The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

New Hydrogen Car = More Pollution than a Blown 800ci Chevy

by buildakicker / June 16, 2008 5:43 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: New Hydrogen Car = More Pollution than a Blown 800ci Chevy
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: New Hydrogen Car = More Pollution than a Blown 800ci Chevy
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Pet peeve
by milkky / June 16, 2008 5:57 AM PDT

There ought to be a law that every article on the Net has to have a date on it. Can't tell when this was written. Has a reference from something in 2005 but at the very bottom it says "Last revised: January 10, 2003". Run into this everywhere--makes me not know whether this is incorporating any new recent findings/issues and results in me ignoring it.

May have wonderful insights and vast usefulness, but now I'll never know.

Collapse -
greenhouse gasses no longer composed of h2o?
by robstak / June 19, 2008 7:56 AM PDT
In reply to: Pet peeve

lol im just playin, but 2003 is actually pretty recent...

Collapse -
(NT) Al Gore is a myth.
by kwahhn / June 16, 2008 6:47 AM PDT
Collapse -
Sigh
by Nicholas Buenk / June 16, 2008 11:41 AM PDT

Just look at these 2 graphs and tell me man is having no impact on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
Also, the hotter the planet get due to green house gases the more water vapor in the atmosphere, hence your url misses the point. This acts as a catalyst in causing more water in the atmosphere, from evaporation. Carbon dioxide has increased dramatically in the last few decades, but according to your url only 3% of the carbon dioxide in the air is mad made. I would be extremely sceptical of that figure.

Collapse -
(NT) lol, wikipedia sources....lol
by kwahhn / June 16, 2008 12:02 PM PDT
In reply to: Sigh
Collapse -
Wikipedia is good
by Nicholas Buenk / June 16, 2008 5:47 PM PDT

And those urls I supplied, do supply references.

Collapse -
(NT) So we need to cease farming and growing crops?
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / June 16, 2008 11:32 PM PDT
In reply to: Sigh
Collapse -
The impact is on Mankind, not the planet
by Vance14 / June 18, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
In reply to: Sigh

If you consider the history of this planet and the massive, cataclysmic changes it has gone through over and over again, the impact Mankind is currently having is just a drop in the bucket. The earth will continue to evolve and change and shift and develop, with us and eventually without us.

The importance of what Mankind is doing to the planet is the impact on Mankind itself. The earth will go on its merry way, but we are just making it very difficult for us to continue being a part of that future, at least not in the manner to which we have become accustomed during this generally warm and wet and happy climate the last 20,000 years or so.

Collapse -
Yes of course
by Nicholas Buenk / June 21, 2008 12:27 PM PDT

The planet has gone through a lot in the past, infact there are some past events of global warming from green house gasesl, from natural causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event (Actually very interesting event, volcanism lava flows into an area with large coal deposits, also disturbing the ocean and causing the release of methane from methane clathrates on the ocean floors)
I'd say all human civilisation has been an effort to avoid the cruelness of nature, but if we're not careful it can still bite us.

Collapse -
Exactly
by Vance14 / June 23, 2008 12:36 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes of course

Human history can never be one of "leave no trace" and allowing the natural world to run its course, but instead one of controlling nature to allow for continued comfortable human existence. The problem currently, of course, is that we are controlling so poorly that we will make the planet unlivable for humans even sooner than would happen naturally!

Now, I agree with environmentalism, though, purely from pragmatic and aesthetic motivations. First, we have proven that we make very bad choices (especially when short term greed is allowed to be the determining factor), so keeping things as natural as possible until we know even more than we do is usually a good policy. Second, rampant greed-based changes are usually not good for the beauty of our environment either.

Collapse -
Funny

Once its rains the "water" foot print is back to normal.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.