I don't see the reason to panic just yet. Sure this isn't great news but for anyone whos ever worked with or for car makers putting projects on hold is very normal. I've seen lots of vehicle programs be put on hold or shelved or dropped for far less legitimate reasons than CAFE and the gov regs. While its not great news its not the worst news. I'm glad GM is looking to the future with caution. These are uncertain times and we will probably have a very different looking gov. in Jan 2009 than today. So its important not to get caught with too many vehicles that can't meet the CAFE req. That being said just because the programs are on hold doesn't mean they are done for good. Once GM gets a better feel for the next few years and knows how the rules may look they can easily pick the programs back up. So GM may have to spend a bit more time getting the fuel economy up on the RWD V8's before they hit the roads there is nothing wrong with that.
One of the problems is that we on this borad and people in general know too much today. If GM had placed the RWD vehicles on hold in 1987 or even 1997 besides maybe a few rumors in the news or magazines nobody would know about it and then none of us would even know enough to be mad. We'd just sit and wonder why GM makes the vehicles they do and why they don't make other ones. Now everyone is practically in the design studio.
I'm glad the Camaro is safe and if any of these other cars on hold have a chance it lies on the Camaro's sucess for GM to take the risk.

 

If global warming is a big thing then the whole point is to do something now. That's like never changing your oil and not worrying about it until something goes wrong.

 

Im with ya

 

Listening to a bunch of us spout off shouldn't turn anybody into a believer. However, it would be nice if it motivated some people to do their own research in an attempt to at least discover that this issue isn't as cut and dry as the media would have you think, and there there are many more levels to it (many of them political) that have a major influence on the "science" level that it is supposidly based on.

The truth is, the global warming issue will have a profound impact on the future of the world, but if people don't try to educate themselves a LOT more, the impact of the Chicken Little mentality will do a hell of a lot more damage than the heat.

 

I didn't say that they hadn't done any good. I just pointed out that assuming that they know what's going can be dangerous.
I'm not asking you to believe one stance or another, nor was I trying to be offensive, nor was I claiming to be a climatologist.

I was simply pointing out that there is room for argument on both sides and that the authority figures you were using to bolster your opinion have been wrong in the past.

Believe what your research and intellect tells you is true and live your life accordingly.

 

Bingo!!!! This is what it truly all about and I'm not the only seeing and thinking it..... power and the opportunity to seize it. Plain and simple.

The way I see it, the ones who are genuinley concerned and take steps to make decisions and take actions to consciously and positively affect their own lot in life aren't the ones who will ultimately take control. No, they're normally too meek and anonymous. Someone else will use fire and brimstone browbeating to get that power, in their name no less, and then proceed to corrupt the livin' daylights out of what was a noble cause to pad their own existence - at the expense of all that good intention.

There have been some very valid points made regarding global warming (whether it's real or not I can't and won't argue... but who can really know, given the dramatic and extreme climatic cycles this planet has seen in just the last 100-200 million years) but this is the one that really matters in the here and now.... personal power over a huddled, hysteria driven, fearful mass of people ready and willing to give it to anyone with the stones to take it from them.

 

My view exactly.


This is about money, influence and power. The environmental component acts simply as tool to pull in the uninformed and timid.

 

Today it's global warming. 50 years ago it was the Red Menace. Who knows what it will be 50 years from today.

Its all part of playing politics in this country and as we draw closer to 2008 and a presidential election to replace a lame duck in the white house, it will continue to heat up. Global warming and the war in Iraq and this season's popular discussion topics. The Media and Hollywood will continue to press the issue until after inauguration day in 2009. Then we'll see exactly where the tide turns.

 

I think this whole Global Warming debacle has gotten ridiculously out of hand. Neither side of the argument has any credibility to accurately deny or prove that this is a man made issue. That and the fact that both sides are really working more towards their own personal agendas. Big business manipulates any facts just as much as the scientist who is trying to keep his grant money. Until either side comes up with concrete evidence that proves or disproves the Global Warming Theory (which will never happen due to the sheer fact that man has only lived during a fraction of the time that this planet has existed and therefore has no "real" documentation of weather patterns anyway) then I think that focus needs to be directed towards more important issues.

 

Don't get me started on the media. Their biased opinions and personal agendas fuel the fires much more than those politicians, scientists, and corporate bigwigs ever do. Gotta get those ratings up you know.

 

Each to their own views... but I believe we should at least give the global warming hypothesis some credence by limiting the C02 emissions for a prolonged period.

For the last 100 years we've experienced higher average ambient temps compared to that of the last century. Our seasons have been unusualy temperamental. There just has to be a reason for it (global warming) and I'm not prepared to just accept it's as a result of climactic fluctuations. We are talking the last 100 years and that, coincidentally, is during the time of the industrial (r)evolution, which has been consistently gaining momentum.

 

How is this, if at all, also affecting future truck development, along with other products? I would figure something like this would cause GM to pause development on large SUVs if anything because they are most relevant to the issue at hand.

 

You know I'm not opposed to cleaning up emissions to reduce CO2. Really. But if they're serious about it put scrubbers on A L L of those power plant smoke stacks. The cars cause a good bit, sure, but the contribution is small compared to the places that produce our electricity.

Something to think about... you can't even lock yourself in a garage with a car running and kill yourself. They don't expel enough pollutants to kill you. Apparently it gives you one hell of a headache, but you won't die. How bad can the cars be? The cats we put on them now are doing great, worry about other industries before we worry about the cars more.

 

Keep in mind you are *choosing* to believe that it is happening and is man-made, just as others are *choosing* to believe that it is not happening and is not man-made. What makes your belief valid and the other belief invalid, when there is data on both sides? The word for that is tyranny.

And how do you propose we control CO2 for a prolonged time without requiring drastic changes in lifestyle for everyone? You make it sound like there's a middle ground on this issue - and there simply is not. Also, when you mention that we should give the issue credence by controlling CO2 - what if it does more harm than good? What if it is water vapor and cosmic rays that are responsible for global warming (don't laugh - it's been tested and is one theory out there)? If everyone drives a water vapor spouting fuel cell vehicle and that theory is true, we would do serious environmental damage. That's why you prove hypotheses with data and experiments - you don't just pass laws and regulations and watch what happens!

 

Global Cooling was a concept that was floated around, and considered to be solid science, in the 1970s. I don't remember this (was born in '78) but I have seen some articles on the internet from back then dealing with this topic. They are actually quite funny when you keep in mind what is NOW the widely accepted theory. The only difference between then and now is that now, the environment is a topic that is being politically exploited.