Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[homeforsummer]

The electric car battery pack thing is a relative unknown at the moment. Top Gear was picking figures out of thin air, however there have been problems with Leaf battery packs in very hot climates.

But then, the Leaf's pack isn't thermally managed. Thermal management (i.e. liquid cooling the pack when it's hot, keeping it at optimum temp when it's cold) is more expensive but drastically increases battery life.

My brother's Prius had the battery die about a month short of ten years. He couldn't believe the estimates for his model were that close.

How many miles had it done, out of interest? Prius battery packs dying are the very rare exception, rather than the rule. It's not unknown for the packs to go 200-300k miles without any degradation.

Consumer Reports has tested both first- and second-gen Prius with 200k+ on the clock and found both to be within a few units of the sort of performance and economy they were when new.

Did he have the pack replaced or just scrap the car in the end? I actually wrote about Toyota battery replacement not so long ago after speaking to the company.

It's in the region of $2,300 at the moment after they've credited you for the battery they take out.

It's a fair bit of cash to spend on a 10yr old car admittedly, but I'm beginning to think it isn't so bad compared to the diesels that everyone bangs on about being equally as efficient, which will generally need a new turbo/DMF/clutch in the first decade (already over $2,300 with that little lot) and that's provided nothing else goes wrong with them...

Hybrids tend to save you a bit of money on consumables, as they don't eat through brakes as quickly and oil changes are generally less frequent.

Not that any of that is really to do with global warming, but, y'know

 

[niky]

Diesel DMF if it's a manual, though. Traditional AT ones don't have that issue. And the turbo is plain an abuse issue...

However, to prevent turbo issues with diesels, you need to be a stickler with maintenance, which, in the long run, will cost you a hell of a lot more than the battery pack. Brakes and oil changes alone over that time period could buy you the batteries on a hybrid, which uses much less of its engine's useable life after half a million miles.

The rally big 'un is those damn piezo injectors. A set for a four-banger, OEM, costs about as much as a Prius battery pack! And those typically don't last more than half as long as the batteries.

When people harp on about the cost of battery replacement, it's obvious they've not been paying attention to the stratospheric cost of maintaining these newfangled CRDI and GDI engines...

Of course, this is in comparison to the Prius. battery replacement for electrics is another issue. Chevy currently offers battery replacements for Volts at around $3k... though many are theorizing that dealers are taking a gamble on owners not needing new packs yet... and that they will likely demand the old battery or a core charge in exchange for the new packs... because $3k for 40 miles of lithium range is ridiculously cheap.

 

[homeforsummer]

Diesel DMF if it's a manual, though. Traditional AT ones don't have that issue. And the turbo is plain an abuse issue...

Manual or dual-clutch auto do Which many of them are, since VW is a diesel king and has a habit of attaching DSGs to them. With the turbo thing, I'm speaking as a used-car buyer, not able to trust the previous owner!

My last car, now sold, was an early 00s diesel, and although it was decent enough, I literally couldn't shake the nagging feeling that at any moment it might go wrong in a hideously expensive way.

However, to prevent turbo issues with diesels, you need to be a stickler with maintenance, which, in the long run, will cost you a hell of a lot more than the battery pack. Brakes and oil changes alone over that time period could buy you the batteries on a hybrid, which uses much less of its engine's useable life after half a million miles.

The rally big 'un is those damn piezo injectors. A set for a four-banger, OEM, costs about as much as a Prius battery pack! And those typically don't last more than half as long as the batteries.

When people harp on about the cost of battery replacement, it's obvious they've not been paying attention to the stratospheric cost of maintaining these newfangled CRDI and GDI engines...

Yeah, that's the thing. If you keep your nice, simple, 1980s car forever, then it'll be a doddle to fix and possibly even cheaper than a hybrid. Particularly if it uses carbs rather than injectors. But even the simplest of modern cars is pretty complicated and diesels, despite being quite nice to drive in some cases, are quite worryingly complex.

Of course, that 80s car would also be far less economical, and if pollution and greenhouse gas is your concern then something from the 80s is like the devil incarnate... but if you like simple stuff with relatively modern performance and a DIY aspect, then the mid-90s is about as late as you can go before things get too complicated...

Of course, this is in comparison to the Prius. battery replacement for electrics is another issue. Chevy currently offers battery replacements for Volts at around $3k... though many are theorizing that dealers are taking a gamble on owners not needing new packs yet... and that they will likely demand the old battery or a core charge in exchange for the new packs... because $3k for 40 miles of lithium range is ridiculously cheap.

So far, lab-related calamities aside, I've not heard of many problems with packs in the Volt, certainly not compared to the Leaf.

Though I must admit, I'd still be shaky about the long-term cost of a Volt. Batteries aside, an all-electric car is an incredibly simple mechanical device and the motor and transmission will outlive the car. An e-CVT hybrid like the Prius is also incredibly simple with a fairly under-stressed engine, which is why those also seem to go on forever.

But there's a lot of stuff under that Volt hood. We'll see how it's stood up in ten years time...

 

[jasr73]

Some amazing stories out there on the longevity of some of these vehicles:
http://www.zercustoms.com/news/Toyota-Prius-Taxi-Cracks-550,000-km.html

Well off topic on global warming, but the Holden (Chevy) Volt will be a AUD 60K proposition + on roads when it goes on sale here latter this year. According to Holden's PR all of the drive train components and battery of its electric drive system will be covered by an eight-year/160,000km warranty.

So provided you get rid of it before then no problem!

Certainly the Volt's a step in the right direction for more environmentally friendly transport but 60K for a medium sized EV is big ask for the Aussie public to warm up too. I think their biggest problem will be finding buyers.

 

[niky]

Lucky us, we get Indian superminis like e Eon... Non-DI, gasoline, no DMF, no nothing. Half the price of a Civic and hybrid-rivalling fuel economy. (25-30 kml highway)

Has the best of modern tech, electronic injection and ignition, without finicky e-throttles, DI or whatnot. robust MAP sensor the only big electronics underhood... easier to maintain than a MAF.

Tiny, but liveable. We might all go this way, soon.

Koreans still use traditional ATs with most of their diesels. Lock-up converters help boost highway economy. And Ford's DCT Fiesta here comes with replaceable clutch packs, so as to avoid some of the more expensive issues with newfangled trannies. If Honda had designed their CVT clutch packs to be replaceable, Insight and Fit CVTs would not be such nightmares to secondhand buyers!

Unfortunately, when we talk of global warming, we talk of cars, because that's the low-lying fruit that every government and interest group can target. Those coal-burning Chinese factories turning out billions of iPodadphones, no comment.

 

[FoolKiller]

How many miles had it done, out of interest? Prius battery packs dying are the very rare exception, rather than the rule. It's not unknown for the packs to go 200-300k miles without any degradation.

I don't know the miles. He lives about a two hour drive away. It has been his only car for 10 years now, so a guesstimate based on his living in the city he works would be 100k-150k. I know my VW was catching up quick (115k).

Did he have the pack replaced or just scrap the car in the end?

Replaced. Cost him $4,000ish.

It's in the region of $2,300 at the moment after they've credited you for the battery they take out.

Either there are regional differences or his dealer shop didn't offer him the recycling deal. If it was over $6,000 he was prepared to buy another car, but he felt $4,000 to be reasonable.

Hybrids tend to save you a bit of money on consumables, as they don't eat through brakes as quickly and oil changes are generally less frequent.

Doesn't matter if you drive like I have my 2006 Rabbit/Golf, 70 miles a day on the interstate. Barely using brakes and only a fraction of the miles were with a cold, not fully lubricated engine. Brakes replaced once, synthetic oil changes every 5k-10k miles, original wipers still (just beginning to streak now), headlights replaced once (I always have them on, just a habit after previously having a grey car that blended in with the road), and I had an airbag sensor replaced under warranty. And one set of new tires.

And I have more fun with my car than my brother. He rode along on my first Tail of the Dragon trip and admitted he didn't think his car could take it the way I did.

And ultimately, that will be the primary factor in why I won't get a green car in my price range (unless I get some huge pay raises). The performance sacrifices made on the low-end models are too great for my liking right now.

 

[homeforsummer]

Replaced. Cost him $4,000ish.

Either there are regional differences or his dealer shop didn't offer him the recycling deal. If it was over $6,000 he was prepared to buy another car, but he felt $4,000 to be reasonable.

Ouch. Sneaking suspicion that was a dealer markup then, as Toyota's official line is the $2,300 figure after getting about $1,300 back for the old battery. Though it also depends when he had it replaced - the price is edging lower all the time.

I've heard some places will refurbish or replace them for even cheaper, but then they won't have a manufacturer warranty, and given that it's a fairly significant part of the car, I think I'd prefer a warranty on it.

And I have more fun with my car than my brother. He rode along on my first Tail of the Dragon trip and admitted he didn't think his car could take it the way I did.

And ultimately, that will be the primary factor in why I won't get a green car in my price range (unless I get some huge pay raises). The performance sacrifices made on the low-end models are too great for my liking right now.

Yeah, that's certainly fair enough. The Prius certainly isn't what you'd call a "fun" car, though I do quite enjoy driving them in a way, as they're quite relaxing. I'd actually consider one as a daily driver (actually, I prefer the Lexus CT with the same drivetrain, but I digress) for that reason... provided I also had something fun in the garage that I could drive whenever I felt like it.

 

[Danoff]

So what's the scoop on this these days? How is 2012 shaping up? Do we have definitive 2011 data? How's it looking? The same? When I search for this stuff, I see conversations stopping toward the end of the previous decade and then not a lot. I'm looking in the wrong places.

 

[Dennisch]

Real-time observation.

It is cold outside.

 

[Sam48]

This graph was released only two weeks ago. No source was given though.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I heard the hole in the ozone is the smallest it's been in the last 20 years.

My realtime observation: It's 85*F outside, so I'd say it's quite nice.

 

[kk20]

I heard the hole in the ozone is the smallest it's been in the last 20 years.

My realtime observation: It's 85*F outside, so I'd say it's quite nice.

It builds itself up and depletes itself throughout the year...completely natural...

 

[jcm]

Who cares if it's natural! My only conern is that there is less sea ice in the Arctic every year, and this is causing polar bears to be endangered. We need to cool the earth so that polar bears can live happily in the north! That is a good enough reason for everyone to be concerned with global warming.

 

[Sam48]

Who cares if it's natural! My only conern is that there is less sea ice in the Arctic every year, and this is causing polar bears to be endangered. We need to cool the earth so that polar bears can live happily in the north!

*Facepalm*

Polar bears do not need ice to survive. With each and every century that passes by comes many species which simply become extinct. That's just how nature works. Plus, according research over the past four years, polar bears are actually just fine.

That is a good enough reason for everyone to be concerned with global warming

Ah, putting the fictitious needs of a species much lower than humans before humans, while possibly jeopardizing humans in the process. How humane.

 

[Adamgp]

Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears 250,000 years ago when...

...the climate changed.

 

[jcm]

*Facepalm*

Polar bears do not need ice to survive.

...polar bears spend most of their time on sea ice. It's a great way for them to hunt their preferred food, which is seal. They can survive out of their normal habitat, it's just way harder, and it causes them to enter our habitat in an attempt for survival...

With each and every century that passes by comes many species which simply become extinct. That's just how nature works.

Very true, many species do go extinct. Is that a good thing? That depends entirely on your own viewpoint, and is far too complex a subject for this thread, so it's probably best to not worry about it in this thread.

Plus, according research over the past four years, polar bears are actually just fine.

I would like to see a link, because if true then that is great news, and Wikipedia needs an edit (or I didn't notice that it changed)

Ah, putting the fictitious needs of a species much lower than humans before humans, while possibly jeopardizing humans in the process. How humane.

I don't quite see how it jeopardizes humans, or how caring about animals isn't humane, though I'm not interested in discussing this with you, as it looks like we have both done our research and came to conclusions after many hours of research. Personally I believe that all animals are cool, and I will continue to be a vegan, though I still respect your opinion that humans are much superior as this was once what I believed. I'm not interested in discussing it too much though, so I'd rather just agree to disagree on this topic

Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears 250,000 years ago when...

...the climate changed.

Very true, though they are still closely linked, even to the point of being able to breed with each other. I have no idea what your point was in saying that, but it is true, and I'm guessing it had something to do with evolution and how the world is constantly changing?

Just so you know, me liking polar bears is mostly due to how awesome they look, so when I say that polar bears need to survive it's because I want them to survive, not because they actually need too

 

[Quackjack]

Global warming is occurring, but human activity is only playing a minor role.

The earth goes in natural cycles, but some of the CO2 and such we're putting out is making it a bit worse.

 

[kk20]

Global warming is occurring, but human activity is only playing a minor role.

The earth goes in natural cycles, but some of the CO2 and such we're putting out is making it a bit worse.

Water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere....just stating a fact...

 

[CodeRedR51]

Honestly I could care less about global warming, I live in the desert.

As long as I have air to breathe, I'm happy.

 

[Quackjack]

Honestly I could care less about global warming, I live in the desert.

As long as I have air to breathe, I'm happy.

True true

 

[Sam48]

...polar bears spend most of their time on sea ice. It's a great way for them to hunt their preferred food, which is seal. They can survive out of their normal habitat, it's just way harder, and it causes them to enter our habitat in an attempt for survival...

I would need some proper evidence of this, so go ahead and prove me wrong. (But first read the articles I linked for you below in a separate response)

Very true, many species do go extinct. Is that a good thing? That depends entirely on your own viewpoint, and is far too complex a subject for this thread, so it's probably best to not worry about it in this thread.

Just to expand on that then, why do you value polar bears more then, say, any other endangered species, if any?

I would like to see a link, because if true then that is great news, and Wikipedia needs an edit (or I didn't notice that it changed)

From The Telegraph

From The Globe and Mail

I don't quite see how it jeopardizes humans, or how caring about animals isn't humane,

Putting the needs of an animal before the needs of other human beings is generally considered inhumane. It jeopardizes humans because so far, it's cost billions upon billions to "Save the polar bear".

...though I'm not interested in discussing this with you, as it looks like we have both done our research and came to conclusions after many hours of research. Personally I believe that all animals are cool, and I will continue to be a vegan, though I still respect your opinion that humans are much superior as this was once what I believed. I'm not interested in discussing it too much though, so I'd rather just agree to disagree on this topic

I have a suspicion that in truth, you've done little to no proper research, and that you believe I have done proper research, thereby causing you to back off so suddenly. I don't mind, I just rather you not assume that.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere....just stating a fact...

If we coated the oceans with oil, we could stop all that nasty evaporation.

 

[jcm]

I have a suspicion that in truth, you've done little to no proper research, and that you believe I have done proper research, thereby causing you to back off so suddenly. I don't mind, I just rather you not assume that.

I have done quite a lot of research, on both the subjects of polar bears and all of the opinions on veganism, it's just I don't want to discuss veganism in this thread, because it took me over a month to fully research it and come to my own opinion on it. I don't want to go through explaining all the reasons for it on an internet forum, because there are a lot of reasons both for and against it, so I don't want to discuss that in this thread, even though I have extremely strong beliefs about it, internet discussions about it don't appeal to me, so I'd prefer if we didn't discuss it on here

I am happy to discuss the why polar bears are awesome and why they need help, though I'm less willing to discuss why we should be the ones who help them, as that's far too philosophical to be discussed effectively on an internet forum about Gran Turismo It's just the extremely philosophical stuff that I'd rather not discuss too much, though I am willing too a bit with regard to polar bears because they're just that awesome

And just to clarify, all of my research on both subjects has been purely out of personal interest, so while I have done a lot of fact-checking, I do recognize that not all 'facts' are reliable and many studies can have statistical anomalies - (is that the right word?) - which lead to biased results. And sometimes when I'm trying to say a lot of things the words and paragraphs and ideas get jumbled into this mess that doesn't make sense... ...so hopefully that doesn't happen

Just to expand on that then, why do you value polar bears more then, say, any other endangered species, if any?

Generally speaking I believe that all species are equal, however I am still both selfish and silly like any other human so I may emphasize some species (polar bears) more then others simply because they look cooler, and if the extinction of one species leads to human suffering, I will be more concerned about that species then a different non-crucial species. That's one of those paragraphs that may not make sense, but hopefully it does

I would need some proper evidence of this, so go ahead and prove me wrong. (But first read the articles I linked for you below in a separate response)

From The Telegraph

From The Globe and Mail

I read both, the first doesn't really conclusively say too much, its more a biased opinion piece however I will give my interpretation of it anyway

The scientist is upset that the group didn't respect his opinions on global warming, and he got kicked out. Not too much else going on their, nothing referenced. Here is a brief summary of what they discussed at the meeting he didn't end up going too http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/15-Copenhagen.html. To summarize, sea ice is melting. 19 subpopulations exist. 1 is growing, 3 stable, 8 declining, the rest inconclusive (whatever that means, I don't know). The potential for error in adding up subpopulations is reasonably high, so don't read into the numbers too much. Here is a link for a visual graphic thingy (warning for possible bias - improbable but still possible)

The second is much more accurate and a very good find 👍 Sadly, whoever wrote the article was a bit silly, the article lacked flow and jumped from one point to the other, pointing out facts without explaining the possible reasons behind them. Here is a link to the study he was referring to , however he didn't do a very good job of explaining the situation so I will try to explain it, hopefully doing a slightly better job

That visual graphic thingy claimed that the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation was in decline. A recent study (the one linked above) shows that that's no longer true, now it's actually increasing! Now, before going into the reasons and specifics it would appear that this means the polar bear is doing fine, and that seems to be the tone of the article. However, as actually shown in the article, there are very few young polar bears in the region. The problem with this study is that it can be quite misleading if people don't analyze the situation quite carefully. When people see the words population rising they immediately think that everything is just fine. When you realize that 1 in 19 subpopulations is rising, and that the amount of young cubs there is extremely low, then you get more concerned, and more confused. I'm not going to go into detail about the possibilities of why there are so few young polar bears, but the reasons are probably on the internet if you want to find them yourself. I would guess that it's because it's so hard to survive there, and that it ties directly to the reasoning that they are classified as endangered. Why there are so many adults there is unknown, I would suggest it's because of migration from one subpopulation to another but I don't have enough knowledge of the subpopulations to say that conclusively.

Anyway, this has been a really long complicated post and I'm getting sleepy, so I'll finish it off reasonably quickly. Here are some linkies that show that polar bears spend a lot of time on sea ice. Wikipedia is on there because it's the first full article I ever read on Polar Bears, feel free to ignore it though since anyone can edit it . Please read the second linky (especially the part about Geographic Range), it is informative and possibly biased . The third isn't that relevent, but I think it's cool that polar bears can swim nearly 220 miles 👍. The 4th is likely very biased, and was written prior to 2012, though it provides an opinion on the sea ice situation and shouldn't be ignored. The 5th is extremely interesting (426 mile swim!), though possibly less accurate as it is a newspaper. More accurate then Wikipedia maybe, but still, not 100%. And also, I recently had this question (polar bears on sea ice) pop up unexpectedly on a science test, and I got the answer right so that totally counts as a source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/us-usa-polarbears-idUSBRE84100W20120502
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/wildlife-habitat/science/critical-species/polar-bear-fact-sheet/
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/29/nation/la-na-polar-bears-20110129
Recent Science Test

Putting the needs of an animal before the needs of other human beings is generally considered inhumane. It jeopardizes humans because so far, it's cost billions upon billions to "Save the polar bear".

Stopping the trend of global warming would help polar bears and humans, so I would consider it humane That is assuming that we can stop it, which may or may not be possible...

Just so you know the post was by far my longest ever on GTP, and me trying really hard to edit it would be pointless since I'm tired and would probably just make it worse . Sorry for all grammatical and structural errors

 

[kk20]

If we coated the oceans with oil, we could stop all that nasty evaporation.

^^^^ Joke

 

[homeforsummer]

Water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere....just stating a fact...

It is indeed a fact, but a useless one.

It's been discussed at length in this thread before and whether you believe in AGW or not, the water vapour argument is a poor one - simply because water vapour is part of the natural water cycle of the planet. It remains fairly constant and natural processes have adapted to it. Water evaporates from the oceans. It rains. Water goes back into the oceans. There's no way to artificially clog the atmosphere with water vapour without it raining and restoring the balance once again.

Carbon dioxide and methane outputs on the other hand tend to increase. This would also be fairly consistent (carbon-based lifeforms die and are returned to the ground, trees inhale carbon dioxide etc) but whatever their contribution to global warming, humans don't do that. Human activity releases extra carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise have remained underground for millions of years. Or we chop down trees which would otherwise absorb it.

There is no balance - it's a one-way process, unless people figure out an inexpensive, unobtrusive, environmentally-friendly carbon sink system.

Again, current research is fairly unclear as to whether it's actually making a difference greater than it would naturally - but it's also true that fractions of a percentage difference in local and global temperatures can have large effects. That, after all, is how weather works. The tiniest pressure and temperature changes can cause everything from a beautiful sunny day to a tropical hurricane.

 

[kk20]

It is indeed a fact, but a useless one.

It's been discussed at length in this thread before and whether you believe in AGW or not, the water vapour argument is a poor one - simply because water vapour is part of the natural water cycle of the planet. It remains fairly constant and natural processes have adapted to it. Water evaporates from the oceans. It rains. Water goes back into the oceans. There's no way to artificially clog the atmosphere with water vapour without it raining and restoring the balance once again.

Carbon dioxide and methane outputs on the other hand tend to increase. This would also be fairly consistent (carbon-based lifeforms die and are returned to the ground, trees inhale carbon dioxide etc) but whatever their contribution to global warming, humans don't do that. Human activity releases extra carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise have remained underground for millions of years. Or we chop down trees which would otherwise absorb it.

There is no balance - it's a one-way process, unless people figure out an inexpensive, unobtrusive, environmentally-friendly carbon sink system.

Again, current research is fairly unclear as to whether it's actually making a difference greater than it would naturally - but it's also true that fractions of a percentage difference in local and global temperatures can have large effects. That, after all, is how weather works. The tiniest pressure and temperature changes can cause everything from a beautiful sunny day to a tropical hurricane.

Not useless at all. Water consists of of 2 hydrogens and one oxygen atom bonded at an angle of 104.5 due to oxygen atom having two lone pairs. The oxygen-hydrogen atom is polar because of differences in electronegativity which means oxygen is delta negative and hydrogen is delta positive. Infrared radiation has to pass through clouds and the atmosphere. Clouds absorb most of the radiation which is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Molecules absorb radiation of different frequencies depending on the strength of their bonds. The molecules absorb the radiation and go into a higher vibrational energy level. The molecules then return to ground state therefore energy is emitted. The amount of energy emitted is equal to the higher vibrational energy minus the ground state. This emitted energy=heat.

And like I said. 95% of all heat produced from the greenhouse effect is by watervapour.

 

[homeforsummer]

And like I said. 95% of all heat produced from the greenhouse effect is by watervapour.

Still a useless statistic.

It doesn't matter that 95% of heat produced from the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour , because that 95% has been pretty much constant for thousands of years.

There has, to all intents and purposes, always been 95% due to water vapour (or whatever the actual figure is - a quick wiki suggests that 95% is a bit optimistic) in the atmosphere. It's a constant. It's just one of the varied reasons that life can exist.

Greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane aren't constant. They change. They increase and decrease.

An overall percentage figure is meaningless. Percentage change isn't.

 

[FoolKiller]

Who cares if it's natural! My only conern is that there is less sea ice in the Arctic every year, and this is causing polar bears to be endangered. We need to cool the earth so that polar bears can live happily in the north! That is a good enough reason for everyone to be concerned with global warming.

1) I'm not a polar bear. They eat after I do.

2) Send them to Antarctica. The sea ice is growing there.


By the way, why the special affinity for just polar bears? I never trust someone who just picks one animal to go on and on about. In our wide world of nature it seems, odd.

I have done quite a lot of research, on both the subjects of polar bears and all of the opinions on veganism, it's just I don't want to discuss veganism in this thread, because it took me over a month to fully research it and come to my own opinion on it. I don't want to go through explaining all the reasons for it on an internet forum, because there are a lot of reasons both for and against it, so I don't want to discuss that in this thread, even though I have extremely strong beliefs about it, internet discussions about it don't appeal to me, so I'd prefer if we didn't discuss it on here

I believe there is room for all of God's creatures...













....next to my potatoes.

And meat is murder. Tasty, tasty, murder. I have a personal goal to eat as many types of meat as possible.

 

[Signal52]

I have a personal goal to eat as many types of meat as possible.

 

[jcm]

1) I'm not a polar bear. They eat after I do.

2) Send them to Antarctica. The sea ice is growing there.

By the way, why the special affinity for just polar bears? I never trust someone who just picks one animal to go on and on about. In our wide world of nature it seems, odd.

I believe there is room for all of God's creatures...

....next to my potatoes.

And meat is murder. Tasty, tasty, murder. I have a personal goal to eat as many types of meat as possible.

Antarctica might have to work...

That's why I love polar bears Other animals are important too, it's just that I know a lot about polar bears so it's easier for me to talk about them, and most of them (other species) aren't quite as awesome either (because awesomeness is like totally the only thing that matters ). And, of all our Canadian currency, the toonie looks the best, and it's got polar bears on it, so yeah that pretty much sums it up I don't know as much about other endangered species as I do about the polar bear, though in time I will learn more about those other species which you enjoy eating.

And like I said, I'd rather not discuss the ethical and environmental reasons for eating/not eating meat on an internet forum about Gran Turismo. I hope you understand