The point is those other emissions other than CO2 are NOT zero. Why else would vehicles be given different emissions ratings based on how much NOx, particulate matter, CO, etc. they produce? You really believe that air quality warnings are due to lots of vehicles running around w/o fully warmed up engines?
As for moving to diesel, why? Because they produce more of the above? BTW, hybrids are not tied to a specific fuel source. Diesel hybrids exist.
As usual, you've gone on thrown around a bunch of numbers which support your positions and made a bunch of calculations which seem to support it to. It's funny that you mention "Friends of Science". I'd not heard of the before, but apparently, they're a dubious group which receives a lot of funding from big oil. There are some mentions of this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science.
It's also funny that you mention arctic ice core samples. At the page I mentioned in my post http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html, it says "See Figure 1 for a record of CO2 concentrations from about 420,000 years ago to present." Figure 1 leads to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html#fig1. You can see the CO2 level fluctuations and see that we're MUCH higher than ever were going back 420,000 years.
Again, even if you think global warming caused by human activities and CO2 emissions is all BS, what about the other harmful pollutants?
I agree we need to get more fuel efficient cars, but are hybrids the way to go? I mean they use some type of nickel batteries, which are terrible for the environment when made and eventually disregarded. The product lifestyle for a hybrid is less than a regular care because the batteries go bad around 100000 miles. Furthermore their gas mileage is not phenomenally better than regular cars, realistically they get about 40-45mpg, while regular cars can now get 30 maybe 35.
With the electric car it again uses batteries, and electricity. Many assume that because they use electricity they are automatically green. However what?s the number 1 way of producing electricity in the USA, coal, gas, nuclear, does that not defeat the purpose of an electric car? I must admit an electric motor is highly more efficient than a combustion.
People are talking about ethenol, but how much work does it take to grow, harvest, and produce it.
Everyone needs to look at all the benefits and shortcomings to every technology, from production to destruction.
Basically their is no silver bullet for our energy needs. What we need is another Manhattan project for energy.
- ASU Bioengineering Student

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic