Beach Runner wrote:
> Recently I read that they could have built hybrids more like the Prios

P-r-i-u-s, you dope.

> (look up the disappointing results in google).

Google doesn't offer car surveys, just many links to websites with them.
Many of the consumer reviews I've read have been quite kind; some of the
professional reviews have been overly critical, as if a gas-electric
hybrid should be compared to other (usually performance-oriented)
compacts. Everyone has different tastes, and those who write for car
magazines have certain expectations for how every car should perform. I
know several people who own a Prius, including a couple who each own
one, who are all quite pleased with them.

> Which would have meant lower power, lower acceleration,

Performance matters as much as luxury to people forking over twice as
much as Prius buyers will. Again, different strokes for different folks.
I won't begrudge those who buy a Lexus RX hybrid instead of a Prius or
Escape Hybrid simply because their vehicle of choice doesn't get as many
miles per gallon; they're still improving their mileage over the
conventional RX model and decreasing emissions.

> but MUCH better fuel efficiency.

Your underlying argument is despicable because you're such an
authoritarian you not only presume to know what's best for everyone but
would force it upon everyone. Not everyone has the same tastes or
budgets for their vehicles or for the operating costs related to them.
I've already shown you to be in error regarding your claims of hybrid
mileage. Even with the luxury models, hybrids get significant
improvements in mileage (particularly driving in the city, where most
driving occurs) and emissions.

> To better appeal to the US market much more modest
> implementations have been made.

The "implementations" are called choices, you dumb ass. If you're not so
wealthy and want the most mileage and find the Prius comfortable enough,
choose it. If you have a few more bucks to spend and want some luxury
and performance, choose the Lexus. President Bush isn't dictating that
anyone buys hybrid or conventional vehicles, nor is he directing car
companies to making modest "implementations," whatever the hell that's
supposed to mean.

> It is a simple point to understand.

Then why haven't you comprehended it yet, dummy?

> Than

Then.

> there are the MPG regulations that Clinton /Gore had made,

The Clinton administration didn't make any regulations. Only Congress
can make such regulations. They only proposed raising corporate average
fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. They couldn't even get their proposals
through the pre-1995 Democrat-controlled Congress.

> which exceed the current results.

The biggest hurdle for you authoritarian zealots is consumer demand, and
historically it's been an overwhelming obstacle for people like you to
overcome. The most popular vehicles during the 1990s were large SUVs and
full-size trucks. Consumers, historically speaking, have only bought
smaller, more fuel-efficient cars during times of high fuel costs.
That's the primary, if not only, reason for the spike in sales of
smaller car sales right now.

> That was one of the first things Bush
> rescinded.

Liar. Twit. No US president can rescind laws by fiat without provoking a
Constitutional crisis. President Bush differs with the previous
administration over CAFE standards, choosing instead to promote changes
in consumer demand rather than forcing suppliers to create vehicles
people don't want.

> It would have challenged Detroit to produce much more
> efficient, competitive cars.

Demand drives supply, you moron. One of the solutions from the Bush
administration has included tax credits for hybrids and other
alternatively-fueled vehicles, as well as incentives to manufacturers to
create and make new technologies more affordable. Between the credits
and rebates for hybrids and the surge in fuel prices, sales of hybrids
and other more fuel-efficient vehicles have increased. But it's been
because consumers demand them, not because the government is forcing
companies to provide cars people don't want.

> Now Detroit Car Bonds have reached junk bond status.

Non sequitur. Car companies are in deep shit because of liabilities
related to their union agreements. You should be blaming the ****ing
socialists at the UAW for the financial turmoil -- due to increasing
health care and pension costs -- at the car companies.

"It's really a tragedy is what it is. GM and Ford's managers
have for too long avoided butting heads with the union and
making tough decisions. The center of the auto industry has
begun moving away from Detroit."
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/cuts6e_20050506.htm

> You ignore the scientific references I pull out,

Because you're pulling them out of your ass.

> even from well
> respected institutions of climactic change from MIT.

Appealing to authority, as you're wont to do. Just because someone is
from MIT doesn't mean he is authoritative on the subject. Remember, MIT
tenured the loony Marxist Noam Chomsky. Still, consider the following I
read today in the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=4221504

> You ignore the FAST climactic change going on in Alaska

No, I don't. I just disagree with you that the Alaskan climate ever
reached a state of homeostasis sometime between the Ice Age and 1955.

> that even has the Republican governor concerned

Murkowski's "concerns" have a lot more to do with wanting more pork and
not being in a position to bring it back home now that he's out of the
Senate and his daughter has no seniority to effect porky policy.

> as it will create a calamity in his state.

No, it will not. Historically, these are not the hottest periods that
region has ever known.

Alaska has been peopled for at least 12,000 years. Within the
last 12 millennia, there have been plenty of periods when it was
warmer than today, and the culture flourished.

Apparently it was too much effort for the Alaska senators'
staffers to consult relevant articles in the refereed scientific
literature. The most important is a landmark study, "Holocene
[post ice-age] thermal maximum in the western Arctic," published
last year by 30 eminent scientists whose specialty is past
climate. It appeared in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews.

The article notes that Alaska averaged three degrees Fahrenheit
warmer for 2000 years, from 9,000 to 11,000 years ago.
Concurrently, the first civilization radiated forward.

There's another article on Alaskan climate history for the last
2000 years, published by Feng Sheng Hu in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. It notes that there have been
three similarly warm periods in Alaska, from A.D. 0 to 300,
850-1200, and 1800 to present. (Note that humans had no
influence on global temperature 200 years ago).

And what of the present? Brian Hartman and Gerd Wendler, of the
Alaska-taxpayer-funded Alaska Climate Research Center, have
written extensively on this subject. They are particularly
interested in something called the "Great Pacific Climate
Shift," a sudden and dramatic warming that occurred in a
one-year period around 1976.

Here's what they have written:

When analyzing the total time period from 1951-2001,
warming is observed, however the 25-year trend analyses
before 1976 (1951-1975) and thereafter (1977-2001) both
display cooling.

That's right. The mean Alaskan temperature has been declining
for the last quarter-century. All of the warming is determined
by a one-year, mysterious "burp" in the temperature of the
Pacific Ocean.

Is that due to human activity? Search the scientific literature
for a computer model of human influence on climate that says it
occurs all at once, in a single year. You won't find one
reference.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7947

> But all that you ignore.

No, I take a hard look at what both sides are saying. I dismiss the
blather from the activists you tend to quote.

> I guess MIT is not respected enough for you.

Appealing to authority again. It depends which MIT person is behind it.

> You stated the models of Great Britain freezing unfounded,

They're MODELS, models based on the biases of those who design them.

> and I found 3 professional references, which you ignore.

Read the Economist article, read the rest of the Spectator column, and
then go **** yourself.

> Instead you simply continue to insult.

And rightfully so. You ****. Admit you were wrong about hybrids and
their mileage.




> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> Get it straight:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have it straight from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
>>>>
>>>>> Honda Civic 36 44
>>>>> Hybrid 48 46
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto)
>>>>
>>>> MPG (city)
>>>> Hybrid:47 Regular:35
>>>>
>>>> MPG (hwy)
>>>> Hybrid:48 Regular: 40
>>>>
>>>> MPG (combined)
>>>> Hybrid:47 Regular:37
>>>>
>>>> Annual Fuel Cost*
>>>> Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Still much less significant than is clearly possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> Possible using WHAT? And how do those hybrids compare to your car(s)
>> in terms of mileage and emissions?
>>
>>>>> I made some error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You make them repeatedly. If you had half a braincell, you'd give up
>>>> already.
>>>>
>>>>> 2 mpg on highway driving.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try eight MPG better on the highway -- which is 20% more miles per
>>>> gallon than the conventional version. Twenty-percent is not
>>>> marginal; it's significant.
>>>>
>>>>> Much better in the city.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is where most people drive their cars, dummy.
>>>>
>>>>> A lot of the new Lexus and such expect much smaller differences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me see if I understand you (I don't relate well to retards, do
>>>> forgive me). You're concerned that consumers will turn away from
>>>> vehicles like the Honda Civic Hybrid which has a base price of about
>>>> $20,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional
>>>> counterpart and Ford Escape Hybrid which has a base price of under
>>>> $30,000 and gets significantly better mileage than its conventional
>>>> counterpart for a limited-production luxury vehicle that has a price
>>>> of $52,703 and you claim gets only marginally-better mileage than
>>>> its conventionally-powered counterpart?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Compared with what could be done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Such as...?
>>
>>>> Before you answer, let me straighten out your last lie about the
>>>> Lexus hybrid.
>>>>
>>>> The conventional Lexus RX AWD gets 18/24 (city/hwy) MPG.
>>>> The hybrid Lexus RX AWD gets 31/27 (city/hwy) MPG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is there are improvements with hybrid technology. But, they
>>> can be MUCH better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like what...?
>>
>>> Cars can be made that get 60 or 70 mpg or much better.
>>
>>
>>
>> How? And why not use hybrids like the Prius and Insight which get
>> nearly that much with reduced emissions until technology gets us to
>> 70+ MPG? The next most efficient vehicles I know of are VW TDI models,
>> but diesel engines aren't exactly environmentally-friendly (though, to
>> the credit of the manufacturers, diesel engines are much cleaner than
>> they were even a few years ago).
>>
>>> That's where we should be going.
>>
>>
>>
>> How can we get there, dumb ass?
>>
>>> Get that through your insulting thick skull.
>>
>>
>>
>> Increases in mileage in the 20-72% range and reductions of up to half
>> of emissions over the same conventionally-powered models are pretty
>> decent, yet you continue to whine and say that hybrids are overrated.
>> I've again shown you to be wrong on every point you've made, and you
>> still have the audacity to say that I'm the one with a thick skull.
>> Thick or not, at least my skull has a working brain in it. What's your
>> excuse, ****?
>>
>>>> http://www.detnews.com/2005/autoscon...G03-245495.htm
>>>> http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html
>>>>
>>>> That's *72%* better mileage in the city -- WHERE MOST PEOPLE DRIVE
>>>> THEIR CARS DAY IN AND DAY OUT -- and 12.5% better on the highway.
>>>>
>>>> What a dope you are.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very firmly established.