Another ship stuck trying to prove lies...

Status
Not open for further replies.
HippieSmell said:
You said every F150 produced 20x more pollution than a Hummer, which is a silly thing to say. It's like saying it's OK for one street in Bel Aire to water their lawns during a drought because it's less water than what's sweated out by migrant workers as they tend the fields.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the 20x number may not be exactly correct, but given the mpg average for both vehicles compared to the sheer number put on the road, the F150 polluted more per year than the h2 by a wide wide wide wide margin.
 
Bent said:
Ok, so the 20x number may not be exactly correct, but given the mpg average for both vehicles compared to the sheer number put on the road, the F150 polluted more per year than the h2 by a wide wide wide wide margin.
Click to expand...

Your statistics presenting your argument have nothing to do with one another. One F-150 did not pollute more then one H2 therefore no matter how many of each you sell wont ever change that fact. In your comparison you could say ANY vehicle that sold slightly more then 33,000 vehicles polluted more then the H2. Producing more or less vehicles has nothing to do with the function of each individual vehicle.
 
Bent said:
Ok, so the 20x number may not be exactly correct, but given the mpg average for both vehicles compared to the sheer number put on the road, the F150 polluted more per year than the h2 by a wide wide wide wide margin.
Click to expand...

If everyone drove a Prius, but one guy had a Hummer, he could say the same thing. It doesn't really pass the sniff test, does it?
 
Bent said:
Record sales? Hardly.

I don't want to get into a vehicle debate here, but you do realize that the most sales the H2 ever had was 33,000 units in 2005 world wide? And we are just talking about the H2 here because it was the only vehicle in the hummer line that qualified for the tax break.

Guess what the yearly F150 sales were for 2005? 900,000 units in the US alone, international sales equaled about 70,000 units. That's almost a million vehicles put on the road. Fuel economy for the f150 4x4 in 2005 was about 14city and 16hwy. Slightly better than the H2, but by sheer numbers, you tell me which brand polluted the environment more that year.
Click to expand...

record sales for the hummer h2 at a gross weight over 6000 lbs, not other "stuff"; of course. many were buying that POS for the tax break only. i was commenting on the loophole, not the gas mileage, and how people were allowed to fully depreciated a recreational vehicles like a dump truck. Once the tax break went away, so did the H2. i don't see the connection with the f150, it isn't a SUV?
 
CHSUB said:
record sales for the hummer h2 at a gross weight over 6000 lbs, not other "stuff"; of course. many were buying that POS for the tax break only. i was commenting on the loophole, not the gas mileage, and how people were allowed to fully depreciated a recreational vehicles like a dump truck. Once the tax break went away, so did the H2. i don't see the connection with the f150, it isn't a SUV?
Click to expand...

I just picked a car, I picked the f150 because it's the best selling vehicle in America and also has 4x4.

The H2 is not and was not a POS. Mine was used as intended on the trails and never missed a beat.

Hummer also went away because GM was required to close extraneous companies like Saturn, Pontiac and hummer and consolidate the company in order to receive money from the government bailout, not for any other reason, and certainly not because of US tax code changes.

Also, our original discussion was that people bagging on hummer did so because of the demonization of people spreading rumors of totally false fuel efficiency numbers, which is why I produced the comparison to a more popular 4x4. I doubt that it was because of the tax write off:
 
Bent said:
I just picked a car, I picked the f150 because it's the best selling vehicle in America and also has 4x4.

The H2 is not and was not a POS. Mine was used as intended on the trails and never missed a beat.

Hummer also went away because GM was required to close extraneous companies like Saturn, Pontiac and hummer and consolidate the company in order to receive money from the government bailout, not for any other reason, and certainly not because of US tax code changes.

Also, our original discussion was that people bagging on hummer did so because of the demonization of people spreading rumors of totally false fuel efficiency numbers, which is why I produced the comparison to a more popular 4x4. I doubt that it was because of the tax write off:
Click to expand...

you can doubt all you want, but after the write off went away so did the H2. the only thing in this world that goes away are "things" that people don't want, if there was money to be made someone would be selling H2s. GM can't even sell the company away for 2 nickels!!!!

Quote: "General Motors' efforts to sell Hummer to a little-known Chinese company have fallen apart, the U.S. automaker announced on Wednesday. As a result, GM will begin to dismantle a brand of gas-guzzling SUVs that was synonymous with pre"“financial crisis wealth and excess. "
 
CHSUB said:
you can doubt all you want, but after the write off went away so did the H2. the only thing in this world that goes away are "things" that people don't want, if there was money to be made someone would be selling H2s. GM can't even sell the company away for 2 nickels!!!!

Quote: "General Motors' efforts to sell Hummer to a little-known Chinese company have fallen apart, the U.S. automaker announced on Wednesday. As a result, GM will begin to dismantle a brand of gas-guzzling SUVs that was synonymous with pre"“financial crisis wealth and excess. "
Click to expand...


Exactly how did we get on this subject?

This is like the third thread I've derailed talking about cars.
 
HippieSmell said:
That's not true.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.
They philosophized that the coral reef wouldn't recover for many, many years.

But when they could look at today's results and compare it to what they knew and observed back then, they had to eat some crow, didn't they? :fish1:
 
PIPSTER said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html

They aren't scientists, they are philosophers.

Science is purely, and only empiricism.
If you didn't observe it, you have nothing to say it's based in science.
:uzi:
Click to expand...
Which they are you referring to? The ones in the linked article?

At the heart of science is ideas, observations and speculation (known as a hypothesis). Rigorous empirical proof and independent third party verification are what prove any given hypothesis and add to known science.

I suppose you could argue that scientist engage in both philosophy and science. Without new ideas and speculation, there is nothing to empirically prove or disprove.
 
PIPSTER said:
Of course it is.
They philosophized that the coral reef wouldn't recover for many, many years.

But when they could look at today's results and compare it to what they knew and observed back then, they had to eat some crow, didn't they? :fish1:
Click to expand...
They hypothesize. The follow up observation does not match the general hypothesis. Now there is additional work to do to understand why the reef recovered, if the second observation is a long term recovery, or if there is something else going on.
 
http://www.livescience.com/28440-coral-reefs-can-regenerate.html

It was already known that coral reefs go through cycles where new coral grows on old, dead coral skeletons. This is how the great reefs have grown so big.

They totally ignored this when they said "It will take decades to restore these reefs..."

This they declared as fact, not as a hypothesis.
It's just like all the other myths which are declared as facts today...that's philosophy in the name of science.

Back to observations...
http://polarocean.co.uk/running-superlatives-collective-excitement-running-shelter/
 
PIPSTER said:
http://www.livescience.com/28440-coral-reefs-can-regenerate.html

It was already known that coral reefs go through cycles where new coral grows on old, dead coral skeletons. This is how the great reefs have grown so big.

They totally ignored this when they said "It will take decades to restore these reefs..."

This they declared as fact, not as a hypothesis.
It's just like all the other myths which are declared as facts today...that's philosophy in the name of science.

Back to observations...
http://polarocean.co.uk/running-superlatives-collective-excitement-running-shelter/
Click to expand...
You need to remember that you're reading a synopsis of a study in a mainstream publication. Unless you read the actual research paper, you won't know what exact language was used. There are many times where research conclusions get mangled by some reporter.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your gripe is. The prevailing science changes over time as more data is collected. Isn't that a good thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

liverock
Was cleaning my computer and found this interview from 2000....
Replies
3
Views
1K
olsonjl
O
TXAlbert
Corals in Danger
Replies
0
Views
393
TXAlbert
TXAlbert
seth16
WAY OT: I just about DIED when i saw this...HAHAHA
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
seth16
seth16
Back
Top