Blue Oval News Says No More Verbal Abuse Will Be Allowed

[Bluecon]

Some wierd things went on.

WOW! What an explanation. Now everything is clear.

[fmccap]

WOW! What an explanation. Now everything is clear.

All the questions that were asked.

[fmccap]

He is an idiot.

 

Im done here. It's like they say, you can't argue with and idiot.

All I can say is it must really suck to be them.

 

Goodbye.

Something funny about you. The people that claim GW are paid by the government and you say that is why they claim it. Now the reports on 9-11 that you believe are the ones from the government or government appointed people and any independant people you write off as idiots or nuts.

 

Two different sides to one ebritt. You sound just like this guy.

Hannity's Double Standard: Bigoted Jokes From Imus Are Free Speech! Rosie Criticizes Bush? Harmful To America!

What Hannity meant, of course, was that he was concerned about the effect on conservative broadcasters. He went through the motions of defending O'Donnell's free speech: "I don't care what she says. I make my living with free speech." But, seconds later, he said, "The president is a war criminal. He ought to be tried at The Hague. He's a dictator…. What she said was hurtful to the families on 9/11." Hannity never offered any proof that was so.

"Sensitive" Hannity replied,"But you don't have to listen to it, do you? You don't have to tune into this radio station… And, look, I'm not saying you have to listen to these guys. I don't even like some of this humor. It's not what I do on the radio. But I'm very — you have to see that we've got to be concerned about free speech here." No such concern about free speech with Rosie, though.

Edited April 27, 2007 by fmccap

[fmccap]

Here's a great one on Global Warming.

New law sounds full of hot air

BARMY Euro MPs are demanding new laws to stop cows and sheep PARPING.

 

Their call came after the UN said livestock emissions were a bigger threat to the planet than transport.

 

The MEPs have asked the European Commission to “look again at the livestock question in direct connection with global warming”.

 

The official EU declaration demands changes to animals’ diets, to capture gas emissions and recycle manure.

 

They warned: “The livestock sector presents the greatest threat to the planet.” The proposal will be looked at by the 27 member states.

 

The UN says livestock farming generates 18 per cent of greenhouse gases while transport accounts for 14 per cent.

[Savetheplanet]

What would God do?

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2066713,00.html

[fmccap]

If anyone is interested.

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

A very good unbiased documentary about the real cause of global warming.

[Furious1Auto]

Something funny about you. The people that claim GW are paid by the government and you say that is why they claim it. Now the reports on 9-11 that you believe are the ones from the government or government appointed people and any independant people you write off as idiots or nuts.

 

Two different sides to one ebritt. You sound just like this guy.

Hannity's Double Standard: Bigoted Jokes From Imus Are Free Speech! Rosie Criticizes Bush? Harmful To America!

In all cases we do, have the freedom to say what we wish. Now! the hip hop industry is in the crosshairs and, rightly so! Their sponsers and, customers also have the right to punish them financially! Just because you have the right to say what you wan't, doesn't mean that there won't be consiquences! You just can't be prosecuted for saying what you wan't.

[Xerxes12]

Just when I thought this thread had finally died!

[fmccap]

Just when I thought this thread had finally died!

It was meant not for an argument but just if you wanted to watch.

[ebritt]

great video

[Trimdingman]

Leave Rosie alone. The more she says, the deeper she buries the Democrats. Freedom of speech is a good thing. I want to read about more 9-11 conspiracies. I want some Democrat to crawl back up and tell me what Hell is like. I want to retire Rush. Anybody can now make the left look stupid.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Trimdingman

[sept68]

Does this count as verbal abuse?

 

 

Edited May 18, 2007 by Blowfish

[Savetheplanet]

I think that California will get their waiver from the fed's, then a lot of other states will follow, combine this with the price of gas and Ford in NA could be in big trouble!

Too bad Ford is late to the game again with the late ariveal of it's sub-compact.

What will it take for Ford to improve it's MPG?

 

 

By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer

 

May 22,2007 | WASHINGTON -- Top California officials implored federal environmental regulators Tuesday for permission to unilaterally impose reductions on greenhouse gases from cars and other vehicles. An auto industry official dismissed the state's approach as "counterproductive."

 

 

 

If California gets the federal waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency that it needs to implement its emissions law, at least 11 other states are prepared to follow its lead.

 

"This is more important than any issue that EPA's going to have to face," California Attorney General Jerry Brown told an EPA air quality hearing board.

 

Brown asked the regulators to relay a message to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

 

"We want him to speak truth to power," said Brown. "There is a tremendous influence of the oil industry. We know (Vice President) Cheney and (President) Bush are oilmen, they think like oil folks. ... We say grant the waiver."

 

The EPA panel that gathered in suburban Arlington, Va., was led by Margo Oge, director of EPA's office of transportation and air quality. She gave no indication of how the agency might be leaning as a daylong hearing got under way.

 

At issue is a 2002 California law that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent from cars and light trucks and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles starting with the 2009 model year. The law can't take effect unless California gets a federal waiver.

 

 

 

While air pollution standards typically are set by the federal government, California has a unique status under the federal Clean Air Act that allows the state to enact its own rules as long as it receives permission from the EPA. Other states can then choose to follow either the federal or California standards.

 

The EPA has declined to say how it will act on the waiver request, and Tuesday's hearing came after more than a year of inaction since the state submitted its petition in 2005.

 

The session included some two dozen witnesses from environmental groups and other states including Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland speaking in favor of California's law. An auto dealer from Maine was in favor and so was a representative from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.

 

A lone voice of opposition came from Steve Douglas of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. He contended that California had not proven that its rules would actually reduce global warming, and that a national approach would be better.

 

"A patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations as is now proposed by California is not simply unnecessary, it's patently counterproductive," Douglas said. The state's waiver request "contains many assumptions and undocumented claims" about its benefits in countering global warming, he said.

 

The auto industry has sued California and Vermont in an attempt to block the regulation, arguing that emissions standards are de-facto fuel economy standards which can only be set by the federal government.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month said the state will sue if the EPA does not act on the state's request by October 25.

 

"We're preparing a lawsuit but we certainly don't want to bring it," Brown told the panel Tuesday.

 

The auto regulations are a key part of California's overall strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for the Earth's warming temperature over the last three decades. The state is the world's 12th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, 40 percent of which come from transportation sources.

 

The state last year embarked on a statewide effort to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020. A 2006 law relies on the auto regulations to accomplish 17 percent of the overall target.

 

President Bush last week signed an executive order giving federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and what to do about them. Critics fear the directive could undermine state efforts.

 

In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Monday, Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Bush's directive "sounds like more of the same inaction and denial."

 

--__

 

Associated Press Writer Samantha Young in Sacramento contributed to this report.

[Savetheplanet]

Here you go Whosure, from today's NYT on Coal coversion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business...amp;oref=slogin

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this from MIT http://web.mit.edu/coal/

 

Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) panel issued a report today that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis. The study, "The Future of Coal – Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates the U.S. assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions. This study, addressed to government, industry and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental and political challenges facing increased coal-based power generation while managing carbon dioxide emissions from this sector.

[Furious1Auto]

I think that California will get their waiver from the fed's, then a lot of other states will follow, combine this with the price of gas and Ford in NA could be in big trouble!

Too bad Ford is late to the game again with the late ariveal of it's sub-compact.

What will it take for Ford to improve it's MPG?

 

 

By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer

 

May 22,2007 | WASHINGTON -- Top California officials implored federal environmental regulators Tuesday for permission to unilaterally impose reductions on greenhouse gases from cars and other vehicles. An auto industry official dismissed the state's approach as "counterproductive."

 

If California gets the federal waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency that it needs to implement its emissions law, at least 11 other states are prepared to follow its lead.

 

"This is more important than any issue that EPA's going to have to face," California Attorney General Jerry Brown told an EPA air quality hearing board.

 

Brown asked the regulators to relay a message to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

 

"We want him to speak truth to power," said Brown. "There is a tremendous influence of the oil industry. We know (Vice President) Cheney and (President) Bush are oilmen, they think like oil folks. ... We say grant the waiver."

 

The EPA panel that gathered in suburban Arlington, Va., was led by Margo Oge, director of EPA's office of transportation and air quality. She gave no indication of how the agency might be leaning as a daylong hearing got under way.

 

At issue is a 2002 California law that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent from cars and light trucks and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles starting with the 2009 model year. The law can't take effect unless California gets a federal waiver.

While air pollution standards typically are set by the federal government, California has a unique status under the federal Clean Air Act that allows the state to enact its own rules as long as it receives permission from the EPA. Other states can then choose to follow either the federal or California standards.

 

The EPA has declined to say how it will act on the waiver request, and Tuesday's hearing came after more than a year of inaction since the state submitted its petition in 2005.

 

The session included some two dozen witnesses from environmental groups and other states including Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland speaking in favor of California's law. An auto dealer from Maine was in favor and so was a representative from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.

 

A lone voice of opposition came from Steve Douglas of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. He contended that California had not proven that its rules would actually reduce global warming, and that a national approach would be better.

 

"A patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations as is now proposed by California is not simply unnecessary, it's patently counterproductive," Douglas said. The state's waiver request "contains many assumptions and undocumented claims" about its benefits in countering global warming, he said.

 

The auto industry has sued California and Vermont in an attempt to block the regulation, arguing that emissions standards are de-facto fuel economy standards which can only be set by the federal government.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month said the state will sue if the EPA does not act on the state's request by October 25.

 

"We're preparing a lawsuit but we certainly don't want to bring it," Brown told the panel Tuesday.

 

The auto regulations are a key part of California's overall strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for the Earth's warming temperature over the last three decades. The state is the world's 12th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, 40 percent of which come from transportation sources.

 

The state last year embarked on a statewide effort to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020. A 2006 law relies on the auto regulations to accomplish 17 percent of the overall target.

 

President Bush last week signed an executive order giving federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and what to do about them. Critics fear the directive could undermine state efforts.

 

In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Monday, Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Bush's directive "sounds like more of the same inaction and denial."

 

--__

 

Associated Press Writer Samantha Young in Sacramento contributed to this report.

I average 30 to 31 MPG in my mid-sized Fusion. Sounds like an anti domestic comment! It's also funny the mid-sized line up came just after the fuel price manipulation began. Why would an "anti domestic" be hanging around on a Ford forum? Are you a paid blogger. If you don't like Ford products, then why waste your time?

Edited May 29, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[fmccap]

They call this a consensus?

Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

 

 

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

[fmccap]

Hey planet, why is this never talked about?

Global Warming Deception – Part I

In the aforementioned "hockey stick" graph, the medieval global warming between 950 and 1450 was ignored completely. Yet, it still was published without this data in the 1996 U.N. report.

 

In 2006, Mann admitted for the first time that his graph was inaccurate for the period before the year 1400 and that this phase was not represented quite correctly.

 

Nevertheless, politics won't allow further deliberation concerning this issue.

[Edsel]

The left had me nuked in the 60s, smogged in the 70s, frozen in the 80s, ozoned in the 90s, and flooded in the noughts. What's next?

 

 

What's next??? Were you sleeping :boring: at the WPT program on Globalization and the Environment course last year? Or did you miss it?

 

Ed.

[Savetheplanet]

Ford joined USCAP yesterday and is calling for Carbon caps

 

 

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...432/1148/AUTO01

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4924665.html

Edited June 28, 2007 by Savetheplanet

[Trimdingman]

What's next??? Were you sleeping :boring: at the WPT program on Globalization and the Environment course last year? Or did you miss it?

 

Ed.

 

What is WPT? World Poker Tour? People are going to be so caught up in the Texas Hold'em gambling craze in the 2010s that they will ignore the environment? The government will have to tax every pot at 10%. We will be "pokered" in the '10s.

[fmccap]

Ford joined USCAP yesterday and is calling for Carbon caps

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...432/1148/AUTO01

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4924665.html

Why waste the time and money????

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

 

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

 

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

[ebritt]

Gore is a GCC God now. The fools have lined up behind him and will never admit defeat....never.

[Furious1Auto]

We're have NOT and will NOT censor or monitor pure free speech. What we're talking about here are unnecessary verbal attacks on other members. If you want to argue a point on its merits, great. But continued personal attacks (like ass-wipe, fuck stick, photo images, etc.) have no place here as they offer no debate or intelligent discussion.

They can create a new account or we can prevent them - we know their I.P.'s and who they are. Our T.O.S. clearly state that once you are banned you may not register again. If people keep coming here causing problems, we'll have our lawyers handle it.

 

As everyone knows, we SELDOM venture into the Ford Employee section. But personal attacks are out hand. Not only are personal attacks not acceptable, but it reflects badly on Ford and Ford employees. Image what Ford enthusiasts and consumers think when they read this stuff?

 

Like we stated above, it is NOT our intention or censor posts or discussion. It IS our intention to eliminate personal attacks, which offer nothing.

Personally I know all of the ways that forums use to boot users and every single one of them have channels around them! Proxy servers, Alternate MAC addresses, and clean sweep for tracking implants (cookies). I don't cause trouble but, you will never keep me out as long as I want in. Ask MZ6ZoomZoom on FordFusionClub.com I think he beleave's that he banned me while we still post on common threads. I didn't initiate the verbal abuse though, I had two outsiders bashing autoworkers and defended myself. It just so happened that the moderator chose the wrong side!

Edited July 3, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Savetheplanet]

Why waste the time and money????

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

You can post all the anti Gore Op-ed's uou want but it still doesn't change the fact the the scientific community overwhelminly believes in ACC

 

Open up your wallet!

[fmccap]

You can post all the anti Gore Op-ed's uou want but it still doesn't change the fact the the scientific community overwhelminly believes in ACC

 

Open up your wallet!

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

Wake up with the rest of the people.