being told half truths, as much as AlGore wants you NOT to know that, is easy enough to establish.

As far as you being in favor of some kind of limits on vehicle ownership, that is actually guaranteed in the constitution.

1. How many vehicles you own is YOUR business, as long as you pay the taxes and are responsible enough to keep them registered and insured, somebody telling you how many you can OWN is BS pure and simple.  IT is a constitutional right (You know, life liberty adn the pursuit of happiness?)

2. If you DO have 15 vehicles sitting in your garage, How many REALISTICALLY can you drive at once? 12 Does not pollute or cause trouble more than one, I ain't ever seen anybody drive 3 cars at once! What kind of limits would you suggest? How many vehicles should one person be allowed to own?
If anything, somebody haveing several cars keeps MORE of them OFF the road (see my first sentence)

3. TWO STROKES? OK you don't like em, but I don't wanna carry around a weed eater with a 4 horse Tecumseh on it! 4 Strokes are not practical for some applications.

I only get "emotional" because I have uncles that fought for this country, My grandfather lost his left eye on the beach at Normandy and was left for dead, dropped in a pile of dead soldiers and had to pull Sulfur from the DEAD soldier's bodies and PACK his OWN wounds.

I love this country and believe that each person has to make his own decisions, and I don't believe basing kneejerk reactions on partial truths and HERESAY evidence is reason enough to start removing freedoms from the citizens of this country. I also believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IF you do something stupid, it is your responsibility to stand for it.

As I said, you can have your cars and be an environmentally friendly citizen as well.

If you are looking FOR an argument, sorry. I know what I believe and as I said, I have done enough research and have heard enough to know that when it comes to the earth and all these doomsayers and environmentalists, they are AT BEST guessing. There are bunches of articles from 30 years ago stating that the Earth is COOLING and we are entering another Ice Age. NOW we Are warming up and it has been happening for 50 years ? Sorry that is just plain BS.

"Scientists" are claiming that we have been losing the Polar Ice Caps for the last 100 years, Yet a couple of years ago a scientific expedition doing research by drilling into an Iceberg drilled down to what should have been 10,000 year old ice. They hit solid matter and it was a World WAr II airplane (A B17 I think) So OBVIOUSLY more Ice has covered that thing!

Now instead of you wanting to play "Devil's advocate" and expecting me to go off the deep end, maybe you could understand what I am saying.

In other words, I don't really believe that an "online" argument will solve anything. I am not an expert on the atmosphere but common sense tells be when I'm being lied to.   And that Inconvenient Truth is one of the biggest crocks of garbage that has ever been perpetrated on the public.

WAY TOO MANY people have their grubby little hands in the cookie jar. Too many people are strring the pot to their own end. There are as many if not more people that say the whole thing is a natural cycle of this planet.

[pettyfan43]

Too many people argue the point that if we give an inch they'll take a mile.  That's called a slippery slope, a logical fallacy.  There's no logical reason for the banning of *existing* performance cars, and there's no political gain either.  It's simply not a political stance which people would care about enough to 'bandwagon' behind, so that simply makes no sense.

Also, I'm getting tired of people WHINING INCESSANTLY about the media.  "O noes!  Teh media is lying to me and everyone all the time and nothing they say is tr00!"  That whole mentality is starting to annoy the HELL out of me.  The media sensationalizes things.  Duh.  So, do some fact checking before you trust a story.  If the subject matter is important to you, you should be doing that anyway!  But dismissing an idea, statement, or position just BECAUSE it is inline with anything the media reports is idiotic, and lately, pretty common.

If you don't believe in global warning, go to the research department of a well-respected college and ask some of the researchers.  They'll tell you: it is fact.  The only question is whether the increased warming is a result of a very long-term natural change or human interference.  They'll also tell you that there are pretty strong correlations between human factors and warming trends.  They will readily admit that this is not absolute evidence (correlation is not causality), but they will follow up by saying that it is certainly enough evidence to be cautious (i.e., reduce emissions) until the causality can be more definitively determined.

I'm sure you can google plenty of web sites offering "evidence" against this - there are plenty of groups publishing "findings" that differ, but if you look at the groups, dig through the credentials of the "researchers", look at the sources of their funding, their credibility suffers.

Find a source that doesn't have anything to gain, however, and they'll all say the same thing: this really does appear to be a problem.


Not to mention, alternative energy source research allows us the opportunity to reduce our energy dependency.  Right now we're extremely dependent upon sources of energy that are seriously influenced by people we're not exactly on good terms with.  If new vehicles were being produced to use energy sources we could retrieve or produce domestically, our economic strength would be greatly improved.

Finally, have you guys seen some of the tech coming out *already* in the realm of alternatively driven vehicles?  Toyota has produced two different 400-Hp+ electric concept cars.  As far as new cars are concerned, muscle doesn't necessarily have to mean gasoline-driven.

Exactly, There is a good bit of evidence that shows it seems to be part of a warming/cooling cycle the planet goes through.  The past several years there have been some fluctuations in the Sun's temp by a little bit and it DIRECTLY affects this planet as well.

[defiance]

The fact that the people who are trying to push the global warming thing down our throats are liberals is no secret. The fact that we are only being told half truths, as much as AlGore wants you NOT to know that, is easy enough to establish.

You say that without any sources to back you. I've seen plenty of independent research (mostly done by university research teams) that backs global warming.  I'm sure you're going to come back by saying that if it's associated with a college it MUST be liberal (I've heard that quite a number of times), and as far as I can tell, it's nothing more than character attack, not reasoned discussion.  In fact, a HUGE percentage of the "global warning doesn't exist" stuff I've seen has been rife with character attacks against "liberals". 

As far as you being in favor of some kind of limits on vehicle ownership, that is actually guaranteed in the constitution.

I'm sure there are people (like myself) that favor changing the EXISTING limits on vehicle PRODUCTION, not ownership.  The limits are already there, they could simply be modified to encourage production of alternative source vehicles.  If that's unconstitutional, then so are all the environmental protections in place on your car right now.

[pettyfan43]

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

http://www.sitewave.net/news/

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060523-105312-2838r.htm

These are simply minor examples.

If you look at what the far left believes about global warmiing and the stance they take on the basic rights of people in this country, the whole alarmist global warming theory plays right into their hands. Get people to believe that Big oil, Big Pharma and Big retail corporations are absolutely evil and the government should control everything.

Again follow the money trail. The liberals are simply after a socialist society. If you pay attention to what they say, this is what they are after!

And secondly I said NOTHING about vehicle PRODUCTION, Brock made a comment about "licensing Regs & Number of vehicles allowed" That sounds like how many vehicles a person can OWN not how many are produced a certain way.

DON'T try to manipulate what I say.

As far as the Global Warming "Proof" being established by Universities, there are just as many universities that say this very well could be a natural occurance to this planet.

You want a shocker? I am an instructor at a college in the city I live in. I HAVE done research, I HAVE seen the findings by a large number of universities and INDEPENDENT research firms. The whole thing is very inconclusive. There isn't even a consensus about whether the temperature changes are a natural or man made phenomenon. The Natural Changes DO HAPPEN it is fact and it has happened to this planet before, both hotter and colder years and even decades HAVE been recorded.

All I am saying is that what is going on in the climate of this planet very well may be a NATURAL THING! It HAS happened before and every other planet in this solar system goes through the same fluctuations.

There are too many inconsistencies in the arguments from BOTH sides to come to ANY conclusion about this at this time.

Should we be careful? ABSOLUTELY, this is the only planet we have.
Scientists and alarmists both HAVE A HISTORY of making mountains out of molehills!

What I am a little tired of and done with is people talking down to me because they believe (whether true or not) that they have a higher intellect than I do, simply because I believe differently than they do.

Your Theory is NOT the only possibility, I learned that a LONG time ago.  But when you examine the whole thing from an outside perspective, the theory that the liberals are playing this up to put fear in the public makes a lot of sense.

I would not have even responded to your post except for the fact that you basically called me a liar. I try to look at issues from BOTH SIDES before I make up my mind about things, MAYBE YOU should try doing that sometimes.

[defiance]

You want a shocker? I am an instructor at a college in the city I live in. I HAVE done research...

Umm.. according to another posting, you are an AutoCAD instructor at a "Career College", and you claim to have done environmental research??  If by research you mean looking through articles, you know that's quite different that speaking to ACTUAL researchers in RELEVANT fields.  Here are a few snippets, just for starters:



Naomi Oreskes, associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego (source:The Washington Post)

"Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.
The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment—a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States—now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models.

Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School:

"The most coherent explanation is that climate is changing because of burning of fossil fuels and felling forests. The health, environmental, and economic costs of inaction are rapidly becoming unmanageable. Stabilizing the climate will require a clean energy transition that will also benefit public health, improve energy security, and can become the engine of economic growth for this 21st century"





The bottom line is, there ARE detractors with good credentials, no doubt.  However, the heaviest detraction I've ever seen from someone with any actual credentials is that correlation is not causality, so we don't know for certain that our behavior is what is driving the change.  Given that it has been shown that greenhouse gases could lead to warming (not disputed), and that humans have caused an increase in greenhouse gases (not disputed), and that the earth is warming (not disputed), the only question is - is the increase in greenhouse gases we have caused enough to be considered the cause for the increased temperature? 

Admittedly, we don't know that answer for certain.  But, given the other factors, unless you're too stuck on the political aspects of such a conclusion, it's not difficult to realize that the above - especially when combined with the economic benefits we could reap from finding domestic alternative power sources - is PLENTY of justification for a change, if for no reason other than 'playing it safe'.




By the way, funding sources for the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School:
3M (nothing to gain from falsifying global warming alarmism)
BP (um.. they're an OIL company)
Johnson & Johnson (nothing to gain)
JPMorgan Chase (a bank)
Swiss Re (insurance/finance?)

The Science Studies program at University of California, San Diego  seems to be a normal part of the college, funded by the state and any other contributors to the school at large (as far as I can tell).

[defiance]

One more, this one I found on none other than FOX news!

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb01/0,4670,FranceClimateChange,00.html

I bet the 'real' scientists were barred from attending, though... right?

[pettyfan43]

1. I can see why I confused you the way I posted that, Sorry.  I am an AutoCAD instructor at a local college in Huntsville Alabama, I HAVE researched what different scientists and groups have said about their findings. ( I THOUGHT I ALREADY SAID THIS ONCE)

I have read all I can find about the subject when it has come up, sorry I haven't actually spoken to these people that you apparently have. But Afterall I can read believe it or not and I can read what they are saying. I don't see how it is more important to "speak to ACTUAL researchers in RELEVANT fields". I can read their findings!

The reason I have READ about the different groups FINDINGS is that when I was in a Political Science class, we had a class called CURRENT EVENTS. I was part of a group that had to research findings on topics, ONE OF THESE was Global WArming.

The two scientists you quoted are simply two scientsists that support what you say. I have seen many reports by scientists that support what I say. What I don't do is allow others to form my opinions. I do that for myself.

What I haven't done in this is to open my responses to your posts by taking shots at you (which you have done each time I hav posted in response to you, each time trying to damage my credibility, I won't go into reasons for that)

The bottom line is that I DO agree more research has got to be done so that possibly the reasons for the phenomenon may be found.

I am also intelligent enough to see that there are many groups who have another agenda and a BIG part of it hinges in the belief that humans ARE the cause of Global Warming, and I have not seen enough to make me believe we are as big a cause as a lot of people want you to think.

As I said, I look at issues from both sides as welll as I can. What I can't figure out is WHY there are so many people that get all bent out of shape when you don't happen to agree with their philosophy.

You claim that I am looking at this with a political slant, but the bottom line is that I HAVE seen and read enough for me to QUESTION how accurate some of these findings are.

You are reading what I am saying and automatically dismissing it because I don't happen to totally agree with you and then taking shots at me in an attempt to damage my credibility.

It is that hard for you to understand that not everyone buys into this 100%?

Is it that hard for you to deal with that some of us wat to do our own research and find out the whole truth?

Does it bother you that much that according to history the planet has gone through temmperature changes before?

Sorry but this si simply going in circles, we don't agree about this and probably never will. I know you believe in your heart I am just wrong, I can live with that. But I am sick of going around in the same old circle and arguing about this, I knew better than to respond to this to begin with.

[defiance]

Two scientists?  How about over 90% consensus from scientific delegations from 113 countries (including the US)?

The references you've listed, meanwhile, appear to be private firms specifically targeted at debunking Global warming.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

$10,000 annual budget, not enough to do any research.  Not one single researcher credited.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Founded and operated by a scientist (biologist) known for being on the "fringe" of accepted work anyway.

Check these sources out before accepting what they say as fact.  It's shocking how many "institutes" are privately funded and operated by either fringe or corporate interests.

[jamie1974]

   Unfortunately, ultimately, it probably doesn't even matter what WE think about it, anyway. We represent such an impossibly small sliver of society, that when the tidal wave of legislation comes down on us, there's just not enough strength in our numbers. How many people still care about musclecars anymore? Like .5 percent of the population? Vehicle emissions will be one of the first hit. Just watch.

   And as far as media bias goes, well, maybe Defiance lives in a more neutral sector of the country. I come from Minnesota, the DFL capital of the world, and I there is a dramatic difference between what is printed in our local papers, and what is printed in newspapers that I pick up that were printed in other parts of the country. You wouldn't believe the bias in this state. So perhaps that would explain why I am more sensitive to bias and tend to be more cynical towards the system.



   

   

   

 

[red72chrgr]

It is quite simple people, it ALL has to do with money.

[skip68]

All I know is if they ban our cars I will try to do my part.    I want the most powerful electric car there is so I can fill the air with smoke from the tires.    I'm almost sorry guy's.                   Chuck...............

[69bronzeT5]

OK..NOW THE POSTS ARE GETTING TOO LONG.