Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
Just read a couple news stories on global warming. It seems the scientific community is as split as the population.

How important is global warming in Maine? Not important enough for local television.

Michael Palmer, the general manager of television stations WVII and WFVX, ABC and Fox affiliates in Bangor, has told his joint staff of nine men and women that when “Bar Harbor is underwater, then we can do global warming stories.”

“Until then,” he added. “No more.”


GHG in Maine
Tagged:
«134567223

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Colorado State University's William Gray, one of the nation's preeminent hurricane forecasters, called noted Boulder climate researcher Kevin Trenberth an opportunist and a Svengali who "sold his soul to the devil to get (global warming) research funding."

    Trenberth countered that Gray is not a credible scientist.

    "Not any more. He was at one time, but he's not any more," Trenberth said of Gray, one of a handful of prominent U.S. scientists who question whether humans play a significant role in warming the planet by burning fossil fuels that release heat-trapping gases.


    Hurricanes cause Tempest
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganMember Posts: 14,014
    I heard cattle manure is one of the major causes to global warming due to the methane produced at the feedlots. It does make a lil' sense to me.

    Rocky
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    Global warming is a directly observable fact. We also know that human activity is contributing to the warming of the earth. The scientific community is split, but, the split is like 99 to 1. Unfortunately, it is also a very complex issue when you try to get all the details worked out. The average person has a "meltdown" when you try to talk about the issue.

    As to your question, are autos a major player, probably not. Human activity contributes to the issue, however, at this point it is hard to say if human activity is causing 10% or 90% of the global warming. The auto contribution is also tough to nail down.

    Power plants add a fair amount of CO2 to the air. The good news is that CO2 injection in the ground looks promising. So I guess when we all buy electric cars the CO2 from the power plants will not be a problem. ;)

    Should we do anything on the auto front? Some tax breaks might be OK. As time goes on higher energy prices will likely reduce global warming contributions more than any government sponsored program.

    I for one am impressed by some of the new cars coming out. The new Altima and Sentra have some pretty good MPG numbers. Honda has also announced a more fuel efficient 2.4L motor. We will be seeing better diesels in the next few years and we now have the low sulfur fuel. Overall, I would say things are headed in the right direction from a global warming/pollution standpoint.

    The fact that the this general manager wants to screen the news, well, that does not surprise me. The analogy to killer bees was just dumb. Bees are important. They can also cause problems.
    http://www.semissourian.com/story/1176056.html
    http://www.local10.com/news/10036682/detail.html
  • cowens1cowens1 Member Posts: 2
    Last I checked...didn't the Government/Courts rule that there was no such thing as Global Warming?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I think you and I see it about the same. There is no reason to add CO2 if it can be avoided. The fact that we exhale the stuff is a contributing factor. The one scientist I talked to in Alaska, while he was studying ice formations, was of the same opinion. It is just not easy to put the blame on any one activity. There may not be anything we can do to change what is going on.
  • cowens1cowens1 Member Posts: 2
    And what ever happened to that story about California trying to sue the automakers over global warming. I read the headline and the story in USA TODAY and then never heard anything else about it. Anyone heard what happened with that?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Probably the most sober thing we could say about it at this point in the research (because science, if it is good science, is always learning new things) is that global warming is definitely happening, and at an alarming rate, the causes of which are unclear, but to which a percentage must be ascribed man-made activity...and that automobiles, being a subset of man-made activity, are helping to accelerate what is probably a natural + man-made phenomenon in the first place.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing for some time. Burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas....) adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Automobiles by themselves are only a part of the fossil fuel problem.

    Carbon dioxide is a green house gas, meaning that it traps heat in the atmosphere, which leads to warming of the earths surface. The sunlight adds energy to the earths surface. This energy, which comes in as short wave energy, must be released back into space as long wave energy. Carbon dioxide slows the long wave energy transmission through the atmosphere.

    One point that should be noted, earth has had ice ages in the recent past. Perhaps, without the increased carbon dioxide, we are due for another? So, things could be worse, or at least an ice age would probably not be better.
  • oldharryoldharry Member Posts: 413
    The globe warmed about a quarter degree celsius between 1900 and 1950. From the early fifties till the late seventies, it cooled about an eigth degree C. That was when activists were screaming that global cooling would end all life on earth, and we 'must do something immediately'.

    Thirty years later, global warming is going to end all life on earth, according to the same people.

    Use of fossil fuels was not curtailed in the period of cooling. We have insufficient data to show human activity is a significant cause of global temperature change. Those who claim we do are invariably seeking money for their research, or have political goals.

    I support energy conservation for other reasons, but am not in a state of panic over global warming.

    Harry
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    These figures are from NASA and seem to imply a strong correlation between C02 gases and global mean temperature. I dunno. I got a c+ in statistics.

    Year CO2 Temp
    1959 315.98 14.07
    1960 316.91 14.01
    1961 317.65 14.07
    1962 318.45 14.04
    1963 318.99 14.09
    1964 319.52 13.83
    1965 320.03 13.90
    1966 321.37 13.98
    1967 322.18 13.98
    1968 323.05 13.96
    1969 324.62 14.08
    1970 325.68 14.02
    1971 326.32 13.89
    1972 327.46 14.00
    1973 329.68 14.12
    1974 330.25 13.89
    1975 331.15 13.94
    1976 332.15 13.86
    1977 333.90 14.11
    1978 335.50 14.02
    1979 336.85 14.10
    1980 338.69 14.16
    1981 339.93 14.22
    1982 341.13 14.07
    1983 342.78 14.25
    1984 344.42 14.07
    1985 345.90 14.04
    1986 347.15 14.12
    1987 348.93 14.27
    1988 351.48 14.30
    1989 352.91 14.19
    1990 354.19 14.37
    1991 355.59 14.32
    1992 356.37 14.14
    1993 357.04 14.14
    1994 358.88 14.25
    1995 360.88 14.38
    1996 362.64 14.24
    1997 363.76 14.40
    1998 366.63 14.56
    1999 368.31 14.33
    2000 369.48 14.31
    2001 371.02 14.47
    2002 373.10 14.54
    2003 375.64 14.52
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Look at 1959, when the CO2 was 315.98 and Temp was 14.07

    Then in 1984, CO2 was 344.42 and Temp was STILL 14.07
    And in 1982, CO2 was 341.13 and Temp was STILL 14.07

    Then between 1988 and 1989, CO2 went up and Temp went down.
    Again in 1990 and 1991, CO2 went up and Temp went down.

    The only "upward trend" I notice is that both data points went up together from 2000 thru 2003.

    But then 1998 was hotter than 2003, so how did CO2 fall into that equation?

    Anyway - science tells us that CO2 is a problem, and there are LOTS of other sources of CO2 besides cars.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    This paper reviews papers that have been published. There are a number of graphs that some of you may find interesting. You will need to read the paper to understand them and I do not claim to have a clear understanding myself.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    The only "upward trend" I notice is that both data points went up together from 2000 thru 2003.

    The only conclusion we can draw from that is the Hybrids have caused the increase in GHG :blush:
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    There were about 150,000 hybrids in the WORLD by the end of 2003, of about 500 million + cars and trucks and motorcycles in operation.

    So, YES, I'm sure they had a MASSIVEglobal warming effect. :P
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    You a funny guy, have a good week! How warm is it in Phoenix? I have friends from Alaska visiting your city for the first time.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Today's high to be 89/90/89 for Mon-Wed this week, lows in the upper 50s.

    currently 61 at 9:51 AM
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "...and seem to imply a strong correlation between C02 gases and global mean temperature."

    Well, it would seem to show that higher CO2 levels occur at the roughly the same time as higher temps. Of course, it looks like CO2 levels are up not quite 20% since 1959 (375/315), while global temps are up by 'only' about 3.5% (14.5/14).

    Is it possible that the elevated CO2 atmospheric content is NOT just from the addition of CO2 from fossil fuels, but also from removing large swaths of earth's rainforest (removing portions of the CO2 sink)?
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    "Is it possible that the elevated CO2 atmospheric content is NOT just from the addition of CO2 from fossil fuels, but also from removing large swaths of earth's rainforest (removing portions of the CO2 sink)?"

    I would say yes. We can also add to that the trees that have been removed in temperate climates over the last few hundred years. Some scientist are even suggesting that there may be a problem with burying a lot of vegetation under water in reservoirs behind dams.
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0612-07.htm

    So it appears that cars are just one of many things causing global warming besides methane producing termites and cows.

    I would make a hot air joke about politicians causing global warming, being that it is the day before elections here in the states, but we all know there is no evidence to support that theory :D
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    No hot Co2 gases spewing from us edumacated folks.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Even a 'clean' diesel-powered 4x4 will produce cancer-causing soot and global warming CO2. Also, diesel exhaust fumes are a major contributing factor to acid rain.

    And:

    Global Warming
    Diesel exhaust not only threatens public health,it contributes substantially to global warming through emissions of carbon and other heat-trapping gases.
    Transportation is the source of roughly one-third of all heat-trapping gases released in the United States. This is more than most countries release from all sources combined.


    And:

    Diesel Soot adds to Global Warming

    It's dirty, smelly, causes respiratory and cardiovascular disease and shortens life, true, but now there's another reason to hate diesel exhaust: Its soot exacerbates global warming. Reducing soot emissions will slow global warming faster than will reducing carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases, says a Stanford pollution expert.

    "If you want to control global warming, the first thing to go after is soot," says Mark Z. Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "But you should not neglect carbon dioxide. Controlling fossil-fuel soot will not only slow global warming but also will improve human health."


    So please don't try to give us the "diesel eliminates global warming" line. Not flying with this edumacated fellow. :shades:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Can you find any older anti-diesel smut to sell here? If you had studied the situation you would know that sulfur is the primary ingredient in the soot from diesel engines. So a study based on high sulfur diesel is of little value to an educated population. Get us some recent studies of modern diesel engines using ULSD and it will give your argument a bit more credence.

    The best selling car in America puts out about 1.5 tons more GHG per year than a VW TDI diesel car. That is based on high sulfur diesel. Think how much better the score with ULSD.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    If you want to talk about the relative change in temperature, you need to look at the absolute temperature, which in kelvin is celsius plus 273. However, if carbon dioxide is doubled, the expected change in temperature is about 2 to 5 degrees K.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    well I did use "correlation", not causation...which I think is the proper conclusion to make from statistics alone.

    HOWEVER---the polar ice is definitely absolutely, no argument, no contest......MELTING.

    Interestingly this is causing a big BEEF between USA and Canada, on Canada's right to supervise the Northwest Passage (previously nearly unpassable, but soon to be a major highway for anybody....or NOT anybody, if Canada gets its way).

    Unfortunately for Canada, they haven't much in the way of equipment to enforce their claim.

    WEIRD FACTOID: one future cause of global warming? Flat screen TVS, which use 3X normal electricity, which means more coal burning, etc......

    The point of all rambling post? That the problem of global warming will have to be addressed on a VERY broad front, not just cars....
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    That was an interesting article. Soot can come from a variety of sources, however.

    "In earlier work, Bond estimated that burning firewood -- the principal fuel for cook stoves in the developing world -- produces 800,000 metric tons of soot worldwide each year. In comparison, diesel cars and trucks generate about 890,000 metric tons of soot annually. These two sources each account for about 10 percent of the soot emitted into the world's atmosphere each year, she said."
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/acs-sfw102406.php

    I agree with gagrice in that ULSD will have a beneficial impact in reducing global warming gases and soot.

    "The massive forest fire in Indonesia (1997/1998) released approx. 2.57 gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere (source: Nature magazine, November 2002). During 1997-1998, the total amount of Carbon Dioxide released to the atmosphere was 6 gigatonnes."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_fire

    This article suggests that forest fires might be one of the biggest GW contributors. Forest fires also produce a lot of soot.

    Again, it appears from the current evidence that autos are not a major source of global warming. Still, that does not mean we cannot work on reducing their contribution to the problem. If we are heading toward a tipping point, even a small reduction might help us avoid going over the edge.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    Your weird factoid at first had me a bit puzzled. I was under the impression that the new TVs were more energy efficient. A quick Google search turned up an article at

    http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html?tag=nav

    * Microdisplay rear projector: 0.11 to 0.15 watt per square inch
    * LCD: 0.16 to 0.41 watt per square inch
    * CRT: 0.25 to 0.40 watt per square inch
    * Plasma: 0.30 to 0.39 watt per square inch

    The 40 inch LCD was 214 watts. The 42 inch plasma TVs scored a toasty warm 357 & 360 watts. On the other hand, a 50 inch plasma TV was 229 to 236 depending on if the power save was on. The 20 inch LCD only used 18 watts.

    So I guess in the TV world, like the auto world, bigger is generally bad for global warming.

    More on topic, I find the trend in high HP cars a bit disappointing from a GW perspective. Do people really need a 262 HP Camry? How about the new Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG which has 604 hp and 738 lb ft of torque?

    HP = Heat & CO2 = Global Warming :(
  • pisulinopisulino Member Posts: 78
    Interesting discussion.
    My twist will be to know the actual effect air traffic is causing.
    The air traffic has increased exponentially in the last 25 years.
    I'm ignorant of what really causes this so called " global warming". But for sure would love to understand the effect of the emissions created by airplanes and in addition to that, if the effect is worst when emitting directly up at 35,000 feet.
    Just a thought. Also, what are the emmissions of one plane (commercial medium size) compared to cars. Is it 1 to 50, 1 to 1000?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    compared to cars. Is it 1 to 50, 1 to 1000?

    I researched NoX from jets and cars. The latest cleanest Gulfstream emits 500 times as much NoX as a VW diesel car. When you consider how many 1000s of miles a Gulfstream will get flown in a year compared to a car it is a very significant. And the Gulfstream is clean compared to many military and commercial aircraft. The key is people flying in a Gulfstream have a lot more stroke than the average person driving in a car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Are you factoring in the # of people on the planes, that is, "people-miles per NoX particle?

    For instance, I'm sure a city bus emits more NoX than a VW diesel, but it's carrying a lot of people per mile, so it works out to be better.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I picked the Gulfstream as an upscale very efficient jet. I doubt they carry more than 5-7 people on most jaunts cross country. Diesel buses are a whole different situation. How many have any smog equipment? I would seriously doubt they are as clean per passenger mile as a new VW TDI. I think city buses in general are better than school buses. With school budgets always getting messed with, I can imagine that school bus upgrades are a very low priority in most districts.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Global warming is caused by an increase in the "green house gases". Green house gases trap heat in the atmosphere. The basic heat balance of the earth is that the Sun sends short wave energy (light) to the Earth which passes through the atmosphere easily and heats the surface of the earth. This heat must then escape by radiating back through the atomosphere as long wave energy. Green house gases absorb long wave energy, so the heat at the surface passes part way through the atmosphere before it is absorbed. Then the atmosphere re-radiates the longwave energy, both upward and downward, so that some the longwave energy reheats the surface. More green house gases will trap the longwave energy closer to the surface so that less longwave energy gets out of the atmosphere.

    With say half the green house gases, the longwave energy may get half way out before absorbtion. Now, with twice the green house gases, the long wave energy may get absorbed twice before escaping. Actually, the longwave energy is absorbed continuously, and re-radiated continuously, but some longwave energy will escape without being absorbed. The effect of more green house gases is that less energy will escape from the surface to outer space directly. That means that more energy will re-radiate, which means that the surface will get more secondary heating from the re-radiated long wave energy trying to escape.

    I hope this helps.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganMember Posts: 14,014
    They will tell Supreme Court that EPA must regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

    http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/AUTO01/611270329/1148

    High Court cases will impact Mich.

    http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/AUTO01/611270375/1148

    Rocky
  • cticti Member Posts: 131
    Pluggin the data Shifty provided give a correlation co-efficient of .876. Seems good to me.

    Doing a simple scatter plot also shows, visually, a good correlation. A plot of the temperature v. time looks very much like the random walk of an increasing stock market. Sometimes it is up, sometimes it is down, but the general trend is a steady increase.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The Earth has been warming since the Ice Age, and there is nothing humans have done, or can do, to change it. I think we are over estimating our capabilities, to think we could. Yes, we are creating pollution, but a good hard rain does wonders for that. Nature controls the temperature, not us.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Finally some real scientists that are not afraid to tell the truth.

    LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."
    The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.
    The documentary, directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin, is at odds with scientific opinion as outlined in a United Nations report in February, which blames mankind for global warming.
    In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."
    The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."


    Global Warming???
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists,

    Does that even make sense? Why would a group that is anti-industrial have any desire to create and promote a multi-billion dollar industry? Especially one based upon misinformation. If you want to call them fanatical, environmentalists that's okay, since we all know environmentalists are fanatics. But the insertion of anti-industrial in that sentenced somewhat discredits the intelligence of the person that wrote it.

    If "green" is a multi-billion dollar industry than the current, entrenched CO2 producing industries are probably multi-trillion. If you take the purely cynical approach that governments will cater to the highest bidder this should be a slam dunk for the global warming myth crowd.

    The sun is indeed getting hotter but that has been the case from day one yet the planet has gone through cooling and warming cycles despite this.

    I'm not 100% convinced that mankind is responsible or even plays a role in global warming but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely increasing. I think the evidence between temperature and CO2 levels is pretty conclusive. The creators of this program must be saying that emitting CO2 and clearing rainforests does not impact the CO2 level in the environment. Okay, then what does cause this level to change?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I don't disagree that we should try to do some things to cut back on CO2. I believe that the Global Warming hysteria being put forth is POLITICALLY motivated. Lots of BS and little science.

    Ball said it goes all the way back to 1992 and to Kyoto architect, Canadian Maurice Strong.

    "Maurice Strong has said that the industrial nations are the polluters and (that) it is our duty to get rid of them," said Ball.

    "The minute you start to question it (global warming), you lose the moral highground," he added.

    Addressing the hysteria of a global warming that frightens school children who are being told that the earth will burn up, Ball said "thirty years ago, global cooling was the consensus."

    Ball also challenged the authority of the oft-quoted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.

    The UN report by the IPCC was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

    "There are 2,000 people on the panel, not 2,000 scientists. Most are bureaucrats and politicians," he said.


    NO Consensus
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    on a cross Canada jet flight. That is about what the average small car produces in one year. We are beating the wrong horse.

    What’s being done about emissions from air transportation?

    Not much, unfortunately. Countries with national emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol, like Canada, are only required to account for emissions from domestic flights. Emissions from international flights are not counted. And very little has been done to actually limit these emissions. To date the only formal plan to control and reduce international aviation emissions is being developed within the European Union (EU).
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Does that even make sense? Why would a group that is anti-industrial have any desire to create and promote a multi-billion dollar industry?"

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    You are confusing the words "industrial" with "industry". It can be said there is a motion-picture "industry", a public-service "industry", a pharmaceutical "industry", etc etc yet NONE of these things are generally thought of as being "industrial".

    Yes, there IS a global-warming "industry" (ie. a large loose collective of individuals, groups, and businesses which make money from the concept of global-warming). And yes, by and large this group is anti-industrial.

    Yes, one can identify corelations between global increases in CO2 and global increases in temperature. It's the CAUSATION which is (IMO) still up for debate.

    "Okay, then what does cause this level to change?"

    Consider: roughly 40% of the photosynthesis on Earth is done by bacteria in the worlds oceans. With fluctuations in water temperature, huge die-offs of these bacteria can occur, resulting in less removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    So, which phenomenon causes which? All that is discussed is that CO2 CAUSES temps to increase due to the greenhouse effect. But, do temp fluctuations resulting in bacteria reductions in the oceans CAUSE less removal of CO2? I'm not saying one event 100% causes the other; I'm simply wondering why other explanations (besides it's ALL MAN'S FAULT) aren't being discussed.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding,

    That seems to be the premise this "myth" position is based upon. First off let's agree that these scientists have a greater knowledge of factors that effect climate and the atmosphere than you or I. In that case they aren't mistaken about global warming, they are deliberately lying. So a large international collection of highly educated professionals have entered into an agreement to mislead the world in order to receive research grants? Research grants to further study global warming, which they already know is a myth. Are they getting rich off these grants? In order for these type of people to prostitute their science the financial incentive would have to be substantial. And even then a good percentage would have the integrity to expose the myth. Conspiracies do happen but I find this one to be somewhat implausible just because of the scope, the individuals involved, and the fact that they are spread out over the globe.

    It would be interesting to see this program. I suspect it will have a documentary flavor to it, kind of like a Michael Moore film.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I disagree with your definition of "industrial". Do a google search on "industrial complex" and you get the whole spectrum of industries. Including such things as pharmaceutical, military, prison, meat, surveillance, eco, etc.. Just like you have a pharmaceutical industry you have an oil industry. You don't have an oil industrial. I guess you could say that the industrial revolution was fueled to a large part by CO2 producing power plants. What if it had been supported by nuclear power plants instead? Would it not still have been the industrial revolution?

    simply wondering why other explanations (besides it's ALL MAN'S FAULT) aren't being discussed.

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we conclude that man is a contributing factor. That contribution is greater than 0% and less than 100%. To me someone stating that global warming is a myth is taking the position that mankind is not contributing to global warming or his contribution is negligible. Your reference to bacteria affecting CO2 levels is a good one. If bacteria can impact the environment why can't man?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I would like to see a panel of REAL scientists debate the subject. Not a hack like Al Gore get up and draw the conclusion that We (the USA) are to blame for all the world's ills. How many real scientists are involved in these media events, such as the Oscars? The only scientist I ever talked to was studying ice core samples in the Arctic. He did not agree or disagree with the concept that man could be causing global warming. He claimed more study was needed. I would think that is the consensus among REAL scientists.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I like to think of the current global warming hysteria as a scam, scandal or sham. Maybe the globe is warming so what. You can also find evidence that it is cooling off. This is one of the coldest winters on record for SoCAL. I lost dozens of trees that are 25-30 years old. Canada claims it is an extremely cold winter. All that means is weather patterns change. When you start pumping our children full of stories of NYC flooding because daddy drives a PU truck you are not doing a service to educating a child. You are polarizing the nation. Global Warming as an issue is just more polarization that is not needed.
  • langjielangjie Member Posts: 250
    global warming is the wrong name...it should be global climate change

    i just know that the less greenhouse gases you product, the better
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    We're not holding a "how to save the planet and who's full of baloney seminar" here. :surprise: The question is...are today's vehicles possibly contributing to global warming, so let's keep it focused on that.

    Thanks for your cooperation!
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    The baloney factor is relevant to the subject. The leading proponent has written in his book that we should do away with the internal combustion engine. That does not leave much to propel our automobiles. Which does not leave much for Edmund's to report on. There are those that would be happy to see all the cars go away and we be forced to ride a bike or the bus.
  • prosource1prosource1 Member Posts: 234
    Ted Turner was touting his 'millions invested' in global warming technology. The facts are that there is no real evidence, when one examines the facts, that humans have anything to do with climate change. Read the facts.

    http://www.nov55.com/gbwg.html
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "If bacteria can impact the environment why can't man?"

    I never said man can't.

    The problem I have with the whole issue is the presupposition that man is responsible for MOST of global warming, that the effects of global warming are all BAD, that if ONLY man changed his habits global warming wouldn't occur, and that man CAN change with little to no economic hardship.

    That's a lot to swallow.
This discussion has been closed.