Kia_racer wrote: "NASCAR cars average about five miles per gallon. Even an armored Humvee gets eight on the highways. (To really waste fuel, why don't we race airplanes?)" quoted from the article. Does this guy really think before he types? Maybe he doesn't know about airplane racing and the Gee Bee's
Red Bull's air races are cool!
jlm_photo wrote: Sorry to have offended you but I can't think of a person who is having or going to have a bigger impact on the way we operate our automobiles than Al Gore.
Ralph Nader.
Without racing we'd still be driving this and loving it.
Appleseed wrote: Ralph Nader.
I guess I meant future impact. This new generation of hybrids and full electrics is being brought on by the "Green" movement. No doubt Nader has had a huge impact up till now. But yes, what the author neglected to mention is the huge benefit both in safety and technology (both power and mileage) brought to consumer autos through racing.
I got up to the point where he confused greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion, then I couldn't be bothered to read anymore. What a moron.
How do these people always manage to find places to blow their horn?
Is that a NOS tank on the side of that car ???
I hate idiots who pander their ill-informed, truth-concealing bullE36 M3 to the masses...who then accept it as truth, because they can't be arsed to read another view point.
Everything we do harms the earth. So I guess we should just die. 
Straying off topic slightly now, but it bugs me when people harp on about how the Earth would be "better off without us." The Earth would be totally lame without us.
Carlin
"Maybe the earth wanted plastic. Maybe humans were created so the earth could get it's plastic and when we're gon it will just be the earth plus plastic."
/Carlin
Ironically enough Mr. Save Teh Earf from Racing here is causing more people to turn to climate change denial by being such an asshat (much like Al Gore).
Luke wrote: Straying off topic slightly now, but it bugs me when people harp on about how the Earth would be "better off without us." The Earth would be totally lame without us.
I agree. I want to keep the Earth around because:
A - I have a daughter and she deserves to have a nice place to live.
B - I like to go camping in the woods with the lions, tigers and bears.
C - This is where I keep my stuff and it would suck if I lost it.
ScottRA21 wrote: I hate idiots who pander their ill-informed, truth-concealing bullE36 M3 to the masses...who then accept it as truth, because they can't be arsed to read another view point.
Judging by the reaction here, the number of fans that NASCAR has, and the fact that ABC found enough of an audience for the Indy 500 to make it worth broadcasting, I would say the masses are not accepting this as truth.
If you look really deeply, you will find that eco freaks are generally the most misanthropic SOBs out there.
Jensenman wrote: If you look really deeply, you will find that eco freaks are generally the most misanthropic SOBs out there.
+1
Couple things:
The Washington Post published this guy because they knew his column would get everyone talking about (and perhaps buying a copy of) The Washington Post. They don't care what the guy writes except if he chooses his love for kiddie porn as the subject.
The author wrote this piece because The Washington Post would publish it. Then everyone would know his name, which he could parlay into a shot getting softballs tossed at him by Larry King.
We should all walk to work. Commuting sucks. Unfortunately, I live 16 miles from my current job so I'd spend all day walking to work and have no time to do any actual work. I assume many of you are in the same boat. I also assume if you work at a smelting plant, you don't want to live within walking distance.
Global warming exists. There is no "controversy" amongst scientists except guys with an agenda like the "scientist" who "validates" creation theory by taking well-paying religious folks through the Grand Canyon and pointing out the 6,000-year-old shrimp fossils in the sediment while ignoring the bazillion other species refuting his hypothesis. It's hard to account for 25,000 years worth of climate change in the last 100 without talking about releasing 25,000 years worth of carbon into the atmosphere in the last 100 years.
I am an eco freak. I am not a misanthrope. I take the cars society disposes of, fix them up, and wring the last bit of use out of them before they finally go back to the....oh, wait a minute. Many of you do the same thing, you misanthropic eco freaks.
If all 6.3 billion inhabitants of this rock adopted the U.S. lifestyle tomorrow, this place would be a E36 M3hole by Sunday. Okay, that's an exaggeration. The Sunday after next.
Al Gore is not an asshat. He is a very intelligent man who actually did as much as anyone to "invent" the internet but has absolutely no feel for people whatsoever. You have to be brilliant to be a politician who rises to VP with absolutely no feel for people whatsoever. I met Tipper Gore around the time of the PRMC (PMRC?) controversy. She's a smug one. So they're both a little detached. Einstein wasn't a good relater either. Ask his wives.
Okay, so now we're back to this guy and what he knows. He's not too bright and doesn't write very well, either. But y'all are making a lot of noise about him and the paper he wrote in so his nefarious plan for self-promotion works. Keep discussing this baloney and he'll be on Larry King next week. The book tour will be the week after. If you really want this guy to go away, let my scribbling be the last post on this thread. He's like Glenn Beck with cars. Next he'll be comparing them to Nazi Germany.
Donning the Nomex.
^ +1
In reply to Jerry From LA:
Here, have some more cool aid. And pass the pitcher on to 81gtv6 too.
zomgrotflmfaothisguyisafreakingmoronwtfsftu
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Jerry From LA: Here, have some more cool aid. And pass the pitcher on to 81gtv6 too.
+1
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Jerry From LA: Here, have some more cool aid. And pass the pitcher on to 81gtv6 too.
At least I can spell Kool-Aid. 
It looks like the WP has decided to try Internet trolling.
I dont mean to flounder, but basically 1 bazillion years ago, the earth was already warm as sh_t, and the seas were far less frozen...then the meteor happened, and things got cold for a while. Eventually we will go back to the tropics and theres not too much we can do about it, carbon or no carbon.
4cylndrfury wrote: I dont mean to flounder, but basically 1 bazillion years ago, the earth was already warm as sh_t, and the seas were far less frozen...then the meteor happened, and things got cold for a while. Eventually we will go back to the tropics and theres not too much we can do about it, carbon or no carbon.
Yeah, but why rush?
fair enough
In reply to 4cylndrfury:
Exactly. Global climate change is real. Ice age? However, there are absolutely no undisputable facts to show that man is a significant source of it. Yes, let's move forward on the environmental front. No, let's not over-react to the point that it costs so much money that we go bankrupt.
Funny thing. I work in the air conditioning industry. Back in the early 90's they just had to replace R-12 with R-134A. It cost a LOT of money to do it. Now we think R-134A might be worse for the environment than R-12. About 8 years ago, carbon dioxide was the leading candidate for replacing R-134A. Now they want us to believe that this element that we exhale and plants need to survive is killing the earth. Arrogance leads to the assumption that you are right instead of proving conclusively that you are right, and that leads to rushing to make changes pre-maturely, and that does nothing but waste a ton of money. Yes, why rush?
You'll need to log in to post.
