Weather.com poll: 38.6% not convinced global warming is real

I wasn't kidding. I think it's a great idea. And you're right actually, this action by itself will make little difference. We need huge lifestyle changes, now. But it's the right direction.

 

Yes, we really need to be taking giant strides and not just baby steps, but every little bit helps. Drive throughs are being looked at here, too, along with providing electrical outlets at City Hall for EVs, and letting parks workers ride their bikes on the job instead of driving trucks. Reducing emissions, saving money, promoting fitness; it all sounds crazy, doesn't it, Rick?

 

Both. Consider this. How long is the average wait at a drive thru? One minute, two minutes? I am sure companies such as McDonalds know their average wait times to the second. But also consider parking an automobile if a drive thru is not available. Going inside to get your meal (now we have more employees needed who have to serve the inside crowd and they have to drive to work, etc.), coming out to a cooled/cold engine, starting that engine again (much more emissions are released by a cooler, cold engine due to riching the fuel mixture and especially the cold cat converter, even my Prius does this after each start, no matter the temperature of the engine). And not to mention fewer sales to the retail establishment and overall general inconvenience to the public.

It's all about common sense and reasonability. The government could eliminate under the pain of imprisonment all emissions of carbon. But that's unreasonable. We could increase our national CAFE standards. Now that might be reasonable to most. We could pursue nuclear power (if the environmentalists allow). We could pursue alternative power technologies for the automobile and better/improved hybrid designs. One could successfully argue these too would be reasonable.

But to argue that the elimination of some drive thru lanes in a few restaurants in one of the 100's of thousands of cities (millions??) throughout the entire planet of over 6 billion people on the basis that their elimination will somehow reduce AGW, well that in my opinion is not reasonable. It's silly and panders (takes advantage of) to the simpletons of the city for political gain.

You may believe in AGW and support its cause (and that's fine with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion) but when you defend and support these ideas as true AGW solutions as you and others have in this thread, then you dig yourself and the AGW crowd deeper and deeper into a hole of kooky, weird environmentalists.

What are you asking? Do I support smog and air pollution?? Are you asking if I think the elimination drive thrus in one city or even all cities (that won't happen though) will affect smog or air pollution? No, drive thrus whether they exist or not will not affect smog or air pollution in any way measurable by man.

Rick

#4 2006

 

About 2-4 minutes.

 

Thanks for the info. That's what I thought, a few minutes at best. An very small amount of fuel used (idle) compared to the entire drive.

Again, thanks for validating my point; considering the amount of fuel used in an average day in the planet earth, the amount of fuel consumed (about one to two ounces; 128 ounces in a gallon) in drive thrus is hardly measurable. And its contribution to the perceived AGW threat is not measurable.

Rick
#4 2006

 

As a non-climatologist I don't see how you are qualified to make such a statement but whatever, neither am I. The point is one of accumulations. Is there data on how many people visit a drive-thru each day calculated with the number of minutes on average they spend in that drive-thru and expanded over the entire world? Unless you have seen that data I do not think you can make such a conclusion. Now you could argue that we cannot come to the opposite conclusion but in the grand scheme of things drive-thrus cause more harm than good IMO if you consider obesity, pollution, loss to local enonomies, and local agriculture or ranching.

 

The part I find funny, is not how damaging the wait itself is, but the damage of what they are waiting for.

 

Interesting opinion piece in today's WSJ illustrating the pathology of climate change:

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis


Global View - WSJ.com

OK, you know the drill: Shoot the messenger, discredit the source and then blame Bush, now get to work.

 

The question seems to be: Which is the truth and which is the 'mass neurosis'?

 

My question is: Shouldn't it actually be called psychosis?

 

You get your science from a financial newspaper opinion piece. Lovely.

 

My thoughts also.

... Brad

 

The ignore feature works great! After awhile you realize who is worth listening to (for a different opinion) and who is simply a waste of time.

 

And merely because something with the word "science" in it's name is proof enough for you. Just what iconic climate authority Al Gore (that "paragon of clear science communication") wants zealots to think while he lines his pockets with their cash...nice. Here, from your "source":

FTA:

The film is a paragon of clear science communication. It explains the workings of complex physical phenomena, such as the jet stream, while chronicling the reality of glaciers receding and the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures. Gore, meanwhile, succeeds in bringing the "moral imperative" of reducing greenhouse gases to a personal level, attempting toconvince viewers that their own actions can make a difference.

Scientific American 50: Policy Leader of the Year: Scientific American

 

The irony in your response is amusing.

 

Thanks for making my case, but you forgot to mention Bush.

 

I see. So if you predict that we will attack the veracity of your source, and then we attack the veracity of your source we prove you right. Ok, your point about me attacking your source is absolutely spot on. Good one! A point for you!

 

I didn't consider it an authentic attack without specific mention and refuting of the author's points. Carry on...

 

No, it should be called a 'religion'.

All the necessary elements are in place. A Grand Puba (he's the guy who won the 2004 US Presidential election; but those meanies on the Supreme Court took it away!), Vice Grand Pubas (Rock Stars such as Madonna, Bono, etc., and Climatologists, exactly who/what is a climatologist? Who pays their salary? Did they even exist 10 years ago?), Executive Vice Grand Pubas (Scientists with their all important 'peer reviewed' and 'consensus' approved papers; these are guys good at math and other yucky boring stuff but haven't yet completed the coveted climatologist degree program yet), and the followers/zealots (the ones who send money in the form of carbon credits and terra passes to 'black hole' organizations of whom no one really knows where all the money actually goes; er, like the NJ turnpike tolls ;-)).

Rick
#4 2006

Reminder to those who I offend. Don't forget to use that ignore feature. It really helps to avoid those pesky opposing points of view.

 

I don't need to. The guy's background is in economics and he is unqualified to make a scientific analysis. Again, if that's where you want to get your basis for scientific "fact", have at it, but it sure doesn't lend you any credibility.