GM RWD on hold?!

[Oracle of Delphi]

1973 is one of my 1st memories of the USA, we came here to visit my Grandmother for a month. I remember sitting in the car with my Dad in gas lines. He tells me they had odd and even days for gas, even numbered plates one day, odd numbered plates the next, and long long gas lines.

[ocnblu]

I am against any legislated rise in fuel economy standards and lowering of CO2 emissions. I am against a gasoline tax increase. Increasing the tax on gasoline is no less sinister than these other wacky ideas.

The people in Washington are shortsighted hypocrites... blatant hypocrites. It's all so knee-jerk... with no consideration for the repercussions. Americans do not want tiny, underpowered vehicles. This is a big country... this is not Japan. We have open spaces here. We need vehicles that can do the job.

GM needs these RWD vehicles to rekindle interest and regain loyalty lost.

It wasn't too many years ago I considered myself a Republican. I believe in non-intrusive government and fiscal responsibility... this president has turned those republican ideals completely around... and the Democrats are worse. They have NO ideas v. Bush's bad ones.

HEY DC MORONS - LET THE MARKET DECIDE! STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Edited April 10, 2007 by ocnblu

[Camino LS6]

1973: The beginning of the bad old days, I remember it all too well.

Six years before I could drive, and cars go all to hell.

[ellives]

I am against any legislated rise in fuel economy standards and lowering of CO2 emissions. I am against a gasoline tax increase. Increasing the tax on gasoline is no less sinister than these other wacky ideas.

The people in Washington are shortsighted hypocrites... blatant hypocrites. It's all so knee-jerk... with no consideration for the repercussions. Americans do not want tiny, underpowered vehicles. This is a big country... this is not Japan. We have open spaces here. We need vehicles that can do the job.

GM needs these RWD vehicles to rekindle interest and regain loyalty lost.

It wasn't too many years ago I considered myself a Republican. I believe in non-intrusive government and fisacal responsibility... this president has turned those republican ideals completely around... and the Democrats are worse. They have NO ideas v. Bush's bad ones.

HEY DC MORONS - LET THE MARKET DECIDE! STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!

I'm in total agreement with this post. Before Bush came along I was a diehard Republican. He has ruined the party for the next generation and if we're not careful, we'll have a Dem in the whitehouse along with control of congress.... all in kneejerk reaction to Bush and his lies.

[gm4life]

It should not be the goverments job to regulate stuff like this let them worry about the boarders.

[JM9777]

Yes, for all those here who are bashing President Bush for this, just think what joys will come when Democrats control the White House AND Congress.

Believe me, I definitely don't agree with Bush's proposal. This is the problem with government intervention in this (or any other issue): they think that if they mandate something be done, that it will be able to happen without any further consequences. "If only we mandate higher fuel economy, the manufacturers will provide it." They don't stop to think of the consequences of their actions. The technology to meet these fuel economy mandates may exist, but at prohibitive costs that must be borne by somebody: either the company who sells the car or the person who buys the car (since the majority of government mandates are partially funded or unfunded).

This isn't something that can be met just by offering a direct-injection engine or a hybrid model. This is a 4% increase every year. This means that, with a typical five-year model cycle, the replacement for any car currently on sale must get about 22% better fuel economy than the model for sale today. When you consider that a hybrid powertrain increases fuel efficiency by about 25%, you realize that there is a big problem in meeting this mandate.

Needless to say, the government would be much better served by dumping the CAFE standards and providing funding to private companies (car manufacturers, suppliers, etc.) for lightweight materials research, alternative fuels research, hydrogen research, etc. When the technologies exist and are cost-effective, customers will demand that their cars have them, and manufacturers will include them. We can already see this: people are more willing to pay for fuel economy today than five years ago, and every manufacturer is now focusing on ways to improve fuel economy. What do you know...the free market works.

I could write a novel about this topic, but I'll spare everyone here. A delay to Zeta is just the tip of the iceberg if this fuel economy proposal (or any other) passes.

[Camino LS6]

Yes, for all those here who are bashing President Bush for this, just think what joys will come when Democrats control the White House AND Congress.

Believe me, I definitely don't agree with Bush's proposal. This is the problem with government intervention in this (or any other issue): they think that if they mandate something be done, that it will be able to happen without any further consequences. "If only we mandate higher fuel economy, the manufacturers will provide it." They don't stop to think of the consequences of their actions. The technology to meet these fuel economy mandates may exist, but at prohibitive costs that must be borne by somebody: either the company who sells the car or the person who buys the car (since the majority of government mandates are partially funded or unfunded).

This isn't something that can be met just by offering a direct-injection engine or a hybrid model. This is a 4% increase every year. This means that, with a typical five-year model cycle, the replacement for any car currently on sale must get about 22% better fuel economy than the model for sale today. When you consider that a hybrid powertrain increases fuel efficiency by about 25%, you realize that there is a big problem in meeting this mandate.

Needless to say, the government would be much better served by dumping the CAFE standards and providing funding to private companies (car manufacturers, suppliers, etc.) for lightweight materials research, alternative fuels research, hydrogen research, etc. When the technologies exist and are cost-effective, customers will demand that their cars have them, and manufacturers will include them. We can already see this: people are more willing to pay for fuel economy today than five years ago, and every manufacturer is now focusing on ways to improve fuel economy. What do you know...the free market works.

I could write a novel about this topic, but I'll spare everyone here. A delay to Zeta is just the tip of the iceberg if this fuel economy proposal (or any other) passes.

Here,Here!

Great post!

[Matt276]

So we might see a lwb epII Impala instead of zeta. I'm not totally against it. Cause I'm not sure there's enough demand for all those RWD cars. People who love RWD will have the G8 and Camaro.

GM has to put money on the development of the Volt, which would be a lot more successful than a RWD Impala and it would change its gas guzzler image.

[trinacriabob]

Cause I'm not sure there's enough demand for all those RWD cars.

With so much of the country that is subjected to the "elements" in the winter (snow, sleet, ice) etc., I was actually surprised that there would be such a wholesale push over to many RWD platforms ...and that people living in those areas would actually WANT IT.

As for myself, the few times that I've been subjected to driving in snow or ice (mostly in the Sierras), the Regal's FWD has gotten me through whereas I am not so sure my beloved RWD Cutlass Brougham coupe could have coped as well.

I am not so FWD/RWD divided. The thing I actually like about RWD is how "organized" the engine compartment looks! LOL.

[toyoguy]

excuses, excuses, excuses...I wonder what's the real reason for stopping the project? A lack of interest?

a 3.6L DI would provide ample power, and excellent fuel economy

what's the new STS 298hp, that's plenty

even 265hp is good

[Camino LS6]

excuses, excuses, excuses...I wonder what's the real reason for stopping the project? A lack of interest?

a 3.6L DI would provide ample power, and excellent fuel economy

what's the new STS 298hp, that's plenty

even 265hp is good

Not even close to good enough.

[gmcbob]

After reading this, and seeing pictures of the Buick Park Avenue, which will only be sold in China, I have to agree with my Dad's assessment that GM management simply doesn't care about their car business anymore in the States. It's almost like they've thrown in the proverbial towel here in North America. It's insane. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they don't decide to kill the G8, that would totally blow.

Now, I won't be too terribly depressed if they bring over that sweet looking Opel Coupe (GTC??), and perhaps the Opel Corsa too (as Saturns obviously) and keep the Caddy lineup all Sigma based, like it is now - and just add the Camaro and G8 from the Australian platform. But I was totally looking forward to seeing what the next Impala and Buick Lucerne would look like as rear drive cars. The upcoming Buick and Chevys would have so much more potential as rear drive models - styling wise and performance wise.

Maybe the line of thought is this: with Pontiac having the G8, and Pontiac and Buick sharing showrooms, they didn't want one to steal sales away from the other?? Dumb thinking if that's the case, especially if they sold the Park Avenue here for $45 or $50k.

Another thing that makes not having the rear drive lineup in the US so stupid is this: they could get top dollar for them if they were marketed correctly, pretty much covering whatever cost in penalties they'd have to pay for the gas mileage being off a little. And even if the CAFE rules became super stringent, don't they have a whole mess of small cars coming out to balance it all out??

I don't know, I'm pretty dumbfounded by the news - I was starting to get pretty psyched about GM again, and now I'm basically pretty disappointed.

[Camino LS6]

After reading this, and seeing pictures of the Buick Park Avenue, which will only be sold in China, I have to agree with my Dad's assessment that GM management simply doesn't care about their car business anymore in the States. It's almost like they've thrown in the proverbial towel here in North America. It's insane. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they don't decide to kill the G8, that would totally blow.

Now, I won't be too terribly depressed if they bring over that sweet looking Opel Coupe (GTC??), and perhaps the Opel Corsa too (as Saturns obviously) and keep the Caddy lineup all Sigma based, like it is now - and just add the Camaro and G8 from the Australian platform. But I was totally looking forward to seeing what the next Impala and Buick Lucerne would look like as rear drive cars. The upcoming Buick and Chevys would have so much more potential as rear drive models - styling wise and performance wise.

Maybe the line of thought is this: with Pontiac having the G8, and Pontiac and Buick sharing showrooms, they didn't want one to steal sales away from the other?? Dumb thinking if that's the case, especially if they sold the Park Avenue here for $45 or $50k.

Another thing that makes not having the rear drive lineup in the US so stupid is this: they could get top dollar for them if they were marketed correctly, pretty much covering whatever cost in penalties they'd have to pay for the gas mileage being off a little. And even if the CAFE rules became super stringent, don't they have a whole mess of small cars coming out to balance it all out??

I don't know, I'm pretty dumbfounded by the news - I was starting to get pretty psyched about GM again, and now I'm basically pretty disappointed.

Don't lose faith yet, it depends on what the bozos in Washington decide to do. Far from a done deal.

[thegriffon]

And even if the CAFE rules became super stringent, don't they have a whole mess of small cars coming out to balance it all out??

GM is seeing sales of the old, old Corolla crush even the Civic and realizing that only brainwashing (or de-programming) will cause people to buy any other small car, no matter how good. Small cars only balance rwd cars if the small cars are made in NA, or the rwd cars are imported, and enough people buy the small cars. GM sold nearly 7,000 Aveos last month (up nearly 50%), but over 28,000 Impalas and over 55,000 Silverados (a down month) and even over 8,000 Suburbans (up nearly 70%). Even with truck CAFE counted seperately, it doesn't nearly balance out. Edited April 11, 2007 by thegriffon

[BuddyP]

so how is a 3800 pound rear drive v6 G8 that much more of a gas hog than a 3750 pound front drive v6 grand prix?

Well, just as you highlighted, it's all in the propaganda and the publics mindset. Why do people buy a Toyota Camry when there's a whole lot of better/more reliable cars on the market?..... propaganda and consumer mindset.

[Camino LS6]

All of the automakers have been working their butts off for decades to build ever cleaner and more efficient cars and trucks. And, they know it is in their continued best interest to do so, its about time for the idiot politicians to attck OTHER sources of green house gasses and inefficient users of energy.

They would also be better off spending their time doing the following:

- Improving the flow of traffic on the nation's roads (idling wastes gobs of fuel)

-creating a REAL mass transit system

-Funding alternative fuel research and pilot projects.

-Pushing for (and funding) infrastructure to distribute alternative fuels.

- Offering incentives for the efficient use of energy in all homes, industries and businesses

- Offering incentives to all businesses, individuals, and industries to come-up with creative solutions to our energy issues.

I could go on forever with specific ideas yet these fools can only look at the familiar scapegoat, our own domestic auto industry when they craft these unrealistic piles of regulation.

Idiots!

[BuddyP]

... time to incorperate hybrid tech into these RWD platforms.

Oh, and get ready for car prices to increase by at least 25% in the next 2-3 years to accomodate our beaurocrats mindless decisions. Just another one of Bush's propaganda's, just like his bill to increase "alternative fuel reseach". Whatever happened to that!

Edited April 11, 2007 by BuddyP

[ellives]

With so much of the country that is subjected to the "elements" in the winter (snow, sleet, ice) etc., I was actually surprised that there would be such a wholesale push over to many RWD platforms ...and that people living in those areas would actually WANT IT.

As for myself, the few times that I've been subjected to driving in snow or ice (mostly in the Sierras), the Regal's FWD has gotten me through whereas I am not so sure my beloved RWD Cutlass Brougham coupe could have coped as well.

I am not so FWD/RWD divided. The thing I actually like about RWD is how "organized" the engine compartment looks! LOL.

There is a wholesale push to RWD because from a performance standpoint it's far, far superior to RWD. You can't think it terms of a Regal FWD with what 175 HP on the transaxle? Think in terms of a Northstar with 300 HP on the transaxle. When you bury the gas on that car it's tough to even steer straight with all the torque steer caused by the engine's output. When that engine was moved to RWD in 2005 it made a huge difference in the car. With so many engines coming in that 300+ range, torque steer will just ruin the driving experience.

Keep in mind the fond memory of a RWD Cutlass doesn't apply now either. Traction control changed the equation for deciding RWD vs. FWD. There's just no reason to buy RWD unless you're trying to buy bargain basement. I see this as an opportunity to one-up ToyMotore because most of their stuff is FWD.

[BuddyP]

All of the automakers have been working their butts off for decades to build ever cleaner and more efficient cars and trucks. And, they know it is in their continued best interest to do so, its about time for the idiot politicians to attck OTHER sources of green house gasses and inefficient users of energy.

They would also be better off spending their time doing the following:

- Improving the flow of traffic on the nation's roads (idling wastes gobs of fuel)

-creating a REAL mass transit system

-Funding alternative fuel research and pilot projects.

-Pushing for (and funding) infrastructure to distribute alternative fuels.

- Offering incentives for the efficient use of energy in all homes, industries and businesses

- Offering incentives to all businesses, individuals, and industries to come-up with creative solutions to our energy issues.

I could go on forever with specific ideas yet these fools can only look at the familiar scapegoat, our own domestic auto industry when they craft these unrealistic piles of regulation.

Idiots!

Thing is, is that they aren't doing this for the benefit of emissions or green house gases, they're doing this to cover thier asses early before people start getting upset this summe when prices grow toward $4 per gallon. This is just the butter to make Bush look not so bad.

[toyoguy]

GM is seeing sales of the old, old Corolla crush even the Civic and realizing that only brainwashing (or de-programming) will cause people to buy any other small car, no matter how good.

Ever occur to you the reason the Corolla outsells the Civic is due to supply issues.

Maybe like the far more profitable CRV is up 100%, and Honda cannot build enough Civics. Oh yeah Honda already stated they are unable to meet demand for the Civic.

[hyperv6]

Ok everyone take a deep breath and say it will all work out in the end.

Right now the hot button is Global Warming with many in the public and with lobbiest. Many have the public in a Chicken Little mode with the sky is falling when they can not prove 100% there is Global Warming. The earths weather is always in flux and can change at anytime. The plain fact what is normal weather as ther is nothing normal about it.

The bottom line is there is a lot of money behind Global Warming and both political parties are in a fight over who gets the money. These turkeys could care less if the ice caps melt ot not. It is only greed and who controls the money. As you can see Mr Gore does not practic as he preaches as do many of the Hollywood trash. [i will give Ed Begley a nood, even though I disagree with him he does practis what he preaches and I respect that].

You may not like Mr Bush but but he is as good a friend as Detroit is going to get so they need to start fighting for themselves and that is what Uncle Bob is doing. The best defense is a good offense. GM is making their play and letting DC know what is at stake.

This whole Global Warming deal I feel is other countries and the world money people working to bring the America down. They know we can not be defeated militarily but we can be taken out monitarily. Hell we already saw the once mighty USSR go bankrupt so there is no reason it can't happen here too.

The greed in this country is at it's highest and the same thing took out Rome many years ago. People need to wake up as we have some hard times ahead.

As for the cars we have had the end of the world how many times? The auto industry always finds a way to fight back and they will again.

We now have V6 engines that will out perform most V8's of the last 30 years and they will get 30 plus MPG highway. We have 4 cylinders that have almost twice the power of the 70's Vette's. We are in a much better place to still have great cars and not have to worry about being left with nothing. Ypu don't need 500 HP to have a great fun car.

I think you will see GM is making a statment and also waiting to see where they need to go with the Zeta's and make them competitive and still meet what the Goverment forces. No sense getting them finished and have to redo a lot of the work a second time.

I think this is no different than when the Camaro was on hold and once the problems were worked out they went ahead with a better car. The Camaro was never canceled just on hold and that is where we are today.

We are a few years away from a real hybrid that is more than a publicity gimick so don't even worry about it. Once you see we have new batteries the time will come but it stillis not time to even go that way yet.

The bottom line let let some of this play out before we lower the life boats. No one has passed any laws or made and new rules yet so let see what happens first. There is going to be some change but I am sure it will be watered down from the tough talk. When was the last time DC did not water anything down.

What bothers me more is tha fact we have people passing laws that do not even know how to check their own oil. How are they to understand how these laws will effect the indutry or eviroment. All they know is what group telling them how to vote funded their re election.

Edited April 11, 2007 by hyperv6

[CARBIZ]

Well, then the Civic must be in short supply everywhere, because so far this year the Civic's sales are DOWN 20% in Canada, and the Mazda 3 (which is - what 3 years old?) is poised to overtake it, while the Cobalt (without the G-5's sales added to it, mind you!) is poised to over take the Corolla for #3 spot. But I digress..............

I am watching a madman in Iran and you guys are all worrying about madmen in Washington. Somebody is going to have to bomb that a-hole in the next year or so. Whether Washington has the resources (read: tax money) to do it, or the Isrealis get goaded into it, you will most likely be seeing $5 a gallon or higher very soon. As much as I would love to have something to counter the Chrysler 300, I think that train has left the station anyway. GM is about 2 years late to the party, as usual.

Better to rush the Opel/Vauxhall product to these shores soon, because WHEN (not IF) we join Europe's $8 a gallon and up, very few people will want a RWD V-8. And I hope GM doesn't get caught holding the bag, like Chrysler did in 1976 with a lot of big cars nobody wanted.

[network engineer]

I don't come here for political commentary in the news section. If you're concerned about 4% imagine if Al Gore had won.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't come here for political commentary in the news section. If you're concerned about 4% imagine if Al Gore had won.

We'd be two years closer to E85 and 6-speed hybrid transmissions in all GM cars?

[Camino LS6]

I don't come here for political commentary in the news section. If you're concerned about 4% imagine if Al Gore had won.

When it impacts the industry (and our interests) you are going to get political commentary here.

Oh, its 4% per year.

[knightfan26917]

"It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble," said Lutz, noting that also means Camaro derivatives -- along with a big Impala sedan, "if we call it Impala."

Heh. Would be quite ironic if Chevrolet yanked the Lumina nameplate out of retirement for the new RWD car......he he.

*sighs*

I recall RWD talk in the late 1990s before the 2000 Lumina (er monte carlo) debuted ... and it didn't happen then.

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"There was a time I was a true believer" ... Jennifer Warnes ... 'I Know A Heartache When I See One'

[Oracle of Delphi]

I don't come here for political commentary in the news section. If you're concerned about 4% imagine if Al Gore had won.

The Volt would be in Chevy showrooms now?

Edited April 11, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[regfootball]

A 2007 Grand Prix 3800 doesn't weight 3750. Typical delivered weight is usually 3450-3500 lbs

The 2008 G8 isn't going to have the 3800 as it's base engine which is rated at 30 highway in several applications

The G8 will have the 3.6 liter Global V6 which in the smaller, lighter Aura with a 6 speed automatic gets only 28 highway

Going by the new mileage ratings I would gestimate the V6 will see 18/26 and the V8 will be 16/23 which to the unknowing average citizen is going to look very poor to say a 4 cylinder Malibu or Camry which won't be much smaller in size to the new rear drive Zetas. With Bush's new mileage standards, these mid to large sized RWD family sedans are going to be a harder sell IMO which is why GM is playing it safe.

why does the G6 weigh so much then

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Heh. Would be quite ironic if Chevrolet yanked the Lumina nameplate out of retirement for the new RWD car......he he.

*sighs*

I recall RWD talk in the late 1990s before the 2000 Lumina (er monte carlo) debuted ... and it didn't happen then.

If the W-Body is still being used to pin a "new" car when I turn 22, I'll just f@#king choke. I'm sorry, that's the truth. The MS-2000 version of that platform is a ghost of what screwed GM up and it's way past it's due date. It should have been shipped out and replaced by the 2001 model year at the latest, and yet here it is in the year 2007, some 20-something years after it first debuted, still being sold as the Impala. It's a very bad itch that's very hard to scratch.

At least use an extended Epsilion with all-wheel drive for a big flagship Chevy if the other rear-drive cars can't take flight.

Better to rush the Opel/Vauxhall product to these shores soon, because WHEN (not IF) we join Europe's $8 a gallon and up, very few people will want a RWD V-8. And I hope GM doesn't get caught holding the bag, like Chrysler did in 2006 with a lot of big cars nobody wanted.

Fixed.

It wasn't too many years ago I considered myself a Republican. I believe in non-intrusive government and fiscal responsibility... this president has turned those republican ideals completely around... and the Democrats are worse. They have NO ideas v. Bush's bad ones.

Again, we are back to the Lewis Black quote (now uncut):

Allow me to explain how our federal government works. To begin with, by the federal government I mean Democrats and Republicans working together. And the only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this: a Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I can make it $h!tier!"

Edited April 11, 2007 by YellowJacket894

[Oracle of Delphi]

Better to rush the Opel/Vauxhall product to these shores soon, because WHEN (not IF) we join Europe's $8 a gallon and up, very few people will want a RWD V-8. And I hope GM doesn't get caught holding the bag, like Chrysler did in 1976 with a lot of big cars nobody wanted.

Have you been spying in on our meetings?

That would make some that I work for/with very happy indeed.

[CSpec]

1973 is one of my 1st memories of the USA, we came here to visit my Grandmother for a month. I remember sitting in the car with my Dad in gas lines. He tells me they had odd and even days for gas, even numbered plates one day, odd numbered plates the next, and long long gas lines.

That was because of price controls, sort of the opposite situation.

[cletus8269]

my point for bringing up '73 is that in my mind cars stopped focusing on what the people wanted and more on what the government wanted them to be as far as mpg, emissions and safety. the 5mph bumpers, the huge drop in compression ratios and all the choking smog equipment came to a point in 73. face it no one got excited over a car until the turbo Buicks showed up. who would have thought 3.8 liter v6's would be showing up mustangs, fbodies, heck even vettes. i was in termoil to see that at one point in time a corvette made only 230hp. i wasnt around then i'm 25, but my dad was and he tells me that we are coming full circle again. the hp is up, the fun is back up, and now the man is gonna come down hard... 1973 style

[sciguy_0504]

I positively HATE all the enviro-weenies and their global warming propoganda. I also HATE the media that purposely refuses to report the very credible other side of the debate. If it was actually reported and this issue debated, we wouldn't be hearing about it. I'm waiting for someone...any credible person, to take this BS head on and expose the lies and inconvenient half-truths.

[bowtie_dude]

I positively HATE all the enviro-weenies and their global warming propoganda. I also HATE the media that purposely refuses to report the very credible other side of the debate. If it was actually reported and this issue debated, we wouldn't be hearing about it. I'm waiting for someone...any credible person, to take this BS head on and expose the lies and inconvenient half-truths.

Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. If you can ignore the other books in the PIG series, which are admittedly a little ridiculous and not written by the same person, you'll find a lot of interesting information the greenies don't want you to know.

Like the fact that the big warm up of the globe during the 1990s coincides with the closure of many reporting stations in the former Soviet Union and Arctic regions.

[FloydHendershot]

Anyone have an idea what would happen to the price of oil if Ethanol85 becomes available widespread and people choose to use it?

[ZL-1]

I have a question: how is CAFE calculated? Is it an 'actual' versus 'benchmark' calculation?

[haypops]

I positively HATE all the enviro-weenies and their global warming propoganda. I also HATE the media that purposely refuses to report the very credible other side of the debate. If it was actually reported and this issue debated, we wouldn't be hearing about it. I'm waiting for someone...any credible person, to take this BS head on and expose the lies and inconvenient half-truths.

Why dopn't you explain it? Your screen name could indictes a good working knowledge of science. Why don't you explain to us how the C-13 to C-12 ratios of core samples could be interpreted other than increased carbon dioxide levels the results of fossil fuel usage.

[CARBIZ]

Global warming is a FACT. Where the controversy lays is in the WHY. Is this cyclical? Is it just a blip? We don't have enough data, end of story. How many weather stations existed around the globe 125 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago? Was anyone around to count polar bears in 1850?

Personally, I could care less about the global warming debate. That will sort itself out in the next 10 or more years, and until the "emerging markets" are involved, the entire debate is moot. The more immediate threat is the increasing leverage and power of certain hostile countries, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. are going to have over the West. I believe that is the more immediate danger.

[pow]

Why dopn't you explain it? Your screen name could indictes a good working knowledge of science. Why don't you explain to us how the C-13 to C-12 ratios of core samples could be interpreted other than increased carbon dioxide levels the results of fossil fuel usage.

He drives an xB, btw, so sci = Scion?

[bowtie_dude]

Why dopn't you explain it? Your screen name could indictes a good working knowledge of science. Why don't you explain to us how the C-13 to C-12 ratios of core samples could be interpreted other than increased carbon dioxide levels the results of fossil fuel usage.

Or he could explain how carbon dioxide concentration isn't a major cause of global warming.

[pow]

Global warming is a FACT. Where the controversy lays is in the WHY. Is this cyclical? Is it just a blip? We don't have enough data, end of story. How many weather stations existed around the globe 125 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago? Was anyone around to count polar bears in 1850?

Personally, I could care less about the global warming debate. That will sort itself out in the next 10 or more years, and until the "emerging markets" are involved, the entire debate is moot. The more immediate threat is the increasing leverage and power of certain hostile countries, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. are going to have over the West. I believe that is the more immediate danger.

The idea that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is also FACT. What we should debate instead is the best means to reduce CO2 emissions before they reach that dreaded 550 ppm mark. Being a petrolhead, obviously I'm against mandating unrealistic automotive fuel economy standards, so Camino's suggestions are intriguing. Ultimately the poor planning and preparedness of our government is to blame for our dilemna; now they're passing the buck for our automakers to solve.

[ocnblu]

Nothing will be accomplished if the US goes it alone in ruining our economy to appease the wacky environmentalist Chicken Littles. The same measures must be taken worldwide... by countries that have established economies, like us, to countries with rapidly growing economies, like CHINA, to countries that are poor as piss and cannot afford a red cent toward these pie-in-the-sky goals. I am not willing to support any unilateral plan.

I fail to see how having a car powered by the correct wheels has any bearing on fuel economy, and therefore, emissions. All cars are getting heavier with each successive generation... partly to meet crash test standards.

This is all so stupid.

Edited April 11, 2007 by ocnblu

[regfootball]

Nothing will be accomplished if the US goes it alone in ruining our economy to appease the wacky environmentalist Chicken Littles. The same measures must be taken worldwide... by countries that have established economies, like us, to countries with rapidly growing economies, like CHINA, to countries that are poor as piss and cannot afford a red cent toward these pie-in-the-sky goals. I am not willing to support any unilateral plan.

I fail to see how having a car powered by the correct wheels has any bearing on fuel economy, and therefore, emissions. All cars are getting heavier with each successive generation... partly to meet crash test standards.

This is all so stupid.

sounds like you need a drink, but i do agree.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

The government does not know how to build a car, therefore they should quit poking their fat, rich asses into the process.

[bowtie_dude]

There are many other factors that are more in charge of the average temperature of the planet than CO2. A fact that demonstrates this is that the Souther Hemisphere has the same CO2 concentration as the Northern Hemisphere and is only warming at a rate of .05 Celsius a year, as opposed to the Northern which is warming at an average of .2 Celsius per year. Effectively debunking two things, among others, 1) That the entire globe is warming dramatically and 2) That increased CO2 emissions have a major impact on the warming of the globe.

[bowtie_dude]

that would be due to the "wobble" of the earth, given time, the opposite may be true!

the earth kinda wobbles, its not dead on towards the sun... so as it drifts up and down, the hemispheres have different heat reception.

you know, scientists have noticed that other planets are warming up just like ours is. perhaps its not JUST our earth thats changing?

I've also read and seen graphs that show a correlation between the Earths rising temperatures and increased activity in the Sun.

[pow]

There are many other factors that are more in charge of the average temperature of the planet than CO2. A fact that demonstrates this is that the Souther Hemisphere has the same CO2 concentration as the Northern Hemisphere and is only warming at a rate of .05 Celsius a year, as opposed to the Northern which is warming at an average of .2 Celsius per year. Effectively debunking two things, among others, 1) That the entire globe is warming dramatically and 2) That increased CO2 emissions have a major impact on the warming of the globe.

No one is denying the existence of natural climate cycles. It's just that they occur in 100,000-year frequencies, not 50. A degree Celcius every five years is comparatively huge and unprecedented.

[Oracle of Delphi]

When I have both arms up, the Earth gets warm. When I have one arm up, and one down, the Earth remains the same as it is. If both arms ar down the Earth cools!!!! :rotflmao:

[bowtie_dude]

No one is denying the existence of natural climate cycles. It's just that they occur in 100,000-year frequencies, not 50. A degree Celcius every five years is comparatively huge and unprecedented.

Not its not. On top of MAJOR and extreme climate changes that occur every 100,000 years, there are periods of less extreme, but noticable climate change, in one direction or the other. Its commonly accepted that through much of the middle ages, the Earth was in a period of warmth, then immediately following and for the next few centuries the Earth went into a mini ice age, which only just ended during the 19th century.

Edited April 12, 2007 by bowtie_dude

[Camino LS6]

If the problem is with the sun itself, we may as well punt.