White House, Democrats reach deal on $15 billion auto aid

[96 Pony]

I guess that's true if your definition of "giving the people what they want" is citing a different company each year having a different "novelty" car among the most popular. Where are those 300 and Mustang sales now?

 

Well, the LX cars are getting long in the tooth. But they still fulfill a niche that GM and Ford abandoned and are still the top sellers in that retail market.

 

The Mustang - that is a silly question. Even tho the Challenger is probably the better of the two, the Mustang, as always, will survive. :shades:

[twmalonehunter]

................................................ Even tho the Challenger is probably the better of the two, ........................

 

 

 

huh?

[GT-Keith]

Even tho the Challenger is probably the better of the two

 

Are you kidding me? Better engine, lighter, better looking, richer history, better after market support, Nearly as fast as the SRT8 and thousands cheaper = Challenger better? No. In fact, theres nothing thats under $50 grand thats as good as the Mustang GT in terms of price/performance, not even the GT500.

[AGR]

P.S. - I am stil waiting on the Global Cooling we were warned about when I was a senior in the early 80's/

From the way the global temps are trending, you may get your wish on the Global Cooling.

[Noah Harbinger]

richer history

 

I've heard a lot of ridiculous criteria for purchasing a car, but "history" has to top the list.

[Noah Harbinger]

P.S. - I am stil waiting on the Global Cooling we were warned about when I was a senior in the early 80's/

 

Don't play dumb -- you didn't hear about it until 5 years ago, when oil companies pulled an obscure article from an old stack of NY Times about a novel theory that never attracted much attention or credit. Right-wingers have manufactured the "global cooling crisis" in a lame attempt to conceal the unanimous scientific evidence of global warming, to convince us that we can avoid our responsibility for climate change. And dupes like you fall for it hook, line, and sinker, because it tells you what you want to hear.

 

From the way the global temps are trending, you may get your wish on the Global Cooling.

 

Huh?

 

 

We're at the bottom of a trough in the 11-year sunspot cycle (which adds a sinusoidal component to the general increasing trend, which you can readily observe historically), which is the only reason we've seen a few years' pause. I don't think you've got much to pin your hopes on.

[RangerM]

You really should use a graph of a more "geologic time" scale.

 

150 years is a blink of an eye on the grand scale.

[96 Pony]

Don't play dumb -- you didn't hear about it until 5 years ago, when oil companies pulled an obscure article from an old stack of NY Times about a novel theory that never attracted much attention or credit.

 

Incorrect answer. Unless you are my age, you do not recall or remember the Newsweek articles and the "scientific facts" that we were heading towards a global cooling in the late 70's - early 80's. We talked about this in high school science class at the time.

 

As for my opinions on the Challenger - those are my opinions. I have to wait see the '10 Mustang in person but right now, if I were in the market, the Challanger would be pretty tempting.

 

But that will last a few years and then the Mustang will once again probably not have any more competition. :shades:

[V8 Ford]

This is new science. Consensus is used as evidence and straw-man arguments are used as rebuttal.

 

That goes for both sides of the argument that use those fallacious tactics.

[Noah Harbinger]

You really should use a graph of a more "geologic time" scale.

 

150 years is a blink of an eye on the grand scale.

 

I've used the geological time scale graph before. We're already within a degree of the highest temperature ever extrapolated from the ice cores.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Noah Harbinger

[Noah Harbinger]

This is new science. Consensus is used as evidence and straw-man arguments are used as rebuttal.

 

That goes for both sides of the argument that use those fallacious tactics.

 

I will readily admit that consensus by itself doesn't prove anything. But when the ratio is 20:1, only one side is producing any evidence.

 

Those arguing against anthropogenic climate change have failed to produce any explanation for the observed temperature variations. It seems like best the other side can do is say... "Temperatures have always changed, we have no way to know if this is being caused by us", despite dozens of well-studied aspects of human changes to the environment that can be conclusively shown to trap more heat in the atmosphere. Certainly, a number of solar cycles have been studied, but those that best account for past temperature variations do not account for the temperature variations we currently see.

 

So... if the 'natural-variation'-ers want to be taken seriously, they need to produce some sort of theory, with actual evidence, that can be tested. Until then, I'll lump them in with young-earth creationists, astrologists, psychics, flat-earthers, speakers-in-tongues, and supply-side economists.

[Noah Harbinger]

Why did I give in to the temptation to reply to an off-topic?

 

Back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

It will be interesting to see whether the oversight Congress is demanding over any bailout gives Ford a competitive advantage over GM (assuming it they don't take the money in the near future).

[RangerM]

I've used the geological time scale graph before. We're already within a degree of the highest temperature ever extrapolated from the ice cores.

 

Wait......

 

You mean we've seen these temperatures before, pre-industrial age?

 

I will readily admit that consensus by itself doesn't prove anything. But when the ratio is 20:1, only one side is producing any evidence.

 

So... if the 'natural-variation'-ers want to be taken seriously, they need to produce some sort of theory, with actual evidence, that can be tested. Until then, I'll lump them in with young-earth creationists, astrologists, psychics, flat-earthers, speakers-in-tongues, and supply-side economists.

 

Jurassic Period; Average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm

Cambrian Period; Average CO2 concentrations were about 7000 ppm

Ordovician Period; Average CO2 concentrations were about 4400 ppm (Note: this was an ice age).

 

In all cases, CO2 was higher than today without man's influence, and yet in all cases it went down. Today we are less than 400 ppm CO2.

 

Why did I give in to the temptation to reply to an off-topic?

 

Because it's just too tempting.

Edited December 8, 2008 by RangerM

[grbeck]

Actually I'm going to predict that Obama will end up being more like Johnson ("Great Society", civil rights, etc)... with some major differences:

 

1) The conservative democrats have, more or less, already left the party, so he doesn't have to worry about a schism forming over the direction he takes the party.

 

Write that down and call me back in 4 years.

 

The gains the Democrats made in 2006 were the result of candidates like Heath Shuler...who is anything but a conventional liberal. If anything, he and many of his class of 2006 companions are pulling the party back to the center. Right now, the Democrats are still giddy over their victories...but when that wears off, and they actually have to govern, the schisms will resurface

 

And Obama owes his victory to independents and moderate Republicans, not leftists. If he tracks too far left, he risks a repeat of the 1994 election, when voters gave Congress to the Republicans after Clinton tried to "talk right, but govern left."

[Drake]

It's funny Chris Dodd wants GM's CEO to resign. He should do same thing along with the majority of congress for running the country into the ground. THEY are the ones who hold the purse strings.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Drake

[V8 Ford]

I will readily admit that consensus by itself doesn't prove anything. But when the ratio is 20:1, only one side is producing any evidence.

 

Those arguing against anthropogenic climate change have failed to produce any explanation for the observed temperature variations. It seems like best the other side can do is say... "Temperatures have always changed, we have no way to know if this is being caused by us", despite dozens of well-studied aspects of human changes to the environment that can be conclusively shown to trap more heat in the atmosphere. Certainly, a number of solar cycles have been studied, but those that best account for past temperature variations do not account for the temperature variations we currently see.

 

So... if the 'natural-variation'-ers want to be taken seriously, they need to produce some sort of theory, with actual evidence, that can be tested. Until then, I'll lump them in with young-earth creationists, astrologists, psychics, flat-earthers, speakers-in-tongues

I'll keep this brief because it's off topic and I'm not interest in arguing,

 

I'll take evidence, I'm just sick of a scientific issue being presented as 'Global Warming, or you're with big oil', or 'Climate Change hoax, or you're being screwed by the liberals'. Moreover, as temperatures have varied in the past, the burden of proof is on global warming theory to establish its claims, not skeptics to explain how the climate works. I'm not arguing for or against; I'm not an AOSS major, and I've never studied the subject in detail. What I do know is the difference between science and politics and I'm sick of seeing the latter infect a good thing.