Thread: Global Warming
View Single Post
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance

>
> Which is paid for by Mittsubishi


Oh, the horror!

>> You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter
>> without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not
>> anti-environment.
>>
>> http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/
>>
>>> Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
>>> models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
>>> However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
>>> “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
>>> Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
>>> companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
>>> of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
>>> blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
>>> California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
>>> Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
>>> the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
>>> will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
>>> group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
>>> want and deserve.

>>
>> They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing
>> freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect.
>>
>>> Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
>>> it your own personal voice.

>>
>> Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've
>> written.
>>
>>> Here are some questions that may help you
>>> quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:
>>>
>>> * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
>>> * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
>>> vehicle?
>>> * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
>>> * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
>>> filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
>>> their "virtually emission-free" ad?
>>> * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
>>> "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?
>>>
>>> Tell me more
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,
>>>
>>> (Edit Letter Below)
>>>
>>> I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
>>> vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
>>> car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
>>> help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
>>> the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
>>> Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
>>> segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.
>>>
>>> I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
>>> of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
>>> to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
>>> deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
>>> pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards.

>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> For example, the Auto
>>> Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
>>> emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
>>> false advertising complaints.

>>
>> None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them.
>>
>>> Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
>>> on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
>>> California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
>>> from autos among its top agenda items.
>>>
>>> Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
>>> environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
>>> hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
>>> clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
>>> give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
>>> "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
>>> environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
>>> consumer.
>>>
>>> I look forward to your reply.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> [Your name]

>>
>> Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders."
>>
>> BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below.
>>
>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>

>
> Yes I have,


No, you ignored every ****ing point. You can't stick to one issue at a
time, and I've patiently dealt with every lie you've posted. You said
hybrids don't get better mileage, I showed you that you're full of shit.
You whine that this is a vegan group and then post bullshit about global
warming, and whine even louder when shown that your beliefs are
predicated on the POLITICS of the issue rather than the SCIENCE of it.

> I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for
> by Mittsubisi and friends,


Big ****ing deal. Auto Alliance aren't out to pollute. Go look at their
website, dipshit. Take a look at what they have to say about "global
climate change" and see if you can honestly object to what they have to
say. Your activist form letter above is from a group which wants
government to micromanage every ****ing aspect of our lives and thereby
minimize the choices consumers have. Why do you support and work with
authoritarian zealots?

http://www.autoalliance.org/environm...balclimate.php

> and you ignore the responsible organizations
> such as MIT and NOA amongst other's.


I don't ignore them; I disagree with conclusions reached from ambiguous
results (at best) or results which don't even support the conclusions,
predictions, or proposed solutions.

> You find a fringe scientist that
> supports your contention.


Not fringe. As I've patiently shown your sorry ass too many times now,
scientists are EVENLY DIVIDED over global warming. That's because the
data are very unconvincing. The question then is, Why should we make
radical changes if the "problem" isn't even clear-cut?

> Big deal.


It's a big deal to advocate "radical change" as you have, you dumb ass.
You need to be a lot more convincing than you have been by merely
parroting activist groups or by simply saying:

> Global warming is real.


That's an *unproven* assertion, and I've provided you with sufficient
sources.

>>>>>>> http://www.commondreams....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From their "about us" page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
>>>>>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
>>>>>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
>>>>>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
>>>>>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
>>>>>> internet *activism*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

>
> There is nothing wrong with being a liberal.


There's something wrong about advocating RADICAL CHANGE, you
authoritarian zealot, without good reason.

> Ben Franklin would be considered a liberal for example.


Not in today's terminology. Don't compare apples to oranges, dumb ass.

> When change is needed, then you need it.


WTF?! You've yet to establish that ANY change is needed.

> Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be
> expressed?


Look who's talking -- the bumbling twit who objects to anyone countering
his distortions, lies, and vegan flim-flam. I've never told YOU to go
away or to shut up; I've only told you to tell the truth or I'll correct
you. And that's just what I've done, you benighted piece of shit.


<...>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hat is correct. If IF the many models
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SOME models...
>>>>
>>>>> that say global warming are correct,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no indication that they are.
>>>>
>>>>> and there is no doubt there are many models,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SOME models.
>>>>
>>>>> than radical chance is necessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT
>>>> necessary.
>>>>
>>>>> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of
>>>>> course, they
>>>>> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
>>>>> people as yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
>>>> change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the
>>>> "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such
>>>> change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut
>>>> problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate
>>>> RADICAL change).
>>>>
>>>>> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither can most studies.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
>>>> http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
>>>> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html
>>>>
>>>> Etc.
>>>>
>>>>> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication


Your Prozac should make you more coherent. Tell your doctor to increase
your dosage.

>>>> Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.
>>>>
>>>>> You've still ignored
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
>>>> which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other
>>>> human beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the
>>>> basis of your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by
>>>> scientific discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely
>>>> what you want to do: require every human being to adopt your
>>>> political worldview. That's ALL this is about. You're an
>>>> authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed.