Software·43,883 discussions

The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

Locked

….. Audi trying to send?

One might think that since the purpose of advertizing is to sell a product, then Audi’s message was to sell the “green” aspects of its automobiles. And in order to do it, they used a bit of humor and satire. However, humor and satire is only effective if it’s based on a hint of truth.

That [i]hint of truth[/i] is what’s troubling to me – especially since it’s all based on lies and deceptions in the first place.

Is there anyone who doubts that the most extreme environmentalists (a group that’s grown significantly into the mainstream), if they could get their way, would wish this outcome to be more truth than satire?

I stand firm, as I always have. The whole global warming/climate change claim is a political agenda in search of justification. And even now, as their justification is being exposed as lies, cover-ups, and deceptions, the agenda continues – even though the mainstream media is ignoring this deception.

Be careful of what you wish for (and vote for). You just might get it.

Edit: In a way, Audi made my point in 30 seconds better than I’ve been able to make it over the past 10 years. But then again, they spent millions of dollars to make it.

Edit number two: But I’m still a bit confused. What, exactly, was Audi’s point?

Edit number three: I’m still not sure, should I love this commercial or hate it?

Topic

I have no idea what Audi’s point is.

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

I also don’t get the bandwagon/follower mindset.

Politics is five nines of BS.

“The whole global warming/climate change claim is a political agenda in search of justification. And even now, as their justification is being exposed as lies, cover-ups, and deceptions, the agenda continues – even though the mainstream media is ignoring this deception.”

Yeah. Uh huh.

The propaganda machine

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

turned on the moment the first human discovered the gullibility of others. It was Hollywood, with some help from Psychology that glamorized smoking and stoked the fire for diamonds. (A documentary I saw once on diamonds, two parter)

Propaganda is propaganda. Down to the point that no matter it’s form, it serves the same master; that of power.

IMO

That said,

In reply to The propaganda machine

that’s a nifty, twisted little thing, isn’t it?

Windmills

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

It’s windmills, Maxwell.

On Windmills

In reply to Windmills

Without researching the exact chronology of events and precise details, I recall that the [i]green activists[/i] were touting T. Boone Pickens (a former Texas oil man) and his plan to built giant wind farms in Texas when he purchased (from G.E) hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of wind turbines. There were ads and articles about it all over the place – primarily political ads, of course.

Recently, however, I read that T. Boone Pickens was trying to SELL those wind turbines because of funding and transmission problems, as well as other issues.

Well, those of us who were never opposed to wind energy – if it could stand on its own devices – but we weren’t on the [i]green bandwagon[/i], so to speak, because we realize(d) wind energy isn’t cost effective and getting the energy from the point of collection to the point of need would be an issue – funding and transmission.

Where’s the news that T. Boone Pickens changed his mind when faced with the reality of the thing?

I also heard that many wind turbines in Minnesota and other northern states are frozen right now and won’t rotate because of the cold weather. Maybe they need to engineer some coal-burning furnaces into the turbines to keep them warm and cozy on these cold days!

Regional engineers

In reply to On Windmills

It appears that many California based engineers aren’t used to freezing temperatures that are accompanied by ice and snow. I seem to recall a similar problem in Canada where an architectural firm based in California failed to consider snow buildup on a structure they were designing. They had to retrofit it.

At the same time, would engineers from Minnesota put a lot of thought into earthquake resistant windmills being built in California or other earthquake prone state? I would hope they would, but I don’t think there is a Uniform Building Code for structures like windmills. They are more industrial structures than buildings.

The Uniform Building Code

In reply to Regional engineers

isn’t uniform. The only codes I’m aware of that apply nationwide are the National Electrical Code and the National Fire Prevention Association codes.

Need a code? Choose your state, choose your code: http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/

In the case of Minnesota

In reply to Regional engineers

The issue is that those windmills are frozen in spite of the clearly worded REQUIREMENT that they be able to continue to operate in harsher weather than they have been handed. There were assurances made PRE-BID that clearly stated that the windmills would, in fact, manage to weather extremes in excess of what the requirement demanded.

I have bid jobs in colder areas of the US (than even the Twin Cities metro) where we had to validate up front that our equipment would manage to the temperature extremes experienced by that region. It isn’t that unusual. And even here in the Midwest, we are well aware that we can experience an earthquake.

It is, in the end, a question of understanding how to communicate your requirements and insuring that the winning firm be able to do more than SAY they can meet them.

basic economic..and some common sense

In reply to On Windmills

1. tbP chose the right moment to move ahead on his windmachines…oil was sky high in price…so the cost was not so much of an issue. a barrel of crude was at 150usd!

what has changed…pricing economics.

oil is substantially cheaper.

so sometimes, you have a great idea and the timing is right..and then prices change everything!

Wisconsin is an especially horrible case of a great idea, but not enough well designed cold weather strategy. You get the impression, it was simply meant to be a project, put it together, watch it spin..collect the money..and asta la vista baby…we “did not think about cold weather”..yeah right! where are those planner? probably comfortably retired in the tropics.

last comment: don’t count wind power out …it suprises most people to know how much windpower in the right places around the world supply a great amount of energy..and cheaply..and reliably…Unfortunately, we can’t blame wind power as the problem for wisconsins narrow vision on wind…obviously, there was some nieve planning in that cold place. You can insert your own estimates about the capabilities and real intentions of any state sponsored program for energy…case in point: amtrak..I rest my case.

I think tbP has the right ideas…but until it becomes more economically feasible (read: people grow weary of paying huge ransoms to big oil…it is unlikely to be anything of scale…what is more likely and possible is that small micro wind farms will be built to serve those people who are willing to own and maintain them..and locate there own resources..I find that possibility fascinating…there are actually many communities who are doing multi-verse methods of energy sourcing…right now, we are still in baby steps..one hundred years from now, it is likely there will be more than 20 different kinds of available energy sourcing..and none of them will be oil..unless you want that…but most will find that oil and its technologies are just not cost effective or reasonable for alot of issues it carries..political, environmental, etc.

I am not green, just a realist.

“no change is permanent, but change is” – RUSH

Aloha
tm

You wouldn’t mean the emails? {NT}

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

🙂

The first thing I noticed

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

was the guy ‘busted’ for selecting plastic bags, but no ‘charges’ against the store for offering them.

I received no ‘green’ message personally. It was just another auto ad that spent almost no time discussing the car. I immediately forgot who it was about until you reminded me.

Your right

In reply to The first thing I noticed

I’ll remember the “Green Police” for a long time. What was the car company’s name? Bad advertising.

I think that may be part of Max’s point

In reply to Your right

Not to put words in Max’s mouth, but I think this may be a little of what he was getting at. The commercial was very memorable. However, I wouldn’t be able tell you the name of the company that produced it (remembered that it was a car company, at least) without a reminder.

So, what was the point of the ad if it wasn’t to promote the car (doesn’t seem as though it was)?? Seemed very politically poignant…much more so than the “controversial” Tim Tebow ad (if that was at all controversial, than this country has truly turned into a nation of ninnies).

The part of the commercial that I’ll remember most is the guy getting busted for doing something inside of his own home (orange rind offense).

It’s a pity that the media has made a big deal about the ‘Holy Trinity’ commercial (Leno, Oprah, Letterman), and has paid no mind to this one.

See, there’s another one that made no impact on me.

In reply to I think that may be part of Max’s point

I recall them now that you mentioned it, but I couldn’t tell you what they were pitching if my life depended on it. Not even a product category, much less a brand name. At least I remember the ‘Green’ ad was for a car.

Way, way off-topic: Can’t the NFL find a half-time act that doesn’t have it’s pre-game warm-up over the ‘Senior Special’ at Denny’s? The Who? As in ‘Who do we think we’re kidding?’ C’mon, the Stones at least had a hit since 1980.

100% Agreement!! Half time show was an abomination.

In reply to See, there’s another one that made no impact on me.

Ever since ‘Nipplegate’, the NFL has lived up to their billing as the No Fun League.

Here’s a novel idea. Since the Grammys usually precede the Super Bowl, why not start a tradition where one of the major category winners (Best Song or Best Album) plays at halftime; along the lines of the SB MVP going to Disney World?? It is a big $$$ gig with a worldwide audience…seems to me that would up the stake for the Grammy awards quite a bit.

Granted, not everyone may be a fan of the music, but at least you’re partnering the music of the year with the game of the season; for better or worse.

Who foots the bill?

In reply to 100% Agreement!! Half time show was an abomination.

Does the league pay for the show? If so, save the money and use the time to run the ‘Punt, Pass, and Kick’ finals. Hell, have Frisbee catching dogs; there’s a great use for those wire-mounted cameras!

Does anyone actually watch the musical stage shows? They send me straight to the can, with a return trip via an extended stay in the kitchen. Drop the whole freaking format and cut halftime down to the regular season norm of 12 minutes.

Of course you would

In reply to I think that may be part of Max’s point

When you are looking for a new car, you instantly recognize any ads for the tyoe of car you are looking for.

Car ads don’t need to be like detergent or chocolate milk ads, where people who don’t normally buy a certain brand may try one due to a commercial.

They are only looking to draw people who are comparing vehicles already, those are the people that close. When you are comparing Audio, Lexus, Infinity, BMW etc. You instantly recognize ads and they stay with you.

When someone buys a new car, they notice THOUSANDS of thyem when driving and compare their purchase in their mind. There were just as many 351i’s on the road last week, but this week you notice them all, just as you dothe number of cars that you were also considering.

“There’s my car, I don’t like it in that colur thogh, glad I got black.”

“There’s the Audi, I’m glad I didn’t end up with one, I just don’t like teh rims.”

If you are not in the target market, the commercial is meaningless.

‘Perhaps’ that’s why Max found it so confusing, however I think he just wanted to throw out another BS thread, knowing full well it was just a trolling post to begin with.

What do I know?

In reply to Your right

I don’t understand the appeal of ‘talking’ babies. I certainly am not going to take financial advice from one, so I didn’t bother to remember the name of that firm either. The only SB product that stuck with me positively was Betty White and Abe Vigoda playing football for Snickers. The only ones that have stayed with me long-term are the Budweiser frogs, Apple’s ‘1984’, and Tabasco’s exploding mosquito.

The Clydesdales

In reply to What do I know?

I love the commercials with the Clydesdales. Such beautiful horses and the premises are always good.

Make a commercial to rival EDS’ “Cat Herding”. THAT, my friend, is worthy television!

I kind of like this year’s “Hard to keep friends apart”

In reply to The Clydesdales

The image of that longhorn trotting alongside the Clydesdales stuck with me.

Bud usually does great ads. I don’t usually drink any of their products, although the American Ale is worth paying for.

Again it is target marketing

In reply to What do I know?

A woman by nature seeks such security in life. After havign a child she is more apt to want such security and be enamoured by cute babies.

How about the motorcyle with Ranier beer? That one stuck withy beer drinkers all over NOrth America for years. Note the key “BEER DRINKERS”. EVERY Campsite in North America had people standing around mimicking the Ranier Beer motorcycle coming down the highway and shifting gears to the Ranier Beer name. Stupid? Bloody clever is more like it. There is HUGE money in target marketing these days. One simple slogan, like teh baby sellign Michelin tires (a safety pitch from the 90’s, targeted to new families)made ‘the creative’ a millionaire instantly.

The psychology of advertising has come so far now that they don’t seek to attract looky loo’s anymore but consumers, in the market, educating themselves and ready to buy.

Unless you are in the market for a specific product, ads will be meaningless, salesmen waste less time, companies waste less money and sell more product.

Ranier Beer?

In reply to Again it is target marketing

Never saw the ad. Never heard of the product, for that matter. I get the point of the Michelin ads: safety.

Think Mt. Rainier

In reply to Ranier Beer?

Rainier beer was another regional product local to the northwest.

I had it once and that was enough for me. Olympia was better…at least with that you got to see Artesians.

The OLD Ranier ad on youtube

In reply to Think Mt. Rainier

Sorry, should have posted that before, it is pretty regional.

Point is, ever beer drinker in the NorthWest, at any sporting event, campsite etc. Did the ‘Ranier Beer motorcycle’ as soon as they opened one.

Cars don’t sell by discussing them

In reply to The first thing I noticed

Driving shows on TV, get into the details and specifications for selling cars manufacturer’s focus on the drivers feelings because FEELINGS sell cars. It’s been a fact of car marketing for decades.

In the late 60’s and 70’s, they were sold on a feeling of being masculine and tough, with a “muscle car”.

In the early to 80’s they were sold on a feeling of looking good. Sleek lines, smooth curves.

They were sold on a feeling of SAFETY in the 90’s.

Today they are sold on a feeling of being environmentally aware, with it and in the loop.

In order to sell cars here, even to be hired by a dealer, you have to be licensed. They can’t hire any salesman off the street, there are certified training organizations that train car sales staff.

I took my auto dealer’s certification training twice, 8 years apart for a refresher in new financing options and closing techniques.

The [b]entire[/b] focus when selling a car is fining out howe the customer WANTS to feel and SELLING them that feeling. That’s why they target the woman in the buying group, as she is more prone to be swayed to feeling a certain way.

Most dealers don’t even have to offer a price until the customer has signed a form saying that IF you are able to reach their target price, they will commit to the purchase.

When talking about price “What are you looking to spend?” “Fair enough, because I will have to talk the manager into selling below our asking price, I just need you to sign a release stating that if I am able to meet that figure, that you will take the car home today” Most manufacturers these days, don’t even allow sales to be reduced from sticker at all. It is fixed pricing, but you can fudge price on small, removable options.

No tire kickers and shoppers allowed.

The segue is to illustrate how cars are not actually sold on price at all, the customer is sold on feeling and committed to the purchase before even discussing costs and financing.

This is where people say, they’d never get me that way, I would never sign anything, blah blah blah. However people do, and must in most cases, as it is the only way to purchase a vehicle.

And I thought I hated buying a car here.

In reply to Cars don’t sell by discussing them

One of the reasons (but only one) I don’t get rid of a car until it dies is that I HATE the buying process. I only want one feeling when I sign the loan agreement: that I’m not getting ripped off.

A consumer buys a car at most every couple of years. The salesmen sell cars a few times a day. Clearly they have the advantage in the negotiation. Nothing wrong with that, but I try to avoid situations where I feel I’m at a disadvantage until it’s absolutely necessary.

It’s not something to fear

In reply to And I thought I hated buying a car here.

The actual buying process is usually not a rip off, just watch for additions like freight and PDI, THAT’S a scam. They really can’t lower prices too much these days, but they will add on what they SAY is added to all new purchases. Just make them include it.

I bought a new car with cash when I was 18, yeah I was living large at the time.

I pulled out a huge wad of $100 bills and said how much I’d pay. he then did the old, let me get permission from the manager routine. After finishing his coffee on another office he came back and said, “we have a deal.”

He then wrote up the paperwork which came out to several thousand more.

I laughed, picked up my cach and headed for teh door. When he asked where i was going, I told him, “That’s all I am paying, taxe, freight PDI etc, total price”

He begged me to sit down again as he went back to the manager. After he had finished his smoke out back, he came back and said, “Well you’re killing me but we have a deal.”

the point is, know what you want, know how much you will pay or what your TOTAL monthly finance budget is and go buy it. You don’t need the salesman for anything else but to sign the deal. Go through the motions with him but NEVER, EVER stray from your initial buying price. You can always walk, but they will go to extremes to keep you on the lot.

Don’t just threaten, get up and LEAVE.
They soon come running knowing that you are a buying customer and someone else will get yoru deal.

I recently got a car stereo for a friend, I could have got her a better deal from one of my clients in the industry ( I have lots of audio retailers in my contact list) but she had a needed to use her future Shop card for payment. When we got to the checkout after cutting a good deal, they sales rep said she needed the extended warranty. He said that without it, it would not be covered at all. So we started to leave and the saleman started fumbling to save it. I tole him that if it was THAT cheap, under $50, that he could include it too. A bit of debate and he ended up throwing it in.

Just avoid the add ons and stick to yoru price, buying a car really shouldn’t be a scary experience, if it is, leave and go elsewhere until you get just what you want.

Terrifying!

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

I thought the ad was assinine, but the concept was completely terrifying.

If that’s the world that Audi aspires to, count me out. I’ll buy another Accura.

I wonder if the Yanks have grown a sense of humour yet…

In reply to Terrifying!

Alas, no.

Talk about overreaction! Lighten up. Audi is a car manufacturer and their goal is simply to sell more cars! The advert was almost certainly devised by an American PR company and targeted at American audiences because we certainly haven’t seen it over here.

Maybe they thought you’d find it funny. Maybe they thought that subtlety would be a waste of time.

🙂

And you, Maxwell!

Sense of humor

In reply to I wonder if the Yanks have grown a sense of humour yet…

The ending reminded me of the last of Tim Conway’s fashion police comedy routines. He was going through the skit when the real police showed-up behind him and asked what was going on. It seems they didn’t think misrepresenting oneself as law enforcement was funny.

Come live it, mate!

In reply to I wonder if the Yanks have grown a sense of humour yet…

As a high-school student, in the late 1960’s we all laughed at Orwell’s “1984”. The mere thoughts he expressed were preposterous and unthinkable.

Anyone who was concerned then was “overreacting.”

Now, we’re living it.

Not “lighten up,” mate, “wake up!”

How are YOU “living it”

In reply to Come live it, mate!

those of us who observe the US from a distance don’t see much rational reaction to green issues. We do see lots of over-reaction in both directions (as here) but pretty much no action.

🙂

Speaking of reaction

In reply to How are YOU “living it”

What has been yours, Neil, to the latest spate of missteps, as well as new findings about solar maximums and minimums, with respect to climate?

Well, mostly annoyance

In reply to Speaking of reaction

I have always been a sceptical supporter of the GW cause. I like my science in big chunks that I can sit and digest slowly.

The furore that erupted last November following the release of emails that – we are told – demonstrated collusion between climate scientists to falsify evidence is, I guess, to what you are referring. The reaction – overreaction – of the media and those who don’t want climate change annoyed me. Shallow thinking always annoys me. None of the emails – genuine or not – altered the huge body of evidence from all scientific fields that supports the conclusion that climate change is caused largely by human activity. Once I dug a bit deeper into the story, I saw that the emails were mostly about paleoclimatology and that’s only one line of research among many. Until somebody can come along and disprove the basic physics, I’m stuck as a believer.

What we DO about it is a different matter, though.

You’re going to have to hit me with a link to your solar maxima and minima question. Nothing obvious has zipped across my radar.

Neil 🙂

Some believed that

In reply to Well, mostly annoyance

[i]demonstrated collusion between climate scientists to falsify evidence[/i]

But personally I think it was merely an ego thing… These guys simply weren’t going to sit by and LET others knock down their pet theories. [Nor were they going to HELP them do it!]

The revelations since then are far more interesting… Provably false statements in reports (“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world.”, “Over half of The Netherlands is below sea level.”), deleted (accidentally or not) raw data, making it impossible to repeat calculations,

[i]Until somebody can come along and disprove the basic physics, I’m stuck as a believer. [/i]

No, the “basic physics” have yet to be proven. The argument that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly affects the climate has only been “proven” circularly (It’s a warm climate, and there’s a lot of CO2, therefore CO2 causes warm climates). Except the last three (at least) warm climates were WARMER than the current one, and (according to them) CO2 levels were lower!

I know you said before that the causes of past climate changes are irrelevant, but I disagree. If you don’t know what caused past climate warm-ups, how can you know that the same thing isn’t happening now?

The most amazing thing to me is the extent of the continuing hubris of man… Each generation thinks it knows nearly everything, even after repeated examples of prior generations who also thought so, until it was proven that they didn’t. Will we never learn?

Basic Physics, Tony

In reply to Well, mostly annoyance

What I have yet to have explained away refers to the simple ability of Carbon dioxide to absorb electromagnetic energy in the infra-red part of the spectrum. It does this specifically at wavelengths that water vapour does not absorb.

This is irrefutable scientific fact.

There is more CO2 – a LOT more – in the atmosphere than a century ago.

This is irrefutable scientific fact. It’s measured.

This CO2 increase is generated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

This is irrefutable scientific fact. If you don’t believe me on this one, I’ll happily send you a link to the relevant isotope statistic studies that nail it.

Some solar Infra-red energy at the CO2 absorption wavelength would normally be “captured” and retransmitted down, some would usually escape to space. With more CO2, less is likely to escape. The Earth can be regarded as a simple Black Body – energy in equals energy out. If there is less energy out, WHERE DOES IT GO?

Now, if one of you sceptics can answer THAT one, you have a recruit for your cause.

MY answer is that it warms up the bloody atmosphere!

🙂

The reason that I don’t think that previous warming and cooling trends are particularly useful as pointers is because on this occasion, CO2 rise is leading the temperature rise rather than trailing it as it has done in the observable past.

Maybe that’s the point!

In reply to How are YOU “living it”

[i]We do see lots of over-reaction in both directions (as here) but pretty much no action.
[/i]

They’re distracting us from discovering the REAL conspiracy 🙂

This Yank has a sense of humor

In reply to I wonder if the Yanks have grown a sense of humour yet…

You said, “[i]Talk about overreaction! Lighten up.[/i]”

How did I overreact? (Or were you specifically addressing oldbaritone?)

You said, [i]”Audi is a car manufacturer and their goal is simply to sell more cars![/i]”

I said, “One might think that since the purpose of advertizing is to sell a product……”

So we agree. (And so far, no overreaction on my part.)

You said, [i]”The advert was almost certainly devised by an American PR company and targeted at American audiences……”[/i]

I said, “…..Audi’s message was to sell the “green” aspects of its automobiles. And in order to do it, they used a bit of humor and satire.”

Still, we are in agreement. (And still no overreaction on my part.)

You said, [i]”…..because we certainly haven’t seen it over here.”[/i]

Two points: Super Bowl adverts are almost anticipated as much as the game itself, they’re often discussed long after the football contest is forgotten, and they’re often graded on their originality and cleverness. They’re almost always shown for the first time during the Super Bowl, and they may or may not continue to be shown after their debut showing. And absolutely, I agree; this one targeted the American audience. The Brits are already sold on the [i]living green[/i] agenda, because you’ve obviously bought into the underlying reason, namely the mm-gw/cc claim, regardless of the overwhelming evidence that suggests it’s been a grand deception, and regardless of the dismal lack of proof to support the claim in the first place – the supporting arguments (which were never proven) are crumbling more and more as time goes by.

You said, [i]”Maybe they thought you’d find it funny.”[/i]

It was funny, but in a sad kind of way. I said, [i]”…..humor and satire is only effective if it’s based on a hint of truth. That hint of truth is what’s troubling to me – especially since it’s all based on lies and deceptions in the first place.”[/i]

You said, [i]”Maybe they thought that subtlety would be a waste of time.[/i]”

Sadly, trying to repair or prevent something – namely mm-gw/cc – that is nothing but a grand deceit is what could be described as a waste of time (and effort and money and….).

I’m all for living in a clean and pollution-free environment, as long as it’s within reason and a balance is maintained with economic and libertarian concerns.

“[i]Living Green”[/i], as it’s being forced onto our society, is not on my agenda; to the contrary, it’s an agenda I’m trying to stop – especially, like I said, it’s all based on a bunch of lies and deceptions. And there’s nothing funny about that.

As such, Audi certainly wasn’t trying to appeal to me. In fact, if anything, they’ve given support to an agenda that I believe is harmful to the future of the United States – which would, in a way, make them my opponent.

What’s intended to be clever advertizing in an attempt to attract new customers often times backfires on the company and actually drives them away (no pun intended).

I was just trolling

In reply to This Yank has a sense of humor

I was thinking to myself “Maxwell hasn’t been back to comment on his thread so let’s stir”. I apologise for the tactic.

However, Audi’s message “Buy one of our cars and it will perform cleaner, more efficiently and therefore cheaper than ANYTHING comparable that is produced in the US” is quite reasonable.

Anyway, the advert was about general green issues; plastic waste, composting of foodstuff waste, batteries in trash and only a tip of the hat to the GW cause with the mention of an incandescent lightbulb.

I’d quite like to have you explain why any of those – excluding the lightbulb – are somehow “based on a bunch of lies”.

🙂

I love it when you stir

In reply to I was just trolling

No apology necessary for an effective tactic.

On incandescent light bulbs:

I recently bought several cases each of 100, 75 and 60 watt bulbs, since they will soon be unavailable in US stores.

On all those other issues, if people want to voluntarily do those things, that’s fine and dandy. But when one group tries to force another group into compliance, they’ve gone too far. And when there’s an attempt to legislate such things, government has gotten too intrusive.

Man-Made global warming and/or climate change is what’s based on a bunch of lies – the premise on which most environmental issues are based. Therefore any [i]solution[/i] is a waste of …… whatever – anything and everything.

I would actually jump on the environmental bandwagon if it presented things honestly and about things that are real – AND if REAL solutions (to air pollution, for example) were advanced. Things like nuclear power plants. And reducing the need for oil is simply not going to happen for a LONG time. To suggest we can significantly reduce our oil consumption is either naive or dishonest. And to reduce the dependence on foreign oil – which could probably eliminate our trade deficit – we should aggressively drill for domestic sources.

The whole argument is just not honest, and it’s intended ONLY to advance a more collective and/or socialist political agenda. The dirty little secret about the environmental movement is that it has NOTHING to do with the environment, and everything to do with political ideology.

Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

In reply to I love it when you stir

Great way to get me to stop reading is to make me do fluorescently.

Note to self. Order a mess of 100 watters for reading.

Two years from now, I think. . . . .

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

….. 2012 is the target for banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs. They’ll undoubtedly get harder to find as time goes by.

Have you also noticed the incorrect claims made about the CFLs? That they’ll last ~10 times longer, blah, blah, blah? No they don’t. They burn out very fast.

And they’re yet another thing that can’t be disposed of normally because of their mercury content – which is yet another thing those early environmentalists warned against, but now they encourage its wide-spread use.

Incandescent Bulbs Were Not Banned

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

This is a widely held misconception about the 2008 energy bill. The bill did not specifically ban incandescent bulbs. It only mandated improved efficiency. While the required efficiency improvements may amount to the end of the 100 watt bulb as we know it, the technology itself is not banned.

I’d have to look it up again to verify the details, but the increase in efficiency was specifically targeted at bulbs of 60 watts and up. As I recall, the target is that an incandescent bulb would have to be as efficient as a halogen bulb for the same light output.

And yes, as they have made the CFL bulbs cheaper, the actual life of the bulb has dropped significantly. The running life is the worst in recessed ceiling fixtures that do not allow enough cooling and in most applications where the tube is below the electronics.

Another application where a CFL bulb does not work well is with motion detector fixtures. The way the control circuits in those work drastically shortens the life of a CFL.

Some garage door openers have failed with CFL bulbs installed in the lamp sockets. The relays or switching circuits cannot deal with the initial current surge of a CFL.

The only real complaint I have with CFL’s is that I have yet to find one that works well with a standard light dimmer.

EDN magazine has had a series of blog posts about the problems that the power factor of the CFL is causing for electric utilities.

Chas

Chas, I could be wrong on the time-frame, but. . . . .

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

I’ll also admit that our illustrious U.S. Congress might pass a bill that sounds like one thing, but does another.

From the same link

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

[i]”…..But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months.”[/i]

Big-Time Wrong – I’ve bought those silly bulbs, and I’ve replaced the failed ones no fewer than a dozen times. They DO NOT last 5 years – 5 months, maybe.

And the energy saved claim is something that CANNOT be proved.

I don’t notice much difference.

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

Once they’re under a lamp shade, I don’t notice a diff between flourescents and incandescents.

I have two fixtures, one in the garage and one by the front door, that chewed through incandescents every few weeks. I tried some flourescents and haven’t had to replace either one in three years. I suspect the real problem is in the fixtures themselves, but this work-around has cured the symptoms, if not the cause.

Found the Info Sheet

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

Max, I found the information sheet on light bulbs that I downloaded last October from GE lighting.

I will email it to you as I have not had time to find the link.

As I stated, the “ban” is more an effective ban than an actual ban. In order to sell a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb, the manufactures need to reduce the wattage to no more than 72 watts while keeping the same brightness with a minimum life of 1000 hours. In successive years, the 75, 60 and 40 watt bulbs face the same 30% increase in efficiency.

The US law does not affect “decorative” lamps or a number of lamps that do not use the standard threaded base we are used to.

I do believe that manufactures could sell a 100 watt bulb if it had the same brightness as a 150 watt bulb.

Chas

but now they encourage its wide-spread use.

In reply to Ooh. Thanks for the reminder.

And proper disposal.

LOL

In reply to I love it when you stir

Talk about missing an advertising point.

Were you recently considering buying an Audi and got turned off by this commercial?

I didn’t think so.

so was Max

In reply to I was just trolling

.

I don’t think anyone posting here is a potential Audi customer

In reply to I wonder if the Yanks have grown a sense of humour yet…

People who buy Audi’s are generally professionals who are more environmentally concious. Yes, I suppose I am saying they FEEL they are above or better than others. Cars are sold based on feelings.

If you look at the other Audi ads from the Stupidbowl, the comments from the hicks that post are certainly descriptive of the consumer Audi is NOT looking to atract.

They are people who have posted their emotions and dissention towards being environmentally aware as they don’t buy into GW. It makes for a more efficient, targeted sales process.

Why buy an Audi at all?

In reply to I don’t think anyone posting here is a potential Audi customer

When I can get a VW with an identical drive train and an almost identical chassis for 10k less?

Cars are for driving. If you want image, buy a picture. 😉

edit: by buy

I think you made my point then

In reply to Why buy an Audi at all?

Cars are sold due to image, people will sacrifice image SLIGHTLY in order to fit a budget, but most cars are sold on that ‘feeling’ the driver has when driving it.

I’ve sold Mercury’s to people who said they’d never be seen driving a Ford. LOL

I’ll agree with that part

In reply to I think you made my point then

[i]Cars are sold due to image…[/i]

I’ve been convinced for years that the SUV is the station wagon for people who wouldn’t be caught dead driving a station wagon.

Literally, even the manufacturer claims it

In reply to I’ll agree with that part

My Ford Ex is even insured as a ‘wagon’ under vehicle type. I’ve thought about wood panelling just for fun.

I am actually lucky, my Ex has solid front and rear axles, it is built on a Ranger truck frame. However I get cheaper insurance as it is classified as a wagon.

Then when you look at minivans, a sill height difference of just one inch will change whether it is insured as a van or a car. It also changes the classification so that the manufacturer can claim awards in categories without competing against similar ‘vans’.

Car classification has been behind so many falsely reported claims, where a manufacturer says it is BEST IN CLASS, however it doesn’t QUITE get tested under the same classifcation as similar, competitive models, it’s just another marketing scam and a way to get around required safety standards.

Thats why, when buying a vehicle, NEVER, EVER rely on safety reports, best in class awards etc. Look to private motoring journals, or those car shows on TV that directly test and compare to similar models.

Comsumer reports are usually based on class and are as reliable as web blogs, completely useless and usually only those with issues (often personal beefs from not being able to properly communicate with a service rep) say anything, happy customers usually don’t post about how great their vehicle is and how haopy they are, they just enjoy it instead.

It has to be one of the most misrepresented and falsely acclaimed industries I have ever seen, besides auto technicians themselves.

Oz, that’s interesting.

In reply to I’ll agree with that part

First, a question: your ‘Ex’ is an Explorer or an Expedition?

But to my main point: you can insure your SUV as a station wagon? That’s fascinating, because one big reason they’re built on truck frames is so the US gov’t will classify them as trucks for fuel mileage purposes. Since trucks have lower MPG standards, SUVs don’t pull down the gov’t mandated standards for the mfg’s automobile products.

Maybe US insurers also regard them as station wagons. I don’t know, since I’ve never owned one. It just caught my eye that one industry regards them as cars while this government calls them trucks.

Actually

In reply to I don’t think anyone posting here is a potential Audi customer

I considered buying an Audi or BMW for my next vehicle.

Both are well-engineered, get better mileage than a lot of American made cars, and plus have maintenance incentives over other makes.

Of course, I’m a professional…and a reformed hick.

I gave up my jeans and pickup truck for slacks and 3000GT back in 1999.

Guess I have to go back to the pickup and jeans if I move back where I grew up? :^0

Talk about missing the focus!

In reply to Terrifying!

Th efocus is peace of mind, Audi isn’t aspiring to that type of world at all. They are saying that with the focus on being more environmentally aware, you’ll never have to worry when driving an Audi.

In the UK, people with gas guzzlers, large cars and small trucks or high performance vechicles like supercars, will get their cars trashed in some areas just for parking it. Eggs, paint etc. Kind of like the people that throw red paint on women wearing furs in the US.

Just the comments, under the youTube video Max posted, shows the near mental retardation of many viewers, obviously not viewers in the market for an Audi.
While targeting a specific market they instantly dismiss the rest of the people they DON’T want driving their cars.

Doctors and investors will not go buy a car that redkneck bob and his sister/wife is driving. Let them go buy the Chevy Aveo. THEIR ad will be focused towards them (cheap, American, mom can still take the kids to summer school) and repel others that Audi seeks out.

Look at the yokels and mainstream nobody’s being busted in the Audi ad, hardly their tagrget market.

Audi’s point

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

“Audi will be putting the cleanest diesel engine technology in the world into production vehicles in the USA. The Audi Q7 TDI? 3.0 with the ultra-low emission system will initially be available and the Audi A3 TDI? 2.0 clean diesel is to be introduced to the USA in the fourth quarter 2009 as a 2010 model year vehicle”

http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en/exp/innovation/audi_tdi.html

As in a recent post, the ad needed to show a bit more of the car.

The Point and the Reality

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

Max, I had to rewatch the commercial to check a few things.

Interestingly, until your post it had not dawned on me that the original Cheap Trick song was the Dream Police.

Anyhow, I think that Audi’s point is that their clean diesel engines are on equal “green” footing with hybrid and electric power systems.

As to the other items, I believe with some research you will find local ordinances and a perhaps a few state laws that prohibit each of the incidents where the “Green Police” made their arrests.

If memory serves me well, several of the items, plastic bags, composting and plastic water bottles are local ordinances in San Fransisco. There are many places with mandatory recycling laws and long lists of items that you are not allowed to place in your trash.

The only thing the commercial exaggerated was the enforcement of such laws.

Chas

Some Links for Actual Green Laws

In reply to The Point and the Reality

Plastic Bags:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-11-19/bay-area/17271155_1_plastic-bags-compostable-blue-recycling-bins

Mandatory Composting:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-06-10/news/17207992_1_bins-fines-composting

Styrofoam:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1443288~Styrofoam_ban_makes_impact.html

Batteries in trash:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/HomeHazWaste/info/

After reading the list of what California bans in trash, I wonder if it would have been easier to list what you can place in your trash.

Chas

Audi Green Car of 2010

In reply to The Point and the Reality

When you go to the Audi web site, it gets a little more interesting.

http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en.html?warmode

The Styrofoam sniffing anteater is interesting.

The comparison calculator so that you can see how much greener an Audi TDI would be than some other cars is of equal interest.

Plus, you can download a MP3 of the Police doing Green Police.

Chas

From Cheap Trick

In reply to The Point and the Reality

From the Cheap Trick web site, this is their explanation:

“Cheap Trick and Audi of America come together to rock the big game on Sunday, February 7. Cheap Trick went back to the studio to rescore the hit ?Dream Police? and renamed it ?Green Police?. The new version will be featured as the music track in the Audi A3 TDI clean diesel commercial scheduled to air during the game. The entertaining TV spot shows how choosing the green car A3 TDi clean diesel is an easy way to lend a hand to Mother Nature when faced with many difficult eco choices.”

As a side note, Cheap Trick may be the last band that is offering their latest album in CD, LP and…… 8 track tape!

What was the last car that had a factory 8 track deck in it? Mid 70’s?

Chas

They bombed a comeback

In reply to From Cheap Trick

Unfortunately their comeback bombed. They toured behidn a new CD after the 70’s show used the hit, “In the Street”, which I THINK was originally done by The Big Stars before CT picked it up.

Their tour was a complete flop though, the small venues rarely sold out, so now they are selling tracks to commercials, a format Moby made popular in the 90’s. At the time he was labelled as a sell out, however everyone is doing it now. An endless list of artists now sell out for commercials and movies.

Paper or plastic? Am I the only one who remembers?

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

Clerk: [i]Paper or plastic?[/i]

Customer: [i]Plastic.[/i]

Green Police: [i]That’s the magic word…… You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy.[/i]

Am I the only one who remembers when stores started using and/or offering plastic bags in the first place? It was because the [i]Green Police[/i], back in the 1970s, decided that paper bags were bad for the ecosystem (destroyed too many trees, you know). But then again, that was also when they (the Green Police) were making their doom-and-gloom claims and predictions about global COOLING.

Teary Eyed Optimism

In reply to Paper or plastic? Am I the only one who remembers?

Max,

Just a pair of comments to your point.

Back when we started having plastic bags available in grocery stores the cost of paper bags was skyrocketing. When I worked in a grocery, the cost of the standard 1/6 bushel bag was rising from 5 cents per bag. This is also when some stores started charging for bags.

Back in the 70’s, the environmental movement was convinced that universal 100% recycling was just a step away from happening. If even a large percentage of plastic bags were recycled and turned into new bags, the environmental impact of plastic bags could be small.

Of course the reality is that even where there are effective recycling programs plastic trash in particular has little or no chance of being reused for new products. The cost of sorting the different kinds of plastics with no contaminants is just too high to support reuse.

Add to that that for many molded plastic parts, and I am sure for the plastic bag process, there is a limited amount of recycled material that can be used.

The reality of plastic manufacturing and the limits of what people will do for no visible payback will never match up with the dream of recycling.

Chas

No, you’re not

In reply to Paper or plastic? Am I the only one who remembers?

the only one who remembers that. I remember then, being struck that trees are replaceable, and that plastic isn’t biodegradable. Just what we need, more nutrient free crap in our soil. I thought it ridiculous then, and still do. I ask for paper. If I can’t get it, I don’t shop there again.

Biodegradable plastic bags

In reply to No, you’re not

We get them in some stores. Six months and they are powder.

Mebbe so.

In reply to Biodegradable plastic bags

But they’re [i]plastic[/i] powder.

Puts new emphasis

In reply to Biodegradable plastic bags

On “just-in-time” inventory, or else when you need more, you go to the warehouse with a shovel.

Cloth bags

In reply to Biodegradable plastic bags

Now if I could only remember to take them out of the trunk BEFORE I enter the store, not just shove them out of the way again when I’m loading the groceries after shopping.

Part of Why Plastic Recycling Does Not Work in the US

In reply to Biodegradable plastic bags

Biodegradable plastics and mixed resin technologies are part of why there is no market for plastics from recycling centers in the US.

People just will not take to time to properly separate the different types of plastic so that they could be reused.

Further, in areas where the trash goes into a modern landfill, the biodegradable plastics do not break down. Landfills make for great sociological teaching as one can see trends in trash with a very easy dig.

Did you know that when there is a shortage of a food product in the US that there is a marked increase in that food product showing up in the trash? People buy foods that are in short supply in larger than normal quantities when they do find it, allow it to spoil, and then throw it in the trash.

Since even newsprint does not decompose in a modern landfill, it is easy to date the various layers of trash and compare social trends from the time with the trash.

The only time a biodegradable bag or other piece of plastic degrades is when it is left out in the open as litter.

Chas

There’s another reason, Chas

In reply to Part of Why Plastic Recycling Does Not Work in the US

[i]People just will not take to time to properly separate the different types of plastic so that they could be reused.[/i]

It’s all most people can do to separate cardboard, newsprint, office paper, aluminum and other metals, and the different colors of glass. Adding all seven types of plastics to the mix just adds insult to injury.

Even if I separate it all, what would I do with it? There is no provision here for recycling anything but #1 and #2 plastics and soft foam. We take our empty plastic bags to the (usually full-to-overflowing) bag collectors at the stores, but there’s no choice for other plastics: they go into the trash.

etu

Wrong again Max

In reply to Paper or plastic? Am I the only one who remembers?

Plastic bags were a lot cheaper for grocery stores to purchase.
So it was actually about saving money in a very competitive market with low profit margins.

No, I’m not wrong

In reply to Wrong again Max

From the very first Earth Day, circa 1970, [i]saving trees[/i] was a major battle cry of the early environmental movement, thus the label [i]tree huggers[/i] – they even tied themselves to and around trees in the name of forest preservation. Targeting the paper bags used in grocery stores – suggesting it resulted in the destruction of millions of trees – was another tool in their plastic bag of tricks. I remember it very well.

You are correct, however, that stores did change to plastic bags for economic reasons, not because they gave-in to environmentalists. That was – and will be – the impetus behind any such change, which also supports my belief that industry will develop alternative energy options when it’s economically feasible, not to “save the planet”. (See my windmill reply to Santeewelding.)

My original point, however, was to illustrate the irony and contradiction shown by the on-going environmental movement over the past forty years, not to evaluate the economics of paper versus plastic. (Although I probably could have made that point a little better.)

In the 1970s, they attacked the paper bag. Today they attack the plastic bag. In the 1970s, they warned of global cooling. Today, they warn of global warming. Oops, I keep forgetting that they changed yet again to climate change.

Global cooling

In reply to No, I’m not wrong

was NEVER supported by the scientific community of the time. It was solely an invention of the media and it prospered due to the ignorance of most of the readership.

Global [b]warming[/b], on the other hand, IS supported by the majority of the scientific community. The duplicity of the media and politicians and the ignorance of the readership – alas – has not changed.

Ah, well…

🙂

And global warming . . . .

In reply to Global cooling

….. is NOT supported by a consensus of the scientific community today. It is largely an invention of politicians, advanced by their accomplices in the media, and it prospered due to the ignorance of most of the readership.

You said, [i]”Global warming, on the other hand, IS supported by the majority of the scientific community.”[/i]

Sorry, Neil, but I don’t see that to be the case, and that claim is one of those lies and deceptions of which I spoke. Of course, we’ve gone round-and-round on that one before.

You said, [i]”The duplicity of the media and politicians and the ignorance of the readership – alas – has not changed.”[/i]

I do, however, agree with that.

Climategate.

In reply to Global cooling

Google Climategate. Read what you find. See if you don’t have questions. Global warming is not based in science. However, global warming does rely on the duplicity of the politicians and the ignorance of the readership. Scientists are beginning to lose reputations over this one.

A Central figure cleared

In reply to Climategate.

Link near the bottom to a site that is neutral but involved.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Penn State Climate Scientist Cleared of Most Serious Charges
Just saw this breaking story from Penn State University……….

An academic board of inquiry from the Pennsylvania State University has largely cleared Climate scientist Michael Mann of science misconduct, but a second panel will decide if his behavior undermined public faith in the science of climate change, according to the New York Times story.

Three of the four allegations were dismissed completely.

Dr. Mann was one of the central figures that was brought up in the “climategate” email controversy. AccuWeather.com’s Katie Fehlinger of Headline Earth ran an exclusive three-part video interview with Dr. Mann back in December.

In an email response to this decision, Dr. Mann said he was pleased that the panel had found “no evidence of any allegations against me.”

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/

3 out of 4

In reply to A Central figure cleared

Three out of four allegations dismissed does not clear completely.

Dr. Mann may have been cleared of some of the allegations. However, two of the leading figures, names forgotten as not important enough to remember – one in England and one in India, are being investigated for possible fraud charges in their respective countries. The UN’s IPPC has been discredited. India and the US have begun their own climate change agencies. The one in the US is run by NOAA and it is one sided -pro. The NOAA’s climate change board is under investigation by congress.

As stated, reputations are being lost, careers are being destroyed, and climate change is discredited.

When you examine the evidence without the fudging of numbers, you are led to the conclusion that climate change is a natural cyclic change. At best, more study is needed, at worst, it is a complete fraud.

The myth was quickly dismissed by science

In reply to Global cooling

It was only one scientist who was corrected and actually admitted his mistake shortly afterwards. As you said, the press ran with it, not scientists.

[i]”Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the mainstream scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.”[/i]

Actually, if you’ll think back to 1970

In reply to No, I’m not wrong

A) Plastic bags were VERY rare
B) Plastic bottles were almost non-existent

In 1970:

Dr. Pepper, Coke, and 7-up still came in glass.

Heinz ketchup still came in a glass bottle.

Plastic was not even a big deal yet.

I know. In the 1980s (when plastic did become big), Brockway Glass Co. started downsizing in my hometown and Solo Cup, Inc. became huge there.

Both are gone now. And, neither is gone because of environmental concerns.

Paper bags

In reply to Paper or plastic? Am I the only one who remembers?

The only environmental focus I heard during that time was saving trees and a reduction of clear cuts in our forests.

They now push taking your own, reusable cloth bag to do your shopping. Most grocery stores in Canada sell such bags at a very low cost, they actuallly charge for plastic bags at the checkout or provide free plastic bags that are super thin, recycled plastic.

They aren’t the heavy 4mil polypro bags they once used…yeah, I’ve sold plastic bags and cardboard boxes too.(sigh)

If you are in a parking lot of a Real Canadian Stupidstore, or SaveOnFoods, you will see endless numbers of shoppers pushing carts loaded with cloth, resuable shopping bags now.

Their point

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

Trying to sell cars to “those who’ve accepted the ‘authority’ that the green police represent”.

(the words between the quotes can be shortened to one word 🙂 )

[edit: And hey, if that car is as nimble as it looks, maybe it can dodge those falling dominoes 🙂 ]

The TDI is “old” tech

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

VAG (Volkswagen Audi Group) has been selling them for over 20 years. They were not popular when first introduced into the US and the high-sulfur diesel fuel caused problems, so VAG stopped offering them here. They’ve had their problems, but also give outstanding mileage numbers, generally in excess of 40 mpg.

As for the rest of Sunday evening’s events, my personal take is that for the first time in over a decade, the game was better than the ads.

Old Tech

In reply to The TDI is “old” tech

But then again so is most of the American publics idea of Diesel Technology. Anyone remember GMs Diesels back in the mid 80s. Today I drive a large 6.0 liter Turbo Diesel Full sized “E350” Van that gets 17 mpg combined city/hwy and can still tow more than double its weight safely. Thats almost double the mileage of the gas powered trucks 10 yrs ago.

And I too liked the ad, but some people will still miss the point and product placement.

Favre and the Saints

In reply to The TDI is “old” tech

Once the Vikings proved once again that they are only capable of ALMOST, I became disinterested. The SO had the game on so I got all the play-by-play I needed.

I watched the Who half-time show in the same way that one watches a train wreck in progress. *sigh*

The commercials were a letdown… again.

“If they could get their way,…

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

…would wish this outcome to be more truth than satire”.

Yes, you are right…there are people out there who would like that.

On the other hand (there always IS an other hand, and if there isn’t…we’re screwed…no matter what hand is gone) there are many businesses, large and small, who would love to go back to being able to belch toxic chemicals into the sky, taint ground water with the same, and pump waste into rivers and streams.

Moderation, as in everything, is the key. We, the people, would not stand for such totalitarianism…just as we could no longer stand for blatant destruction of the environment.

In every facet of life, the status quo is not desirable. Change is inevitable and the only question is what course change to make.

Lighten up, it’s a funny commercial…that’s ALL it is, lest…

“The Green police, they live inside of your head. The Green police, they come to you in your bed. The Green police, they’re coming to arrest you, oh no.”

Sorry…couldn’t help myself…besides, I like Cheap Trick.

Edited for schpelling.

Capitalism unbridled

In reply to “If they could get their way,…

I’ve walked at neet down Sheffield lanes, ‘t were the same as bein’ in Hell;
Furnaces thrast out tongues of fire that roared like wind on t’ fell;
I’ve sammed up coil in Barnsley pits wi’ muck upto me knee.
Frae Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham, good Lord deliver me.

I’ve seen grey fog creep ovver Leeds Brig as thick as Bastille soup;
I’ve lived wheer folks have been stowed away like rabbits in a coop;
I’ve seen snow float down Bradford Beck as black as ebiny.
Frae Hunslet, Holbeck, Wibsey Slack, good Lord deliver me.

Frae Hull and Halifax and Hell, good Lord deliver me.

William Moorman, spoken by Tony Hopkinson

My opinion, mind you.

In reply to “If they could get their way,…

But we are standing for both, though it comes in increments so teensy weensy as to be undetectable to those of us consumed by mundania.

[i]We, the people, would not stand for such totalitarianism…just as we could no longer stand for blatant destruction of the environment.
[/i]

etu
[sigh]

A baseless conclusion

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

[i]”That hint of truth is what’s troubling to me – especially since it’s all based on lies and deceptions in the first place.”[/i]

There’s absolutely no proof of your statement. If there was, you wouldn’t even be posting the same debate every other day.

[i]Is there anyone who doubts that the most extreme environmentalists…[/i]

Yes I doubt them on both sides of the equation, just as I do extreme politicians on both sides too. So why would you focus on extremes and ignore those with more reasonable and validated conclusions? Are you seeking a job in media spinning?

[i]”And even now, as their justification is being exposed as lies, cover-ups, and deceptions, the agenda continues – even though the mainstream media is ignoring this deception.[/i]

Which shows that the, off the cuff, “radicals” are being ignored, as they rightly should be, however you seem to cling to them like teh new world order.

Car manufacturer;s market automobiles based on a state of mind or ‘feeling’, they always have. People buy cars based on how it makes them FEEL to drive them.

The feeling Audi is presenting here is one of peace of mind, KNOWING that they are being more resourceful when driving one and ignoring those who dismiss GW, such as yourself.

Man, and I used to think you were pretty bright; all fool me I suppose.

Oh my dear God

In reply to The Green Police: Exactly what message was. . . . .

How does Audi’s ad have [b]any truth[/b] in that people are being arrested for using incandescent bulbs, not composting, throwing away batteries, etc.?

I think that the most “extreme environmentalists” want a lot of stupid crap. I know one guy in England who wants there to be no more airliners. Partly due to environmental pollution, but also because…they fly near his home in rural England and make too much noise.

Fact is, reasonable people work toward bettering things for everyone. Not just their own, selfish, egocentrist needs and motives.

That’s why I spent money on high-efficiency units for my home I didn’t have to buy, bought my own recycling bins (made from recycled plastics), etc.

BTW, I haven’t seen any politicians come out and say “I want the green police from Audi’s commercial to be a reality!”, or anything even CLOSE to that.

You are just trying to stir some discussion over a fantasy in a car commercial that was, [b]in reality[/b] Audi’s sales ploy to show you their car won an environmentally-aligned award as yet an additional reason to buy their product.

Jeez. Next, you’ll think that the US government is wanting to have talking cats because of Meow Mix commercials.

Meow meow meow meow…Meow meow meow meow…

Careful

In reply to Oh my dear God

Gaia will get you for that.

A crutch

In reply to Oh my dear God

Yesterday’s local news had Vancouver Island residents protesting the shut down of beach fires in a sandspit.

Homeowners, who had near beachfront property, raised the ‘health concern’, over the emissions.

The banning was eventually taken off the table, or course.

In reality, these people bought nultimillion dollar homes, emissions from a small wood fire in a fire ring, 100+ feet away, is not about to kill them. Of course their real ocmplaint was people partying on the sanespit NEAR their homes (as the beach was unable to be bought), and they just used the emissions health concern, the same way waitresses pushed the workers compensation board to have smoking banned in bars.

Radicals always use ridiculous claims, grasping at the thinnest straws, to support their needs. And that works on BOTH sides of the fence.

People, sux as Max but of course not only Max, pull extremes against GW, while others use extremes to support thier need for reduction. In the end, just like politics, there is no middle ground and nothing progresses.

We are now living in a stagnant society, refusing change, simply for the sake of complacency, and in the process ignoring the simplicity of being a more progressive society.

You mean all cats DON’T talk? I think I, (make that kitty and I), could be famous!

Or maybe

In reply to A crutch

[i]Of course their real ocmplaint was people partying on the sanespit NEAR their homes (as the beach was unable to be bought)[/i]

They just resented the fact that other people might be having more fun than they were 🙂

Five more days!!!!

[Author]

Replies