Figuring Out How Much a Hybrid, Diesel, or Small Car Will Save Per Year

Doctor Geller wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:32:09 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dgk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:12:39 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>EdV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article . com>,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>EdV > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You cant put a price tag on saving the environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, you can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Imagine that to preserve an appropriate and viable balance of people and
>>>>>>>>food supply, that we have to eliminate the population of, say, Africa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We'd be saving the environment, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>>>>>>being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>>>>>>that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, then, you CAN put a price tag on saving the environment, then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are right, there's a way to compute Carbon emission per kilometer
>>>>>or something, Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a hybrid owner. To
>>>>>be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less
>>>>>expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and
>>>>>buy a hybrid. I kept my money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><rant on>
>>>>
>>>>Why izzit that every new catchword becomes yet another fad.
>>>>
>>>>Got a carbon problem?
>>>>
>>>>Plant more trees!
>>>>
>>>>Why izzit that modern day PC folk insist on re-inventing wheel?
>>>>
>>>><rant over>
>>>>
>>>>JT
>>>
>>>
>>>Planting more trees is a good idea and we're doing it in my
>>>neighborhood. But there is a limit to how many trees we can fit
>>>
>>> It looks like human activity is causing some global problems. That
>>>isn't really very surprising to me. We've dumped lots of stuff that
>>>never existed in nature back into nature. We've cut down most of the
>>>rain forests. We've pumped all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.
>>>We've caused the extinction of countless species (yes, we could
>>>probably count them but I'm using the term to mean "a great many").
>>>
>>>And when it's pointed out that perhaps we'd better do something to
>>>protect the only planet we have and pass it on to future generations,
>>>we get all kinds of gruff. Well, fine, maybe we're wrong and there is
>>>no problem. Let's just continue what we're doing until it's too late.
>>>Maybe science will come up with a fix. Or maybe we'll all get wiped
>>>out or face a much more hostile environment.
>>>
>>>Really, why should it bother me anyway? I'll be dead. I guess I'll buy
>>>that hummer after all.
>>>
>>
>>
>>When it can be explained to me why adjacent planets are also warming up,
>>then I may admit that human contributions, (which by the way amount to
>>less than .5% of the increase in recent years), might be a factor.
>>
>>The loss of carbon conversion can largely be attributed to the
>>destruction of the tropical and other rainforests and in that way, yes,
>>we are a factor and one that could easily be reversed.
>>
>>But that does not 'plain the planetary warm up...
>>
>>JT
>
>
> ...and smoking builds healthy lungs and dumping poisons in the river
> makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health
> fiends....


Thank you for a most intelligent post.

Moron!

JT

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:

> In message , Gordon McGrew
> sprach forth the following:
>
>
>>We don't have much historic data on average temperatures on Mars and
>>Venus. They are very different from Earth
>
>
> You mean the sun isn't their primary source of heat?
>
>
>>We
>>really don't know what kind of cycles are in play there.
>
>
> Actually we do:
>
> http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html


Good read.

Thanks,

JT

One advantage of driving a diesel is that you get great gas mileage
*and* **** off liberals.



Geoff

--
"When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed,
Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, 'Why,
God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's
just something about you that ****es me off.'" -- Stephen King

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:17:00 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> wrote:

>
>
>Doctor Geller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:32:09 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>dgk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:12:39 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>EdV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . com>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>EdV > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You cant put a price tag on saving the environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, you can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Imagine that to preserve an appropriate and viable balance of people and
>>>>>>>>>food supply, that we have to eliminate the population of, say, Africa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We'd be saving the environment, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>>>>>>>being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>>>>>>>that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, then, you CAN put a price tag on saving the environment, then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are right, there's a way to compute Carbon emission per kilometer
>>>>>>or something, Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a hybrid owner. To
>>>>>>be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less
>>>>>>expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and
>>>>>>buy a hybrid. I kept my money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><rant on>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why izzit that every new catchword becomes yet another fad.
>>>>>
>>>>>Got a carbon problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>Plant more trees!
>>>>>
>>>>>Why izzit that modern day PC folk insist on re-inventing wheel?
>>>>>
>>>>><rant over>
>>>>>
>>>>>JT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Planting more trees is a good idea and we're doing it in my
>>>>neighborhood. But there is a limit to how many trees we can fit
>>>>
>>>> It looks like human activity is causing some global problems. That
>>>>isn't really very surprising to me. We've dumped lots of stuff that
>>>>never existed in nature back into nature. We've cut down most of the
>>>>rain forests. We've pumped all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.
>>>>We've caused the extinction of countless species (yes, we could
>>>>probably count them but I'm using the term to mean "a great many").
>>>>
>>>>And when it's pointed out that perhaps we'd better do something to
>>>>protect the only planet we have and pass it on to future generations,
>>>>we get all kinds of gruff. Well, fine, maybe we're wrong and there is
>>>>no problem. Let's just continue what we're doing until it's too late.
>>>>Maybe science will come up with a fix. Or maybe we'll all get wiped
>>>>out or face a much more hostile environment.
>>>>
>>>>Really, why should it bother me anyway? I'll be dead. I guess I'll buy
>>>>that hummer after all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When it can be explained to me why adjacent planets are also warming up,
>>>then I may admit that human contributions, (which by the way amount to
>>>less than .5% of the increase in recent years), might be a factor.
>>>
>>>The loss of carbon conversion can largely be attributed to the
>>>destruction of the tropical and other rainforests and in that way, yes,
>>>we are a factor and one that could easily be reversed.
>>>
>>>But that does not 'plain the planetary warm up...
>>>
>>>JT
>>
>>
>> ...and smoking builds healthy lungs and dumping poisons in the river
>> makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health
>> fiends....
>
>
>Thank you for a most intelligent post.
>
>Moron!
>
>JT

You signed your post twice: once as Moron and then as JT.

A moron is someone like you who just vomited that human contributions
might be a factor. The fact that I mocked your pathetic denial based
diseased mental processes so well really stung you into self-defense
mode.

Oh.

You're Welcome.

The Doctor

On 25 Oct 2007 06:03:52 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
> wrote:

>In message ps.com, EdV
>sprach forth the following:
>
>> I'm not a hybrid owner. To
>> be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less
>> expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and
>> buy a hybrid. I kept my money.
>
>Typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do lieberal.

Is that similar to a RIPiglican urging others to go die in a war while
they stay at home? Is it like that? Say, do you know Jeff Gannon?
He was that White House paid "reporter" who asked Bush soft ball
questions by day, and ****ed him in the ass at night by staying at the
White House. At least Clinton liked girls. This explains why Bush is
so "unusual"... he is a hostile homosexual....like all Republicans
getting busted in gay sex stings today. Family values and Jesus.
Sure don't hear Republicans singing that song. Bush can't even scare
anyone anymore even with talk of World War 3. Stupid liar RIPigs.

Thanks for playing, Republican whore boi

Michelle Steiner > writes:

Hey, Mike! How's it hangin'?

Oops...


> If you hate America, vote Republican.

I vote Republican because like Republicans and unlike many
if not most Democrats, I love America.

I used to be a Democrat. Then I grew up. "Twenty/no heart,
forty/no brain," and all that.


> Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

Nice doublethink. You don't "support the troops" unless you
support what the troops are doing.



Geoff

--
"When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed,
Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, 'Why,
God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's
just something about you that ****es me off.'" -- Stephen King

Michelle Steiner > wrote in news:michelle-
:

> In article >,
> "dbu." > wrote:
>
>> If we got out now it would be another Cambodia.
>
> When did we get out of Cambodia? Oh, we were never in Cambodia, so
> there was nothing to get out of.



Um...your Google skills leave a bit to be desired.

US military involvement in Cambodia in 1970 is a matter of
(very accessible) historical record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Michelle Steiner > wrote in news:michelle-
:

> In article >,
> "dbu." > wrote:
>
>
>> Why would you think the democrats would put us on the right track for
>> pete's sake?
>
> Because they won't continue the train wreck course we're on now.
> They'll get rid of the disastrous Every Child Left Behind program;
> they'll get us on the track to decent medical care, especially for
> children; they'll reverse the anti-choice policies that the GOP is
> imposing on the country; they'll get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell;
> they'll work to assure equal rights for all Americans; etc.
>



All the items you list as needing fixes require LESS government
meddling, not more. And not just "different" meddling either, but
actually LESS. None, ideally.

Government should be outright prohibited from meddling in almost any
area of human life. Hey, I sound just like Thomas Jefferson, an American
hero of long standing.

The Democrats want far, far more meddling than the US has ever seen
since, oh, since the first election won by Bush II, or maybe since LBJ,
or maybe since FDR, or maybe since Wilson. All of whom were disastrous
executives, highly destructive of the American dream.

Indeed the current crop of Dems seem to be drooling, gasping,
masturbating, absolutely slavering over the prospect of wielding ever
more POWER. Just look at Pelosi's current insane attack against an
empire that died 85 years ago.

Any "train wrecks" suffered by the US have been directly caused by the
fact that government legislators, regulators and bureaucrats can do
whatever they or their lobbyist puppetmasters want, without any sort of
repercussions at all.

Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a
Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", even as
he lays claim to that label.

Ron Paul wants government control of *this* type, but not *that* type.
He seems to think this makes him obviously different from your general
type of statist who wants government control of *that* type but not
*this* type. Ron, get a clue.

Would I vote Democrat? No. They are statist socialists in all but name,
and are as dangerous as are all true-believer statists who want, very
very desperately, to force their views on other people, under penalty of
law.

Government is the problem, not the solution. So said Jefferson 200 years
ago, and so it is still true.

--
Tegger

alt.autos.toyota.prius
alt.autos.toyota
alt.autos.honda
rec.autos.makers.honda
alt.energy.automobile

Looks like there are four good candidates.

Bob Wilson

Doctor Geller wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:17:00 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> > wrote:



>
snip


>>
>>
>>Thank you for a most intelligent post.
>>
>>Moron!
>>
>>JT
>
>
> You signed your post twice: once as Moron and then as JT.
>
> A moron is someone like you who just vomited that human contributions
> might be a factor. The fact that I mocked your pathetic denial based
> diseased mental processes so well really stung you into self-defense
> mode.
>
> Oh.
>
> You're Welcome.
>
> The Doctor


Spin it anyway you want.

Your sheeple attitude (and knowledge) reveal you for what you are... Not
credible.

JT