Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yes, wrong about your position on the science of climate change not being there yet. There are many top scientists who believe the science is there to make the case for M.M global warming. You are much more informed than other members about this particular subject, though I wouldn't say that nessesarily equates with you being correct on the matter. You very well could be... but I'm not going to take your word on it.
And yes, wrong about C02 levels driving global warming. Though I did not say we MUST do "something". I believe we are doing a lot... the question is to what degree this "something" must be done.
I am not invoking the precautionary principle if it states, "you don't have much to go on" as I believe there is much more to "go on" than you are suggesting, though I do not believe we have enough to "go on" to take the drastic measures the "zealots" call for.
As for keeping politics "out of this", I don't fully understand this complaint. It's always been like this and always will. Politicians will jump on what brings them the most votes. Why would this be a surprise? I know you may not care to believe this, but I think there are many caring and concerned politicians and citizens who believe M.M global warming is a fact, and they want to help make a change for the better.
the burden is on you to make the scientific case...
That's a heavy burden you're laying on my shoulders tidester. With the earth being billions of years old, there will never be any rock solid indisputable evidence for M.M global warming.
ah, now that is an entirely different question!
That is why I labeled them question one... and question two. :P
I propose addressing issues of pollution for what they are
Me too. But, some will say if you can kill two birds with one stone... why not?
Hope this helps.
Yep. Thanks.
Science shouldn't be about believing. It should be about knowing.
Many top scientists do think the science isn't there yet.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
If science were only about knowing then we couldn't say we have scientific knowledge of Jupiter's moons since we don't even know how many there are. We're somewhere in the middle on that, knowing tons more than we did but with a ton to learn. I'm still mourning Pluto's lack of status as a planet..... Gw is to blame no doubt....
There is no such mathematical LAW of GW. You know CO2 causes GW. You do not know if there are 25 or 50 other factors to consider in the equation, and which ones have very small effect.
Frankly I do not get real excited when someone says the CO2 level went from 0.000300 to 0.000370. If it went to 0.037000 (100X), now I might say that's a real change.
But we can argue all we want about the science of this issue. Let's talk sociology and psychology - how do you convince 6+ billion people to seriously cut back, or not want electricity and all the things it runs, and vehicles? You need to offer them some other source of energy to give up the carbon-based energy. How do you convince masses of people who are so poor and desperate, that they are willing to hack open pipelines and haul gasoline away in pans. Are we going to build windmills and solar panels for 6 billion people anytime soon?
That's called learning and learning is the first step to knowing. And knowing is the path to wisdom ... Sorry! I could not resist.
Certainly epistemology is important in relation to climate change but one can easily fall off the philosophical deep end.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I'm actually all over the map on this topic so I'm mostly reading and thinking...
Dont' be ridiculous, "average temp" is a meaningless term, have you learned nothing????
Actually, the north pole and Greenland are much warmer than that, and of course (to hoist you on your petard), it only has to be above freezing locally to melt.
Shifting weather patterns...have greater influence on glacial growth or shrinkage than "global temperatures."
But the question is not "what causes changes" but rather whether anthropogenic (:P) GHG are causing changes...we might be able to do something about that. If the shifting weather patterns are somewhat constant over time, then the rising global temp becomes a greater influence....over time.
That's like asking whether the size of my savings account will increase if I deposit 25 cents into it. Well, yeah! But (a) would it really matter and (b) aren't there any other factors that would overwhelm that pittance?
Well, you're begging the question....if the answer to those is "no" then the rise in global temp becomes a factor.
Do I agree that there are questions?
No, that wasn't my question...you are of the opinion that there is not enough evidence that current rise in CO2 will cause enough global warming to matter, rendering the anthropogenic question moot. Ok, I got my answer!
Like evolution and other scientific theories, although the concepts can be understood in varying degrees by "lay" people (like me), ultimately, most of us rely on the opinions of experts to verify that the various related concepts hold together and are scientifically valid and consistent. Knowledge should never be determined by a popularity contest, but until the major controversies get whittled down, it's hard for the general public to know who's right.
Many top scientists do think the science isn't there yet.
And many think it is. We need a weighted average
While I have a great deal of respect re your opinion, I really can't determine whether your argument (which amounts to "we don't know enough yet, so no action is justified, and given what we know such action will not be required") is valid. And given the preponderence of scientists (who must have access to the same data and theory as you) that disagree with you, I suspect it's not.
But (and this is really what matters in my POV) you certainly have given me much to think about and pursue. Good work!
And given that anything jipster and I agree on is highly suspect, you may have something
I assume you mean that is is being "used" for political purposes. This, I understand.
However, while I'm sure you're not surprised at that, you certainly must understand that the "process" of applying the science of climate change to any action and the requisite funding and popular backing that would entail is a political enterprise by definition.
Like the CIA re Iraq, the scientific community supplies the primary data and the politicians must decide how to act on it. And if they make bad decisions, we throw them out...assuming we still have something to throw them out of
Actually, both are theoretical probabilities. While the probability of a hit are very large (and larger as time passes), it's not a certainty. In both cases, we examine the science and decide whether to act.
Always looking for someone to tell them the answer...
The vast majority of humans do not have the capacity to understand or judge complex scientific knowledge. for example, what % of humanity is capable of determining what is safe or unsafe re nuclear reactions? The overwhelming majority must rely on others to give them the (peer-reviewed) answers. This is true for GW as well, to a large extent.
IF CO2 causes global warming there is no stopping the production of CO2...
No one but a fool would suggest we could "stop" producing CO2. However the reduction of sources and the increase of sinks is certainly possible. The question is the nature of the urgency, if any.
The words kettle and pot keep popping into my mind but I can't quite discern the meaning ... :P
Knowledge should never be determined by a popularity contest
Exactly!
And given the preponderence of scientists ...
The preponderance is an illusion. If you carefully read the peer reviewed words of most respectable scientists on the matter they almost unanimously use precautionary words that admit their conclusions are tentative, at best, and allow considerable wiggle room. Assertions of certitude, finality, majority and so on are political inserts written by nonscientists (read as politicians) to influence policy makers.
For example, we have heard from one well-known politician that 10s of thousands of scientists agree to something or other. It turned out that the "majority" of those "signatories" agreed to no such thing (their names used without their permission) and many on the list were people like the weatherman from Hodunk or the park ranger from Kenya. Yes, there were names of a few respectable scientists on the list but the assertions were highly misleading.
BTW, I am surprised you would emphasize "preponderances" in the same breath you warned that knowledge should never be determined by popularity contest. <Visualize a smirk here!>
Also, I didn't mean to hijack this discussion but I thought it would be fun to share some ideas. It was.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Exactly, I think we're both begging the question!
The preponderance is an illusion.
Which one?....yours or mine?
Exhibit A: If you carefully read the peer reviewed words of most respectable scientists...
That was from you!
So, a question here is.....how can one tell? Which are respectable, I mean.
Assertions of certitude, finality, majority...
Agreed, we have to cut off the ends of the "normal curve" on this....but that goes for both ends. Including the shrill voices screaming "chicken little" and "move from the coast" and "Man is too puny to affect anything"...etc. That still leaves a huge middle ground.
BTW, I am surprised you would emphasize "preponderances"...
You say majority and I say preponderance...let's call the whole thing off!
I didn't mean to hijack this discussion...
I don't think you hijacked it....I think you've infused some rational counterpoints....refreshing!
Now if you try to hijack, it'll be a Terms of Agreement letter from me!!!
me: well actually the earth is hit everyday by smaller asteroids; but yes we are talking the football-size or bigger ones. Seeing that Jupiter was only hit a few years ago, and looking at the surface of the moon, well it is a fairly high probability. My point was this is a PROVEN threat; whereas man-made CO2 leading to GW is not proven that it is 1) of significant magnitude, or 2) won't be mitigated by some other environmental change.
The overwhelming majority must rely on others to give them the (peer-reviewed) answers.
me: agree, as most of us don't have the education or time to investigate the facts. However most of us should be capable of differentiating (if we want) between a theory and a fact. If scientists tell us that pygmies on an island have always been 4'6" tall and they eat a lot of pineapples, and then they present people today from around the world who eat a lot of pineapples and are shorter than average, should we believe that eating pineapples will keep your kids short? But then again our pseudo-scientists find a gullible market for 100's of new diet-pills/powders each year.
I think we train people as children to believe in experts too much, and not be skeptical. Probably raising children to respect their elders and authority needs to be moderated. But I can imagine it makes parenting easier - to engrain in your children "Listen and do what you're told".
Maybe if we were more skeptical and demanded more proof, we as a society we wouldn't have accepted the "data/proof from the experts - CIA, Pentagon" on the WMD in Iraq?
It's surprising that U.S. energy usage (of all types) was down. So despite our population and GDP growth we are acting more efficiently. But there are limits of course to how efficient you can make any device, and then the other major factor is how much do you use that device (and how many people do you have using devices).
Find a lot more here World Energy Report
Well, actually, while total petroleum product consumption was down, gas consumption was up, almost 1%. Looks like there's not so much price elasticity for gas, at least at 2006 prices.
texases:...the US is using less than 1/4 of total world oil production, and the % is slowly dropping. That means more than 3/4 of the problem is out of our hands, and we shouldn't kid ourselves on the impact we can make.
While techically true, it's funny how one can look at the same data with different perspectives. We use 25% of the world's oil (#2 is China at 8%) and we are the world leader in many ways. So not only can we impact the total more than any other country, we can influence others more as well. At least we used to be able to.
But no, we cannot do it alone.
Dr Phil, Oprah, Jack Lalane, Ahnold, Dennise Austin, and the Harvard Medical Center can tell people how to lose weight; but if they're not motivated to do so it ain't going happen. And looking around, it ain't happening
And to tell you the truth people have a lot more incentive to lose weight, then they have incentive too reduce energy consumption. I thiink even if you could definitively prove that CO2 was causing GW, and that it was going to be pretty severe (10+F), they would still keep their TV's, cars, and lifestyle the way it is today. Do you see the average person sacrificing much for a problem that isn't bad for 50-100 years out?
And II frankly don't see any aspiring, developing economies sacrificing their advancement while the U.S. leads an energy intensive liifestyle. That is simiular to my personal view that before someone asks me to reduce my energy usage, I want to see the people who use more than I do reduce first.
The only fair and accpetable system would be energy rationing. And the people with $ who have boats, planes, large homes, ... are certainly going to donate politically to make sure that doesn't happen either, by ensuring people who support rationing wouldn't be elected.
No corporation is going to go along with protecting the environment. Why? Because it is NOT profitable. If it were then they wouldn't have done damaging stuff in the first place (Crude oil boom in the 1800's)
And another problem is, spoiled rich Americans and other people across the globe do not want to change their habits. They want their gas guzzling, ridiculouly large SUVs, oversized homes, etc...
A glimmer of hope? Hawaii could be a big hydrogen producer too.
The Ring-of-Fire nations could be the next OPEC!
If Yellowstone does get just the right earthquake then a lot of Wyoman's , Idahoans and Montanans are in for a big 'ole footrace. Throw in Utahans as well, eh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Well, actually, no. The fact that the crust is so thin here (ID) will tend to cushion the jolt - i.e. It acts like a shock absorber.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2007-06-18-black-holes-conclusion_N.htm
Now I'm not a physicist, but isn't the idea of creating a blackhole in a lab inherently dangerous? an experiment that if successful then can't be shutdown? I really don't worry about the possible GW threat when we have other more alarming technology concerns.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
We Almost Lost Detroit
And whether it is Hawking or Einstein, that people have supported their theories, they both have been proved wrong at times. I always thought scientists had the correct answers, and would save the day - but then someone told me Mr. Spock and Scotty were just fictional.
I'm sure you can find many different on GW, and black holes. The problem is how sure are we?
Scientists are not gods. They have personal faults such as jealousy and conceit, and treat their theories like children in some cases. You believe them at your own folly, unless they can prove their claims. Theories are a dime a dozen.
Yikes, there's a scary statement! Not that it's precise enough to be totally right or wrong, but the implication - that scientific theories are nearly worthless and barely better than a guess can easily be interpreted by some as a "truth". President Reagan showed his relative ignorance when he echoed this nonsense in an attack on evolution as "only a theory".
A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed through experiment. Like the theory of gravity, which attempts to explain the law of gravity, it is not proven. Newton's theory explained the facts of gravity very well, enough to direct space flight....and then Einstein's theory explained it even better....but it basically extended Newton's, it did not "refute" it or "prove it wrong".
GW exists, and the mechanism for human activity (including use of the ICE in cars), defintely exists. There are theories which try to explain the warming, there is disagreement about how well those theories model reality. This is all part of the Scientific Method in action, it's all input to our attempt to understand and (hopefully) deal effectively with our world.
As a key element of the Scientific Method, scientific theories are priceless.
So yes I am skeptical of acting on theories. I believe theories have a use, and a place in the scientific method. But a theory is like a building plan - I'm not ready to sleep in a building plan, I'd like the "concrete" building first.
So I'm not dismissing scientific work and all the theories that are all there. I'm saying we should not act on theories because they are so risky and uncertain, unless there is an overwhelming need to do so. If a 3-mile wide comet is on a collision course with Earth, then that would be a time when we try some theories (to deflect it). Otherwise we should keep working on our theories.
Since temperature change has been shown historically, I think what you are referring to is scientists who question whether global warming is being accelerated beyond normal by man. I'm sure they are not arguing we have ZERO effect on the climate, but they may be arguing if it is really significant. There are many more factors in the climate besides CO2 - other greenhouse gases, ocean currents ... and then you get into what Tidester had mentioned - how useful is averaging temp. data.
You have various theories and models presented, and that's what they are. Why should I believe these theories anymore than the theories on global cooling from the 70's? Or the old theory that nothing could go faster than the speed of light? Or the Earth is flat? Theories and scientists frequently are found to be (sometimes ridiculously) wrong in the future.
If significant GW is being caused by man; and my personal opinion is to agree about 60%, the other factor is do I see that as a significant negative - and I really don't. I think the Earth would be more conducive to life being warmer overall. There are vast areas that are uninhabitable or severely cold to live in.
me: so the Greeks were correct about the 4 basic elements, because "at the time" science knew no better? And in the Middle Ages scientists were correct "for the time" about the Earth being flat.
No, scientific theories are to be questioned and suspicious of until PROVEN.
So, in effect, he was right from the get-go. His only mistake was stating the constant was a blunder.
me: yes, he had to be right one way or the other. And it was a theory to debate about. But the point is that Einstein was wrong for some number of years, and if you had to base a global policy on that theory during those years, wrong choices would have been made.
We should encourage theories and debate them, and find the truth which may occur 20 or 100 years from now. But I don't see taking action on a theory, unless you must; as it's very risky.
That sounds like an interesting theory that you believe in or, worse, a hypothesis. Do you realize the impact? It won’t be limited to making poles habitable. That would be akin to giving up regions that see 12-hours of sun per day for another that doesn’t see it for six months. I am talking coastal regions here. Besides, we are also talking about a drastically different weather pattern. For starters, consider how hurricanes form, gain or lose strength.
On one hand, you are challenging scientific theories that we can’t rely on those. On the other, you are putting forward your opinion as, a theory.
Science evolves. It is why we call it “science”. It makes an attempt to provide us with best possible explanation of a phenomenon. Anything else is simply a belief. What would you rather rely on? It seems you are using scientific theories per convenience. A good example would be the contradictions in the first paragraph of your post (where you believe in scientists) and the way you end your third paragraph.
Should we behave like an ostrich with head stuck in the sand and rely on personal beliefs? Do you see scientific theories as something mythical? You brought up global cooling issue raised in the 1970s. Now, would you like to discuss what may have been a cause (if not “the” cause)?
so the Greeks were correct about the 4 basic elements, because "at the time" science knew no better?
What is "Science"?
But, be aware that BEAMING somebody above Warp Factor 5 could cause molecular dispersion and you may not be re-assembled in the Transporter...
Sheesh...do I have to tell you everything???...:):):)
Honda Goes Green in an Unexpected Way With Solar Cell Production
me: no it is not a theory; it is simply my opinion and/or preference. A theory is an unproven explanation of how something works. Unproven being key.
On one hand, you are challenging scientific theories that we can’t rely on those.
me: a scientific theory becomes a "Law" when it is proven. You or I can sit down this afternoon and write a theory about any subject, and whether it has a 0.000001% or 99.999999% chance of being proven true, it is still a scientific theory. So to believe in a theory simply because there is a theory ... what do suggest people believe when there are 5 varying scientific theories on a subject? Maybe none are right.
Yes and you are right that coasts will change and such. They always have. Utah was once covered by a sea, the Sahara desert was very small, and all the continents were once together. It is our short timeframe that leads us to the paradigm that this is all constant. Humanity certainly did not and can not stop these great changes from happening anyway.
Do you realize when we're talking about CO2 emissions, that what we're saying humanity has pumped into the atmosphere, is comparable to moving 1 inch on a football field? That's what the ppm increase is.
Good grief. Let's please stick to the topic, a lot of stuff that is patently false is being posted here.
From TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE: REEXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW...
W. McComas 1996:
Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws
This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws.
The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).
And then we have....
Do you realize when we're talking about CO2 emissions, that what we're saying humanity has pumped into the atmosphere, is comparable to moving 1 inch on a football field? That's what the ppm increase is.
No, that's what the "part" in ppm is. The increase in PPM is properly measured in percentage terms, not absolute amount. According to the "scientific method theory", that is
That would be a hypothesis. Einstein’s speculation that there might be something like a gravitational lens was a hypothetical concept for over sixty years. Until, VLA discovered and used it. The prediction is now regarded as a theory, something to look for up in the sky. Now, how exactly do you fit this example into your idea of a theory?
What do suggest people believe when there are 5 varying scientific theories on a subject?
Quote an example. And before we go anywhere with it, realize that theories are attempts to explain a phenomenon, something repeatable. They aren’t meant to be confused with myths, beliefs and opinions.
Yes and you are right that coasts will change and such. They always have. Utah was once covered by a sea, the Sahara desert was very small, and all the continents were once together. It is our short timeframe that leads us to the paradigm that this is all constant. Humanity certainly did not and can not stop these great changes from happening anyway.
Apparently, The piece of land we call New Orleans was under water at some point as well. So, there is nothing to worry about it being under water again, as was the case with Katrina. Right?
The problem on hand isn’t about the natural course. It is about accelerating the phenomenon. Seriously, can you claim that the accelerated warming trend seen over two centuries has a precedent? That would be the first step towards debunking the scientific theories that suggest global warming.
Are you aware of ozone alert days? Do you ignore those requests and suggest it is all natural and cyclic? Do you consider dumping of sewage into lakes and river streams a bad thing? Doesn’t nature do that as well? Would you mind a factory within a mile or so from your home? Have you ever watched a storm system’s behavior over a large city as opposed to it being over a forested area?
Quote an example.
How oil is formed. How the sun functions. What killed off the dinosaurs. how many dimensions are there. ...
So, there is nothing to worry about it being under water again, as was the case with Katrina. Right?
I would not support rebuilding or building in an area that is inherently unstable. When new Orleans and San Francisco (for example) were built, science did not understand how vulnerable these areas were. I think it's foolish to build or rebuild in those areas.
Seriously, can you claim that the accelerated warming trend seen over two centuries has a precedent?
Seriously, how accurate do you think temperature measurements from hundreds or thousands of years ago were. Exactly what calibrated instruments were used? Half the data in that comparision is of questionable accuracy. If the increase was 10F then we could say "different"; but it's much closer.
It is about accelerating the phenomenon.
me: and I already told you, I personally like the Earth warmer. Snow in May and October is too cold. The world would be better off with temps. averaging about 80F.
Why are you bringing pollution into this topic?
I would not support rebuilding or building in an area that is inherently unstable. When new Orleans and San Francisco (for example) were built, science did not understand how vulnerable these areas were.
So, we can somehow blame “science” to build those cities. And how do you propose against rebuilding or building in an unstable area without science? You don’t believe in it, do you?
Seriously, how accurate do you think temperature measurements from hundreds or thousands of years ago were. Exactly what calibrated instruments were used? Half the data in that comparision is of questionable accuracy. If the increase was 10F then we could say "different"; but it's much closer.
When earth was a solid ball of ice, there were no calibrated instruments. There were no calibrated instruments on Mars either, but Scientists are who they are for good reasons. If you talk about Sun, don’t forget the science behind it otherwise it will simply be a hot golden plate in the sky that moves from one side of flat earth to the other (heck, even that will be primitive science).
I personally like the Earth warmer. Snow in May and October is too cold. The world would be better off with temps. averaging about 80F.
Why would you stop at 80 degrees? What if I liked 68 degrees and someone else did 84 degrees? Why do we like certain temperatures? Think about it, put forward your opinion and we might go somewhere with it.
Why are you bringing pollution into this topic?
Automobiles pollute, don’t they? How else do they impact the atmosphere?
I'm with you on this. I think where we differ is that:
1) I do not want science/scientists coming forward with theories into the press, until they are pretty damn certain of their theories. This means they have accurate data, they have a single formula with all the variables and effects of the phenomena written in, etc. etc.
2) We should not base social and political policices and changes, on unproven, uncertain theories. An example of using incorrect data, running it thru the experts giving it credence, and then giving it to the public as "the well-founded theory" was the case for the Gulf War II. Inaccurate, selective data from humans and satellite analysis, was used to create an inaccurate, unproven theory of WMD in Iraq.
My point is whether it's intelligence data, climate data, or cold-fusion data, I want a very high level of proof; I don't want a theory. Theories can remain in the scientific realm to be worked on; they should not influence public policy without a very high level of proof. It really makes me think that people are reckless when they base actions and policies on some moderately supported theories. I'm getting to the point where I think science fiction disaster movies may not be far-fetched, when I hear things like it's okay to create a black-hole in the lab, because Stephen Hawking has a theory it'll radiate away. I would want him to be 99.999999999999999999999999% sure, and not based on a 20-page mathematical model with some "created" constants thrown in.
I have trouble seeing how reducing human production of CO2 (i.e., by burning less fossil fuel in my car) is a bad thing.
Oh, come on, why do you assume "trouble" is a bad thing? It's just a theory. Wait until all the data is in, ya gotta be sure.
Remember all the fuss about the Trouble With Tribbles? In hindsight, they were just a missed marketing opportunity.
In fact, what's the trouble with nihilism? Much ado about nothing, I say.