100 bucks to fill up my truck.

[Stumpalump]

I filled the diesel P/U and it cost 100 bucks. Lets Blame George W.Bush and his evil rich oil buddys. But wasn't it the Democrates that made it enviromentally illegal to drill our own oil in ANWAR? Wasn't it Democrat eviromentalist wack jobs that crushed small local oil producers with miles of red tape and regulations. Didn't the Democraps play a major roll in stopping California from getting more oil. How about all the oil in the Rocky mountains we can't get. Oh but it's the refineries. Why don't we have any new ones built? Over regulation that has put the construction of new ones out of the range of reality. Democrats cost me a hundred bucks for a tank and want to blame sombody else. What will they do when Jimmy Carter Hussain Obama gains power over us. Their plans as of latly have been to increase the taxes on the oil companys. How the hell is that suposed to help at the pump?

 

[ZacSquatch]

You have the option to use alternate fuels, unlike us gas only folks (without pricey conversions)...

I do not pity your poor choice... shush.

 

[tkjeeper]

I'm with you bro, we pay $5 a gallon up here, and just say thankyou and bend over some more. Thank the environmentalists, the fake theory of man made global warming.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Fill it with Biodiesel.

The fact is, global warming is real, no matter what State of Fear has to say about it. You can say what you wish about it being false, but just like evolution and the big bang and so many other theories that have been railed against for so many years, the science is behind it.

Yes, there are climatologists that disagree with global warming. However, they are in the vast minority.

I'm certainly not attempting to insult any of you at all, nor am I trying to belittle anyone's opinions because there are some VERY intelligent people on both sides of the debate.

It is frustrating to pay a lot at the pump, but we do have choices we can make to limit our dependance on oil, and limit the environmental impact we have. Just remember - there isn't a conspiracy to "destroy the oil companies" like many would have you believe. Each side of the debate is trying to do what they feel is the best choice for our country and for the world. No matter what direction we choose, in any decision there are pros and cons. I feel that some of the potential consequences of global environmental change are something I would rather not have the next generation have to deal with. I'm willing to make some sacrifices to make that happen.

Whether or not global warming is real or not, will we really be kicking ourselves in 100 years for cleaning the air and keeping wild areas like ANWAR clean, wild, and beautiful?

 

[Stumpalump]

I would not put bio diesel in my truck if it were free. Mine is a 98 with 140,000 miles on it. Bio diesel acts like a super cleaning agent and loosens years of crud in the tank ,fuel lines and injectors cloging filters and injectors.

 

[Ironmen77]

Fill it with Biodiesel.

The fact is, global warming is real, no matter what State of Fear has to say about it. You can say what you wish about it being false, but just like evolution and the big bang and so many other theories that have been railed against for so many years, the science is behind

Yes, there are climatologists that disagree with global warming. However, they are in the vast minority.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Maybe more than you know about.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Maybe not. I've read it, as well as much else in the realm of global climatology. Having a member of the family who studies climatology will help keep you informed.

For all the noise that those who oppose the science behind global warming make about it "only being a short term trend," you would think they would notice temporary fluctuations like this and apply the same logic. Temporary fluctuations in global temperature do occur. A single year, however, is not a "downward trend." The researchers arguing that global warming is occuring are, in fact, basing it on more than a single year fluctuation, I can assure you.

I would simply say this - many of you own guns as a precaution against the unlikely event someone tries to harm you and your loved ones. Shouldn't we take precautions with regard to protecting our entire planet as we do for our small slice of it we call home? Shouldn't we protect it? Even if you side with those who argue that global warming is an unlikely event, we should take precautions against it, just as you would to protect your house for unlikely events.

I'm not arguing for extremism in any degree. There are many things we can do that have a far greater impact than one might think that do not significantly impact your way of life. I'm not arguing for the environmental extremist view of things - I'm arguing for a practical method of limiting one's impact upon the planet. This means making smart choices about the cars we drive, the homes we live in, the products we purchase, and the way we live our lives. It does not mean giving up driving or giving up offroading - it means being responsible and wise about how we do it.

In the long run, it will do nothing but good to be good stewards of our home.

 

[RichP]

I guess, the past 3 winters here have been the coldest on record for the last 50 or so. Snowfall has been above average for the past 7 years. I really can't afford any more global warming, as the global warming gets worse my heat bills get higher...

 

[TheAlmightySam]

In your area, perhaps snowfall has been higher. Certainly not here on the west coast. Or much of Europe. Or much of Asia. Overall global warming does not cause uniform warming in all areas. In fact, it can even cause cooling and increased precipitation in some areas, especially temporarily. The climatologists looking at these numbers are not looking at 7-year timescales, but rather century+ timescales.

You can argue what you wish about the validity of the claims of global warming and climate change, but either way, even if it turned out to not be true - and, based on the majority of current research, that's a big 'if' - what do we have to lose by taking care of our planet? In the long run, global warming or no, making wise choices and limiting our impact on Earth will make this place a wonderful and beautiful place for our children and our childrens' children to live. That sounds pretty wonderful to me.

 

[XJEEPER]

Sam, zoom out a little.

It's very condecending of anyone to think that we can control global climate change.

We didn't create the Earth, nor can we control how it changes over time. Lassoed a tornado or hurricane lately? How about capping a volcano to reduce it's carbon footprint?

We can be responsible stewards of the Earth, but we are all living with the collaterol effects of the envro-terrorists (by definition, to intimidate through fear) who's agenda has put us in the predicament that we are in.

Their "all or nothing" approach has forced businesses to shift US manufacturing jobs to China and other countries that don't give a rip about the environment and are only concerned about making a buck. So the pollution is merely shifted to an unregulated country who hates the US.......great tactic. Hey, here's another great idea, let's get the UN involved to police them, for another fee that you and I can get taxed for.

We have the US government creating mandates and sanctions for businesses who aren't "Green" which takes us even further towards socialism and more loss of our freedoms.
Oddly enough, the evil oil companies are not losing money through all of this, but showing record profits. So the "smart folks" in Washington have a solution....."Hey, let's tax Big Oil more!" This operating expense is then passed on to the consumer..........

Isn't it fair that we should all pay more for everything, so the eco-terrorists can have a renewed sense of fullfillment and accomplishment? Let's hug.

The renewed Global Climate Change movement in not about taking care of our planet, it's about a new revenue stream, based on scare tactics. Scientists in the 70's were preaching global cooling.........

For those of us that vaguely remember the 70's and fuel shortages, the eco-terrorists where all about alternative fuel sources 40 years ago too. Take nuclear power for example. Great source of clean power source of the future, touted as the replacement for coal fired plants and the clear alternative to fossil fuels.

Wait a minute......what do we do with the nuclear waste? Hmmm, it's a power source came from the Earth, so let's stick it back in the Earth. Enter the eco-terrorists......"we can't stick it back in the Earth, it might leak."

Back to the drawing board.

No one is stepping forth to provide a real and cost effective replacement for petrol, just slapping on more and more restrictions, which equal more expense to the consumer. I look for ways to save energy and take care of the environment.

"All things in moderation" seems to benefit everyone, extremism only serves the special interests groups who are the minority, yet their imposed restrictions negatively impact us all.

Carbon footprint, carbon offsets? .........if it smells like bullcrap, it's probably bullcrap. Hey now, there might be a great, perpetual fuel source! Off to the lab.............:wave1:

 

[IntrepidXJ]

I filled the diesel P/U and it cost 100 bucks.

not sure how big your tank is....but it was costing me over $100 to fill mine last year

 

[TRNDRVR]

Carry on!

 

[RedHeep]

not sure how big your tank is....but it was costing me over $100 to fill mine last year

90 bucks here, $3.54 a gallon

And yes, I made the choice and I'd do it all over again.

 

[JNickel101]

In your area, perhaps snowfall has been higher. Certainly not here on the west coast. Or much of Europe. Or much of Asia. Overall global warming does not cause uniform warming in all areas. In fact, it can even cause cooling and increased precipitation in some areas, especially temporarily. The climatologists looking at these numbers are not looking at 7-year timescales, but rather century+ timescales.

You can argue what you wish about the validity of the claims of global warming and climate change, but either way, even if it turned out to not be true - and, based on the majority of current research, that's a big 'if' - what do we have to lose by taking care of our planet? In the long run, global warming or no, making wise choices and limiting our impact on Earth will make this place a wonderful and beautiful place for our children and our childrens' children to live. That sounds pretty wonderful to me.

Stand down hippy...

First, it actually costs more energy (and pollution) to make a gallon of bio-diesel than it would "save". The same goes for "drilling" the oil from oil sands in the Rockies and in Canada. Just not economical yet. Hydrogen fuel isnt really feasable anytime soon for lots of reasons, but even long term, due to the price and supply of platinum in the world.

Second - Read that article Ironmen77 posted again. XJeeper is also correct - our actions here on earth have nothing to do with climate change. How about we go way back to the "dinosaur era" when there were no polar ice caps at all? Whats your excuse for "global warming" back then? In 1974, all the hippy democrats were claiming we were on the verge of another ice age.

And explain the snow that fell in Iraq this year - for the first time in most Iraqis' lifetimes. Not 7 years. Not 10 years. Global warming my ass. Al Gorilla can go suck an egg.

(XJeeper, I couldnt agree with you more....I know I repeated some of what you said - preach on!!!)

 

[redneck1939]

I filled the diesel P/U and it cost 100 bucks.

i payed around 400 last time i filled. i have two tanks the main one and one in the bed. if you have a tank thats in your bed you can say fill it with offroad diesel and you get a big ass discount.

 

[RedHeep]

i payed around 400 last time i filled. i have two tanks the main one and one in the bed. if you have a tank thats in your bed you can say fill it with offroad diesel and you get a big ass discount.

Hope you never get stopped and checked for dye. The fines for off road diesel on the highway can be in the thousands of dollars.

 

[seanR]

I agree with Stumpy!
Bio-deisel is way over rated.
After watching constroction companies and farmers run that shit for over two years now, the only person who bennifts from that crap are the fuel filter makers....

 

[97CountryXJ]

Let's do some math shall we.....
2 xj's, average fillup, $70, per week.
wifes car, average fillup, $90, per week.
Thats $230 per week X 52 weeks = $11960 per year in fuel.
I could complain about it, but I don't. I like to drive. I need to drive. I have to drive.

 

[RichP]

Stand down hippy...

First, it actually costs more energy (and pollution) to make a gallon of bio-diesel than it would "save". The same goes for "drilling" the oil from oil sands in the Rockies and in Canada. Just not economical yet. Hydrogen fuel isnt really feasable anytime soon for lots of reasons, but even long term, due to the price and supply of platinum in the world.

Damn those icelanders for using un economical hydrogen, don't they know it's not feasible yet. I think they are something like 90% Hydrogen motorvehicle wise so far and it's taken them 3 years since they started. Yea, I know they have geo thermal for the conversion power. I'll still go back to that honda that uses a Hydrogen internal combustion engine with a wall unit to generate hydrogen over nite, yup, it uses power off the grid to operate BUT it does remove the need for gas and moves it up the chain a bit to the grid, from there it's a matter of building nukes to add more to the grid or of individual home owners to add solar electric to power the conversion unit. Oh wait, if they did that there would be no more users 'hooked' on gasoline, thats not good, all those retirement and investment funds would go belly up if that demand was removed. I still firmly believe that it's both govt working with big business to control the money stream thats holding this back. Follow the money trail backwards from the pump and it is kind of obvious.

 

[Stumpalump]

Damn those icelanders for using un economical hydrogen, don't they know it's not feasible yet. I think they are something like 90% Hydrogen motorvehicle wise so far and it's taken them 3 years since they started. Yea, I know they have geo thermal for the conversion power. I'll still go back to that honda that uses a Hydrogen internal combustion engine with a wall unit to generate hydrogen over nite, yup, it uses power off the grid to operate BUT it does remove the need for gas and moves it up the chain a bit to the grid, from there it's a matter of building nukes to add more to the grid or of individual home owners to add solar electric to power the conversion unit. Oh wait, if they did that there would be no more users 'hooked' on gasoline, thats not good, all those retirement and investment funds would go belly up if that demand was removed. I still firmly believe that it's both govt working with big business to control the money stream thats holding this back. Follow the money trail backwards from the pump and it is kind of obvious.

I think the reason they use hydrogen fuel is because they generate electricity from the countrys large number of geothermal vents. It takes a lot of electricity to make hydrogen and they get real cheap electric so it makes economic sense. In this country we would have to burn a lot of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity needed to make hydrogen.