| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Larry" wrote in message ... http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html Yeah, these guys living off Global Warming funding say it's rising .06C/yr! By the year 5485, it may be warm enough, if this rapid trend continues, TO SWIM IN! Global Warming - Your CO2 tax dollars at work..... -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? I really think the resistance to anything that could be considered as environmentally responsible stems from the same "me generation" thinking as people who want to do something about the homeless but just can't skip thier next latte and give the $4 to the man/woman on the corner instead. It's like the friggin stupidity (not caring if this insults -it is incredibly stupid) of the "conservative" legislators squealing about Obama setting new mileage standards. "It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to protect my family" by driving a friggin SUV that's as big a tractor trailer. These sure look like the same assholes that were preaching energy independence not too long ago. Yeah. We Americans can get behind anything as long as we aren't expected to sacrifice anything AT ALL for it. Well, maybe we can buy the $1.95 yellow ribbon to show our support for the troops but it's only because we don't want to be seen as unsupportive! We couldn't support a WWII nowadays like our parents did - we're too friggin spoiled. We're 5 year old children being told to share our cookies with a sibling. memememe, I got mine but I want more, more, more! has screwed america. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com... "Larry" wrote in message ... http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html Yeah, these guys living off Global Warming funding say it's rising .06C/yr! By the year 5485, it may be warm enough, if this rapid trend continues, TO SWIM IN! Global Warming - Your CO2 tax dollars at work..... -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? I really think the resistance to anything that could be considered as environmentally responsible stems from the same "me generation" thinking as people who want to do something about the homeless but just can't skip thier next latte and give the $4 to the man/woman on the corner instead. It's like the friggin stupidity (not caring if this insults -it is incredibly stupid) of the "conservative" legislators squealing about Obama setting new mileage standards. "It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to protect my family" by driving a friggin SUV that's as big a tractor trailer. These sure look like the same assholes that were preaching energy independence not too long ago. Yeah. We Americans can get behind anything as long as we aren't expected to sacrifice anything AT ALL for it. Well, maybe we can buy the $1.95 yellow ribbon to show our support for the troops but it's only because we don't want to be seen as unsupportive! We couldn't support a WWII nowadays like our parents did - we're too friggin spoiled. We're 5 year old children being told to share our cookies with a sibling. memememe, I got mine but I want more, more, more! has screwed america. I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:11:32 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "mmc" wrote in message ng.com... "Larry" wrote in message ... http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html Yeah, these guys living off Global Warming funding say it's rising .06C/yr! By the year 5485, it may be warm enough, if this rapid trend continues, TO SWIM IN! Global Warming - Your CO2 tax dollars at work..... -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? I really think the resistance to anything that could be considered as environmentally responsible stems from the same "me generation" thinking as people who want to do something about the homeless but just can't skip thier next latte and give the $4 to the man/woman on the corner instead. It's like the friggin stupidity (not caring if this insults -it is incredibly stupid) of the "conservative" legislators squealing about Obama setting new mileage standards. "It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to protect my family" by driving a friggin SUV that's as big a tractor trailer. These sure look like the same assholes that were preaching energy independence not too long ago. Yeah. We Americans can get behind anything as long as we aren't expected to sacrifice anything AT ALL for it. Well, maybe we can buy the $1.95 yellow ribbon to show our support for the troops but it's only because we don't want to be seen as unsupportive! We couldn't support a WWII nowadays like our parents did - we're too friggin spoiled. We're 5 year old children being told to share our cookies with a sibling. memememe, I got mine but I want more, more, more! has screwed america. I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the first to the next stop light. I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message news  I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which *doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel. But I do agree about the "lip service" bit. -- KLC Lewis Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations! www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:18:40 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message news I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which *doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel. But I do agree about the "lip service" bit. The point is that you don't know what horsepower your auto is capable of producing. While "Horse Power" is usually thought of as a simple formula based on torque and RPM when it comes time to measure an automobile engine there are variables - should the generator be included? What about the water pump? First of all there are several standards for horse power Mechanical Horse Power = 745.6999 Watts Metric = 735.49875 Electrical = 746.00 hydraulic = 745.6999 even Boiler = 9809.5 Watts Secondly there are many, many methods of arriving at a horse power figure, certainly more then I care to list here (see the Wikipedia explanation for details). Certainly there are many methods of indirectly controlling emissions and a tax on engine size is only one of them. However, it is an easy system to implement and readily understandable by most, and I suggest, as equitable as possible, considering the entire vehicle using public. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100 c.c.. Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10 dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. = 3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about displacement. People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100 HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter engine these days. This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any). Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically. I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible to argue about displacement. The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever reason you have, then this is a method of doing it. The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S. (the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) It should be based on Vehicle weight. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
|
|
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
Bruce in Bangkok wrote in
: This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for many years. The politicians, who work for the big oil companies, will do everything in their power to keep microcars like the Tata Nano....OUT OF AMERICA. Smart cars came in the back door as a specialty car and have been effectively defeated by making them so expensive, $18000 is normal, that people are refusing to buy them, now in the depression. The dealer that told me I'd have to be on a waiting list, now calls me weekly to see if they have the car, IN STOCK, I want. I want a Smart DIESEL fortwo and they are NOT imported into America because 1) too high mileage and too low maintenance 2) lower priced as plain car. America has only the upper models. India, Japan, Korea, China all have very fuel efficient micro vehicles Americans cannot own. Government by, of and for the BIG CORPORATIONS..... I'd love to open up a Tata Nano dealership right in the middle of "Car Row" on Savannah Hwy, here in Charleston, selling Nanos for $2000. Tata couldn't supply the demand for a CHEAP CAR.... Of course, GM has some idle factories to build more.... -- ----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lake Superior dropping and warming, fishing and boating effected | General | |||
| Lake Superior Powerboat Chartering | Cruising | |||
| Puts Lake Superior to shame | ASA | |||
| Lake Superior - Michipicoten Bay - needs your assistance | Touring | |||
| Lake Superior - Michipicoten Bay - needs your assistance | Whitewater | |||
Hybrid Mode
