First off Ccc it’s impossible to PROVE that cars cause more cancer. if you had taken any science classes you would that.
Second…you don’t want to debate…all you want to do is repeat your dogma over and over again…everyone should only ride on trains.
You refuse to answer questions. You just repeat your dogma when asked.
You have argued against what people NEVER said…and REFUSE to apologies for it.
Please leave…
Lighten up mike, I understand your frustration, but public forum includes many non discretionary carps, One bright side is we get something else to read besides my car won’t start, what’s wrong?
On a side note, NASA called and said it found your tinfoil hat floating in space. 
Wow I lost that so long ago, who do I call to get it back?
The international space station is blocking the sunlight and is causing global cooling.
Here’s a great little video on the subject from Minnesotans For Global Warming http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/02/frozen-wasteland.html
and http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/11/the-minnesotans-for-global-warming-song.html
You’re welcome. By the way, I think the report is referring to autos around the world, not just in the USA, so China is not getting a pass. I do know that many Chinese cities have horrible air pollution and National Geographic reports that “In many big cities 50 percent of the air pollution is coming from cars” already, which will surely increase as car ownership increases. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0628_040628_chinacars_2.html
“My post is 100% an article from Scientific American about a NASA report”.
I think you should look at the primary source, the NASA report. While Scientific American is a good publication, I don’t believe it is a peer reviewed journal. At my institution, a publication in a non-refereed journal does not count for promotion or tenure.
If Scientific American is not a refereed journal, then don’t accept an article as 100% accurate. See if you can find another article about the NASA report in a peer reviewed journal. Such an article would have more credibility.
I have nothing against Scientific American. However, when an article receives a blind review in a scholarly journal, the article is more credible.
I’ve been freezing my buns off for weeks now. It’s 15 F out there as I write.
I’m looking forward to the warming.
But wait! You say the industrial land power sectors are causing global cooling!
Are we warming or are we cooling? Which is it? The northern ice cap is shrinking…but the southern ice cap is growing. How much of an impact is solar activity having? How about changes in the sun’s magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field? How about the various forms of radiation that constantly bombard the Earth?
If you want to live without a car, I wish you well…although I read that your wife has one. I do not choose to live without a car. Cars are amoung the greatest inventions of the last 125 years. They’ve done more good things for us, and have been more of a factor in reducing disease and death, as well as making medical technology readily accessable to those who need it, than just about anything else I can think of. If we were still using livestock for transport, lifespans would probabbly not be much higher than then were at the dawn of the 20th century. I offer as evidence the short lifespans of third world countries where livestock is still the main form of transport, where developed roads and highways are almost nonexistant and motorized vehicles are rare.
Look, let me be frank. Your premise and your proposal and rediculous. Nobody in their right mind is gong to support the extermination of the automobile. the “transformation of our transportation and urban systems”. And we already subsidize rails to the tune of $27Billion a year. We don’t need to build more.
Mike’s comments are spot-on. As are Triedaq’s and others here. Your premise is rediculous, your arguments inane, and your logic convaluted. You’re like a fly that one cannot manage to swat, like a mosquito that gets into the bedroom in the middle of the night and buzzes around one’s head unable to be squashed. Why you conmtinue to apparently belive that you can infuence anyone here is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Same Old Smountain, looks like the cold broke your spellcheck!
Your arguments are all “straw man” – saying that I proposed “the extermination of the automobile” so that you can oppose it. I couldn’t even formulate such a wacky notion so congratulations on doing so.
If you don’t like discussion of this aspect of the reality of cars then don’t participate, but don’t try to tell everyone else what to do, thanks.
Anyway if you subscribe to the idea that cold weather somewhere on the planet disproves the climate change crisis that has been observed and verified by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, then there’s not much anyone can tell you.
We had the global cooling scare in the 70’s, Why are you getting so pissy? I had no problem reading the post. A logical solution is for cars to emit more particulate matter. You are posting a topic, and is your Modus operandi just to dish respected members who you think are trying to tell everyone else what to do, when on that accord you are more guilty?