As a good nurse should.

  1. In todays world of Gas Emissions being the prime cause of Green House Effect and Global Warming and pollution and all that other stuff. I now as my primary vehicle drive a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon and is very friendly to the enviroment.

    I rarely drive my 66 GTO with the High Rise manifold and the Dual Quads. much as I love that car. It just feels so darn good to be in. I love pulling up next to a police car and smiling at them and revving my engine a little. As I wave at them.

    But nowadays I drive my fuel efficient car with good gas mileage thaat is set to run on Ethanol. Not as much fun, but socially so much more responsible.

    Shouldnt all nurses be as responsible and give up their gas hogs, for better air, decreased global warming, decreased dependence on foriegn oil. Save the air and help Save our Troops by getting them home. So they are not fighting for oil and Halliburton
    •  
  2. 23 Comments

  3. by   gonzo1
    I agree. That's why I use my Harley for everything I can. 45 miles per gallon.
  4. by   leslie :-D
    anyone who makes that choice, should do so as an inhabitant on this earth-
    not because they're a nurse.
    as a nurse, my only responsibilities are to my pts.
    i don't want any additional pressures to be the ubiquitous doer of all things noble.

    on a personal level, yes, i recycle, and am conscientous about the products i buy, including cars.

    leslie
  5. by   Jolie
    My family would never fit in an econo-box, and even if we did, I would still choose a larger vehicle that offers better protection in the event of an accident. No offense, but I don't want to end up in the ER because my tin can lost to an SUV.

    I've had 2 serious accidents (once hit by an allegedly drunk driver, and once hit by a delivery truck that lost control on ice). Both times, I was driving a small econo-car, and both times I paid the price. I won't subject my kids to that risk.
  6. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Jolie
    My family would never fit in an econo-box, and even if we did, I would still choose a larger vehicle that offers better protection in the event of an accident. No offense, but I don't want to end up in the ER because my tin can lost to an SUV.

    I've had 2 serious accidents (once hit by an allegedly drunk driver, and once hit by a delivery truck that lost control on ice). Both times, I was driving a small econo-car, and both times I paid the price. I won't subject my kids to that risk.
    I agree.

    Plus, a great number of scientists disagree on the cause of "global warming". So, nothing we do will change it anyway.

    I gave my oldest son a great book for Christmas, "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming" by Christopher Horner. I've read it too. A very good history of the environmental movement and the entire topic of global warming.

    "History of Natural Warming"


    Nonetheless, Horner concedes (as do most so-called "climate skeptics") that there is some scientific validity to the theory of man-made global warming. The release of carbon dioxide, a natural constituent of the atmosphere but also the byproduct of all fossil fuel combustion, has a warming effect on the planet. But Horner asserts that such man-made warming is far from catastrophic.
    He begins by distinguishing man-made from natural warming. Temperatures have increased over the last century and especially the last 30 years, and many point to this as evidence of a dangerous human-induced warming. But temperatures have risen and fallen many times before that -- including a cooling period from the 1940s to 1970s that gave rise to the global-cooling scare. Horner also notes that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (around 1100 to 1400, well before SUV-driving Americans could be blamed) had temperatures that rivaled or exceeded those of today. Scientists dispute how much current warming is due to mankind, but the historical context shows that natural climate fluctuations are both normal and substantial.
    Beyond the question about whether warming is natural or man-made, Horner also demonstrates that the consequences will likely be modest. Virtually all of the truly terrifying claims linked to global warming -- massive sea-level rise, epidemics of malaria and other tropical diseases, and greatly increased hurricanes -- are not true and lie outside any scientific consensus. They get far more play in Al Gore's documentary and book, An Inconvenient Truth, than they do among scientists. Horner's extensive scientific footnotes on this point show that there is considerable support for his assertions.. . . .



    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19373










    steph
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Sep 28, '07
  7. by   Spidey's mom
    global warming hysteria
    by walter e. williams

    posted: 09/25/2007



    despite increasing evidence that man-made co2 is not a significant greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change, politicians and others who wish to control our lives must maintain that it is.

    according to the detroit free press, rep. john dingell wants a 50-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline. we've heard such calls before, but there's a new twist. dingell also wants to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction on what he calls "mcmansions," homes that are 3,000 square feet and larger. that's because larger homes use more energy.

    one might wonder about dingell's magnanimity in increasing taxes for only homes 3,000 feet or larger. the average u.s. home is around 2,300 square feet, compared with europe's average of 1,000 square feet. so why doesn't dingell call for disallowing mortgage deductions on houses more than 1,000 square feet? the reason is there would be too much political resistance, since more americans own homes under 3,000 square feet than over 3,000. the full agenda is to start out with 3,000 square feet and later lower it in increments.

    • our buying into global warming hysteria will allow politicians to do just about anything, upon which they can muster a majority vote, in the name of fighting climate change as a means to raise taxes.



    in addition to excuses to raise taxes, congressmen are using climate change hysteria to funnel money into their districts. rep. david l. hobson, r-ohio, secured $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration project. rep. adam b. schiff, d-calif., got $500,000 for a fuel-cell project by superprotonic, a pasadena company started by caltech scientists. money for similar boondoggles is being called for by members of both parties.

    there are many ways to reduce co2 emissions, and being 71 years of age i know many of them. al gore might even consider me carbon neutral and possibly having carbon credits because my carbon offsets were made in advance. for example, for the first 15 years of my life, i didn't use energy-consuming refrigerators; we had an icebox. for two decades i listened to radio instead of watching television and walked or used public transportation to most places. and for more than half my life i didn't use energy-consuming things such as computers, clothes dryers, air conditioning and microwave ovens. of course, my standard of living was much lower.

    the bottom line is, serious efforts to reduce co2 will lead to lower living standards through higher costs of living. and it will be all for naught because there is little or no relationship between man-made co2 emissions and climate change.

    there's an excellent booklet available from the national center for policy analysis (ncpa.org) titled "a global warming primer." some of its highlights are:

    "over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between co2 levels and temperature."

    "humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual co2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.

    "there was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (cambrian period) when co2 levels were 18 times higher than today. during the jurassic period, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, co2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today."

    what about public school teachers frightening little children with tales of cute polar bears dying because of global warming? the primer says, "polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century." the primer gives detailed sources for all of its findings, and it supplies us with information we can use to stop politicians and their environmental extremists from doing a rope-a-dope on us.
  8. by   Jo Dirt
    I'll bet Al Gore and the rest of his cronies trying to make everyone else feel guilty for the way they live don't ride around in those dorkmobiles.
    Just like he wrote Earth and the Balance.

    But I agree on one thing, I wish those soldiers could come back here where they belong. But war is a rich man's game using the poor as pawns and you know what they say about the root of all evil.
  9. by   Oz2
    Lmao! Yeah...Dr. Williams certainly has the credentials to back up his 'opinion' on Global warming. I think I'll stick with the MAJORITY of scientists who are actually experts in the field. You know...those from the scientific fact-based community.

    Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.
    Global warming aside, our dependence on foreign oil is as important a consideration. I completely understand those of you with families wanting/needing a larger vehicle. Hopefully soon, Toyota will make a nice-sized fuel-efficient hybrid that will be attractive to those consumers (lord knows US car makers are failing in that regard).

    I was a life-long truck girl...I thought. I traded my 1500 Tundra for a Pruis last year when I couldn't justify having that gas guzzler and I'm really happy I did. It's a great car! I'm averaging 45 mpg.

    I also buy the long-lasting fluorescent lightbulbs and the other day bought reusable grocery bags. I've turned into a real tree-hugger in my old age....go figure!

    ETA: Looks like Mr. Horner, THE LAWYER, also fails my test of trusted sources. What right-wing, lobbying think tank did he crawl out from under? Oh, never mind...this one... http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_Expert.cfm?Expert=148
    Last edit by Oz2 on Sep 28, '07
  10. by   leslie :-D
    i'm just trying to follow the logic here.
    even if the majority of global warming is r/t natural disaster, does that absolve man of contributory demise?
    does that mean we needn't do anything because essentially, it's not our fault?
    hmmmm....
    i guess it's ok that i wear fur coats because i didn't kill the mink.
    maybe it is ok that i litter, since the majority of pollutants is r/t other toxins.
    besides, it's only me....1 person.
    so who does it affect?

    leslie
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Walter E. Williams is a very smart man (look at the credentials you posted) I love him. I'm not laughing my Arse off . . . . .:spin:

    He has footnoted information from scientists who do not agree with the scaremongers.

    So does the book I mentioned - hundreds of them.

    There is a huge disagreement among scientists . . . . and consensus is NOT science.

    steph
  12. by   Jolie
    Quote from oz2
    lmao! yeah...dr. williams certainly has the credentials to back up his 'opinion' on global warming. i think i'll stick with the majority of scientists who are actually experts in the field. you know...those from the scientific fact-based community.

    have you ever read any of dr. williams' writings, or heard him speak? he is one of the most intelligent, articulate individuals i've ever had to pleasure to encounter. he doesn't claim to possess credentials in the pure sciences. he does claim to be able to analyze data, make sense of it, and put it into terms that the average joe can understand. he is a critical thinker, and teaches others to be as well, as opposed to blindly following "experts" such as al gore. dr. williams used to be part of a sunday morning debate show in the philadelphia tv market. i don't know if he still is, but it would be worth a look-see if you live in that area.

    global warming aside, our dependence on foreign oil is as important a consideration. i completely understand those of you with families wanting/needing a larger vehicle. hopefully soon, toyota will make a nice-sized fuel-efficient hybrid that will be attractive to those consumers (lord knows us car makers are failing in that regard).

    i was a life-long truck girl...i thought. i traded my 1500 tundra for a pruis last year when i couldn't justify having that gas guzzler and i'm really happy i did. it's a great car! i'm averaging 45 mpg.

    i also buy the long-lasting fluorescent lightbulbs and the other day bought reusable grocery bags. i've turned into a real tree-hugger in my old age....go figure!
    i think it's great that you have changed your living habits in response to your concern for the environment and our dependence on foreign oil. for politicians to force others to make changes (thru prohibitive taxation, for example) is wrong, especially when science doesn't support these theories.
  13. by   Jo Dirt
    Also, I don't know many nurses who drive 66 GTO's at about 6mpg.

    Most people would probably drive cars that got 100 milles per gallon if we could get the manufacturers to import them into the US instead of excluding them from the US market. Example: Volkswagon has a very economical car and popular in Europe: the Lupo, which can average 100mpg and is still comfortable and about like a Honda Civic with a top speed of a little over 90. It is a 2 cylinder diesel engine (which is MUCH more economical than hybrids). The reality is it is simply a matter of the oil companies and Dubya wanting to squeeze as much money from Americans as possible.
    It is a matter of economics.

    But as for global warming, the climate goes through changes and cycles. If you read up on the dust bowl and what the climate was like back in the 30's you can see it is all a matter of people preying on the ignorance of others. As long as we are a nation of followers and not critical thinkers we will continue to fall for these scams.
  14. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from earle58
    i'm just trying to follow the logic here.
    even if the majority of global warming is r/t natural disaster, does that absolve man of contributory demise?
    does that mean we needn't do anything because essentially, it's not our fault?
    hmmmm....
    i guess it's ok that i wear fur coats because i didn't kill the mink.
    maybe it is ok that i litter, since the majority of pollutants is r/t other toxins.
    besides, it's only me....1 person.
    so who does it affect?

    leslie
    Les - I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy a Prius if they wish. I believe in the free market, after all.

    I'm glad LA has less pollution. I want to drink clean water.

    Just don't force me to buy a Prius or force me to change out my lightbulbs or force me to use cloth shopping bags or force me to pay more in taxes for things that are not proven.

    steph

close