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
The marketing opportunity comment is right on. Lots of people (and companies) want to lessen their carbon footprint (no matter the science behind it). Government carrots and sticks do so much but get capitalism behind it, and you'll see results.
me: yes, you must balance what level of assurance you want based on the effects of doing something (based on a theory), or doing nothing and waiting for more data/evidence.
If a lab is handling (or mutating) a virus that could kill hundreds of millions, yes I want the theoretical safeguard (probability of containment) to be 99.9999999% sure it isn't going to get out. Or I want them to destroy it now and stop any testing. If we're talking about testing new lightbulb materials try all the theories you want - I have 0.00000% concern.
In respect to GW I hear all sorts of theories on what is going to happen - how much the ocean's will rise, how hot it gets ... Thus I feel there is no commonly accepted theory, with the various versions and updates. And then when I see the groups and individuals proclaiming "the end of the Earth" because of GW, I know it is time to tune those theories out. If it wasn't GW, they'd be going around quoting passages from Nostradamus, and using that as their data and theory.
I'm sorry I don't believe in ghosts, UFO's, cold-fusion, Noah's ark, and significant manmade GW (though I do believe ther may be GWW and that manmade CO2 has a small (albeit very) contributor). The beach I went to as a kid, 35 years ago is still there, and we still have the same basic weather (too cold) as 35 years ago, so there really has been no significant change. after 35 years! OK, someone look up to see that we're 1F higher than 150 years ago! Big Deal.
As long as we're talking about TV/movies, remember the Andromeda Strain (I think that was Michael Crichton's 1st hit?). Remember the scientists' reaction to the infected town was the theory to incinerate the area with a nuclear bomb. But then they learned a day or so later that Andromeda being a life-form in space, fed off basically anything including radiation? Fortunately the politicians wanted to think it over for 48hr.
Remember the people who believed the theory that the Titantic was unsinkable, and thus didn't need a full complement of lifeboats?
Do you think we should believe the theory, based on the "expert data and facts"
Yes, funny thing about GW is that it's become part of the "green" movement which gives it political currency. That's not necessarily a good thing if we're doing something for the wrong reasons. Disconnects like that tend to bite you in the end.
But yes, even our parent company, GE, is getting behind all things green, they see the $, too.
Look, both extremes are bad: a) acting impulsively on the first data you see and b) waiting until everything's proven beyond a doubt.
In applied science, like the rest of life, one must learn to act on incomplete data. It would be wonderful if it were not so, but reality does not permit that.
I'll grant that no GW theory is that strong in the strictest sense...it is very difficult to test them. The variables are fairly overwhelming. We simply don't know enough to be sure, as Tidester said. I think the fallacy in the argument that he and many others who resist acting on what we DO know make is that (as others have stated here), we may simply not have enough time to wait.
You really have to weigh the risks against the costs. Why not (as Steve implied) cut down on out CO2 emissions? There are other good reasons to do so via reduction of fossil fuel use: reduce air pollution, reduce dependence on oil that harms us strategically, enable alternatives for when global oil supply gets low.
Rather like RFK Jr. and his opposition to the wind farm proposed off of Cape Cod - it makes it hard to reconcile positions sometimes.
me: I don't think so. The CIA and other security orgs (can't think of all the acronyms) have some fairly sophisticated data collection systems - those satellites crammed with sensors and cameras. And they have quite the staff of scientists.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'd like to know how the average-Joe, or us, is to tell a good theory from a bad one? I mean I thought Colin Powell had reviewed the intelligence Data and thus believable on WMD. I thought the ozone-hole would be gigantic by now.
I'm not going to go over the list of historical scientific theories that were simply wrong. Since man is basically the same as years ago (same genetics, same IQ's), I assume history is repeatable, and that we don't understand many things. Just like we look back 100 or 200 years and say how ignorant people were about technology and nature in 1900, people in 2100 will look back and say "Look at all they didn't understand". I do not presume that we have the intelligence and knowledge to understand much of how things work. Therefore I do not trust every theory I hear; again a lot of these theories have bias for media-attention or $ rewards.
If there is not a crisis, I want scientists to continue working on the issue. If a doctor tells me he's 70% sure I need an operation, I tell them "do more tests" or "we'll wait to see if it gets worse".
How many of us trust the scientists at the drug companies, and at the FDA these days. Are they approving drugs with some data, but without proving them safe. If your spouse and others die from side-effects, should we just say it wasn't worth the effort to be surer the drug was safe?
Maybe the NASA scientists just used theory to say a soft insulating foam couldn't damage the hard shuttle-tiles, and never bothered to test and prove it?
While I don't see harm either in reducing CO2, I don't think it has been proven to me that the problem is great enough to warrant much global effort. As I said before even if we wanted to "wage war against CO2", you would never get enough people to do so, unless you can provide them with non-carbon based energy; and we can't provide enough to do that.
I say "Listen to theories, ask for more and more proof, and act on theory only when you need to".
The Montreal Protocol was implemented in 1989, widely adopted, and "has resulted in slowing and reversing the increase of ozone-depleting gases in the atmosphere." (NOAA pdf link). It may take a few decades before the hole goes away.
If the argument is over when to draw the line in the sand, it was drawn more than 15 years ago in the case of ozone. And it seems like we're drawing the GW line in the tar sands right now.
And if you look at your own links CFC graphs on P.31 you will see that the "rate of increase" has slowed or reversed, but the main reductions are nothing more than projections.
While the ozone-hole still exists at a fairly large-size, this has not caused any severe problems. People are not being killed in numbers by this large ozone hole in the upper atmosphere.
Even if I accept the notion that the CIA was using the scientific method (which I would not), you are claiming this is an example of the method failing when in fact, the decision was political. The CIA provided data, much of which was contradictory. The "theory" was a political concoction.
I thought the ozone-hole would be gigantic by now.
That's user-error
I'm not going to go over the list of historical scientific theories that were simply wrong.
Just as well, because it would prove nothing, except that the scientific method is so well-used. It's a gross misunderstanding of the method to presume that when a theory is proved wrong, we have lost something, when in fact, we have gained knowledge. It's like the inanity of the statement "we failed to prove the theory, the experiment was a failure"....when in fact, the experiment was highly successful if we learned the theory was wrong and can now build on that knowledge.
...people in 2100 will look back and say "Look at all they didn't understand".
Always has been true, always will be true. You really think this is a valid argument for doing nothing????
If there is not a crisis...
You always wait until you reach crisis level to act? Are you serious????
I'd like to know how the average-Joe, or us, is to tell a good theory from a bad one?
Truth is, for most of us, for most scientific theories, we can't. We rely on the scientific community to provide good information and for politicians to make good judgements based on that info. It's difficult to verify the former, but it's our responsibility as citizens to judge whether the politicians are doing their job on the latter.....and throw them out when they don't.
I'll bring the Krispy Kremes. (By that time they'll be made with a fat burning formula!).
People are not being killed in numbers by this large ozone hole in the upper atmosphere.
The problem is skin cancer, which takes time to show up, and, in fact, is on the increase.
Glad you brought this up, the CFC/Ozone depletion theory is an excellent example of how we should be looking at the GW issue.
In theory, at least
1. I want a very high level of proof; I don't want a theory
2. We still have the same basic weather (too cold) as 35 years ago, so there really has been no significant change.
3. While I don't see harm either in reducing CO2, I don't think it has been proven to me that the problem is great enough to warrant much global effort.
What do you consider “very high level of proof”? What do you consider “a significant change”? Do you consider anything less than 99.99% accurate to be “significant”? How do you define "great enough"?
Maybe the NASA scientists just used theory to say a soft insulating foam couldn't damage the hard shuttle-tiles, and never bothered to test and prove it?
I also see plenty of contradictions. You dismiss "theories" unless they are exact science. Yet, the grounds you use are purely based on opinion, assumptions and without any kind of factual data, as would be the case with your use of "may be" above.
If you were living by the Atlantic coast and a prediction was made that a category 5 hurricane is on its way and there is a 90% chance your house is in the eye of the storm. Would you ignore the warning just because the chance isn’t 100%? It seems to me that you won’t believe in “theories” unless you’re 100% sure. And the only way to figure that out in this case would be to stay put and ensure the hurricane hits the house before you consider doing something about it.
Yeah, well they're wrong
Actually, I consider myself Green but I don't accept all Green policy as dogma. I support increasing nuclear power. And I even live on Long Island and think the Shoreham thing was a disaster of epic proportions. I supported the plant.
Yes, as you may recall, we have a house in the Catskills and there is significant opposition in some communities up there, including the one we're in. My significant other was on a commitee to stop them and I had to temper my objection to a lot of nimby reactions I saw, to preserve some harmony. With some neighbors, too. She was a bit conflicted too. Real estate values sure do get folks' attention, don't they
me: Of course we'll only be able to come out at night, by then!
I'll bring the Krispy Kremes. (By that time they'll be made with a fat burning formula!).
me: given that we have a few hundred theoretical formualae/pills tried each year, you're probably right.
me: Look you're killing me with the simple causal/effect relationships here. Are you inferring that because the ozone hole is larger that is why skin cancer is on the increase? It might not be other factors?
Are people who are getting skin cancer sunbathing in the Antarctic where the hole is? Don't people have more leisure time now? People years ago were fully clothed when they went to the beach.
Are you also ignoring that the lower levels of the atmosphere, have a much higher protective level of ozone with our industrialization (not great for breathing but effective at blocking UV.) The ozone we create actually forms a secondary barrier over populated areas (most of the world), even if the stratospheric layer is decreased.
So yes you are right in saying that GW and the ozone-hole should be looked at similarly. These phenomenon are much more involved then simply looking at the level of minute amounts of a chemical, and they are both overblown as to the consequences of the problem.
Just as you suspect the data from Iraq was distorted for political reasons, I suspect the climate data is manipulated and distorted on the GW issue. Just as you see the motive of the Bush administration distorting data, and the danger to us - to start a war, I see environmental groups constantly grasping for data and issues, and falsely warning us of the grave dangers (end of the world!).
I don't know what's wrong with this society? do we like to scare ourselves? isn't watching Alien or Halloween enough? Do we always have to be afraid or worrying about something? ozone-hole, China syndrome, nuclear war, the next epidemic, salmonella on the salad, unsafe drugs, child molesters in the neighbor, declining oil reserves, terrorists, crackheads, bad loans ...
me: As I said before the riskier something is the more proof I want. Pretty simple explanation. The more change you want me to make the more proof I want. If I'm being asked to change my lifestyle significantly because of CO2 emissions, I want some solid proof. I don't see that scientists have 1 formula that they can agree on, with all the climate variables in it to show me. I also don't see the effect of GW as being significant, unless we're supposed to believe "The Day After".
You seem to be a glass full kind of guy. Not a bad thing, but that has a tendency to override the dark side. Do you really want protecting layers of ozone right where you breathe as opposed to where it actually belongs, up in the stratosphere?
There are several good things around us that work wonderfully from a distance, but can be downright corrosive in close proximity. We need sun, but we don’t need it “right here”.
Just as you suspect the data from Iraq was distorted for political reasons, I suspect the climate data is manipulated and distorted on the GW issue.
There we go again. Your suspicions mean nothing without factual substantiation. We should not confuse politics with science. What facts do you have to suggest that the abrupt rise in average temperature is perfectly normal?
I don't know what's wrong with this society? do we like to scare ourselves?
Do you like to leave your home unlocked and without security? :shades:
me: My "maybe" was a cynical comment in that statement on the NASA engineers. Obviously they knew from previous launches the foam came off. All I can imagine is someone remembering from some material-lab course in college, that a soft material can't damage a harder material (as in rubbing a sponge on glass). And while that theory is true, the real-world throws more variables and forces into the equation. Again I'll say maybe because I don't know what the NASA engineers were thinking, but they certainly weren't putting much emphasis/thought on a physics LAW - of kinetic energy, and that that kinetic energy would be focused on a minute-area of impact, such that a soft object can damage a harder, denser object (tile). Maybe they should have proven that there was no issue; say run a test/simulation?
me: well if my house is in the eye of the storm, it wouldn't get damaged.
Now if you told me it's likely to be a bad hurricane season, I wouldn't start packing the car.
With your reasoning do you suggest we start evacuating around Yellowstone, and every citizen begin buying 3 years of non-perishable food? Yellowstone erupts about every 600,000 years. It's been 640,000 years since the last eruption. And the ground has risen about 10" in the last 50 years. And that information is a lot more concrete (feet of layers of sediment extending for hundreds of miles with fossils in it) than the GW scenarios and theories.
me: and you might want to go back a couple of weeks and take a look at what Tidester wrote about the use of average temps. And then read my posts questioning how even if you could average the temperatures from 100 or 200 years ago, how accurate and precise were those measurements? I personally see no evidence of significant GW; in fact I'm sitting here with a sweatshirt on again, with maybe 2 hours of 1 day this year having touched 90F. I'm more concerned about the testing that the FDA has failed to do on the sweetener in my Diet Pepsi, than I am about GW.
Don't blame me, you must be suicidal
Are you inferring that because the ozone hole is larger that is why skin cancer is on the increase?
I cited data. Conclusions are up to the reader. Certainly, increased incidences of skin cancer might be related.
Are people who are getting skin cancer sunbathing in the Antarctic where the hole is?
Depletion of ozone there causes depletion elsewhere. In any case, you are missing the point: this is not an example that supports your claim, "Scientific Theories are Bad Because They Are Sometimes Wrong". This theory has NOT been proven wrong, in fact, it looks like it was right.
...I suspect the climate data is manipulated and distorted on the GW issue...
Then make a case for it. That's not what you've been doing.
We have already agreed to that with the notable example of the IPCC which is political to the core and not a scientific organization. I will add to that list certain scientists who use faulty data. This may be illuminating: http://www.surfacestations.org/
I think the fallacy in the argument ... is that ... we may simply not have enough time to wait.
There is no fallacy in questioning the validity of (allegedly) scientific claims particularly when the criticism has a reasonable basis and the claims are weak. The "precautionary principle," however, is ipso facto fallacious.
The "theory of anthropogenic climate change" is scientifically flawed in several respects. "Believers" casually dismiss alternative contributory factors and, yet, are unwilling to subject their own postions to reasonable scientific scrutiny.
I noticed that some of the recent discussion here invoked the name of Albert Einstein. The most important lesson in Einstein's writings is that he indicated precisely how to determine whether his theories were invalid! You cannot prove a theory; you can only disprove it. This is an element absent from "climate change theories." Science is not properly conducted by simply declaring that we're right, you're wrong and that's it!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
P.S. Helping along global warming is a digestible rendition of the link above!
Put your imaginations and assumptions aside and look at facts, the information available around you. What makes you assume that NASA engineers aren’t aware of the fact that even a bird can bring down a massive aircrafts?
Stop blaming science for poor decisions or oversight by people. The foam on shuttle wasn’t installed for cosmetic purpose, was it?
the hurricane is "proven", it is not theoretical; and yes it is risky, so with those 2 factors sure I'd evacuate.
You lost the forest looking for a tree. The question was around predicted path of hurricane, and if Science was telling you that your house is in the path, it is just a theory, right? Why must you evacuate? I am assuming you won’t if you lived in VA and a hurricane was predicated to stay in the Gulf of Mexico? Or would you still, since Hurricane is “proven”?
But first I must ask: Do you understand what a scientific theory is?
Now if you told me it's likely to be a bad hurricane season, I wouldn't start packing the car.
I wouldn’t expect you to, but would that be a concern for you, and change your approach towards being prepared? Or, are you never prepared until you see a hurricane. Science talks about hurricane season. Do you believe in it? Or won’t unless you see one on the horizon?
Yellowstone erupts about every 600,000 years. It's been 640,000 years since the last eruption.
Interesting information. So, how do you know that? I doubt they had calendars back then, much less question their accuracy.
And then read my posts questioning how even if you could average the temperatures from 100 or 200 years ago, how accurate and precise were those measurements?
What grounds do you have to question accuracy of thermometers that were in use in 1875 compared to those that we did in 1975 or 2000? It better be more than an opinion.
I personally see no evidence of significant GW
Perhaps, you’re looking in the wrong places. Should I assume that if temperature rises to 100 degrees in your backyard, you will start to believe that GW is real? And then if it goes down to 95 degrees the next day... it is a hoax? Is that how you think scientific theories work?
I'm more concerned about the testing that the FDA has failed to do on the sweetener in my Diet Pepsi, than I am about GW.
I doubt FDA is the universal scientific agency for every scientific theory and research out there. Is it?
me: I don't blame science at all. I blame people who misuse science. How? By not being thorugh. By not testing their theories? By not looking at all the variables, theories, and forces that may be involved in any issue. And I blame people who take an unproven theory, or as in the case of GW support those theories in the media (and thus to the public) to take some sort of political/social action. GW is real, and yes pumping CO2 into the atmosphere does cause warming (but how much, because no one understands whether that will be absorbed by increased vegetation or ocean...).
You use the analogy of a hurricane, and yes if there is a hurricane predicted (90%) I would take it seriously. But a hurricane is much more serious than GW. I do not consider the amounts of GW I've heard to be a threat. Exactly the opposite, I think GW will be beneficial to us.
Again I can see many other more important things that people should be concerned about then GW. That is what my FDA/Diet Pepsi referred to.
And I stated that my personal observations on temp. and sea-level were comparing 35 years ago to today. I see no change to get excited about. Unless you believe in The Day After movie, I don't know what we should be that worried about.
So no I a not convinced that the little bit of CO2 we add to the atmosphere is going to create a climate-change that is detrimental to civilization as a whole. We may have to adapt to where we live, but then again there has never been any guarantee that an area won't become a desert, a sea, the coastline will change, an area becomes fertile ...
Picture 1
Picture 2
What scientific pieces do you gather from looking at those pictures, at substantially large melt and continued thinning of the ice sheet even more? (as seen in second picture above). What do you think is causing this phenomenon? Do you have factual data to support your opinion? What theory do you believe in? How was it validated?
I am simply asking you about what theories do your beliefs come from, and how your concerns that you use against theories against GW apply to the theories that you do believe in.
You use the analogy of a hurricane, and yes if there is a hurricane predicted (90%) I would take it seriously.
Earlier you were questioning accuracy of theories, and that you weren’t comfortable with anything less than 99.999999999%. How are things different now?
But a hurricane is much more serious than GW.
Why would you even compare the two? I brought in hurricane to see how much you believed in scientific theories and predictions. And if you do want to compare it to GW, do you think GW would have no effect on hurricanes (and anything weather related)? In fact, a few days I asked you about what elements define a hurricane, how they are born, gain or lose strength. The key is in surface temperature of the oceans, isn’t it? Warmer water one thing that kills hurricanes or changes their path is, guess what cold fronts.
And you think warmer temperatures help. And are about to roll out the red carpet to welcome GW. Understand the consequences first.
Again I can see many other more important things that people should be concerned about then GW. That is what my FDA/Diet Pepsi referred to.
Again, explain to me how research, studies, recommendations on GW is affecting FDA's stand on sweetner in your diet pepsi. If they concern you so much that your life revolves around it, stop consuming it.
And I stated that my personal observations on temp. and sea-level were comparing 35 years ago to today. I see no change to get excited about. Unless you believe in The Day After movie, I don't know what we should be that worried about.
I have not watched The Day After movie. Have you? But I have heard our President talk about Global Warming.
Earlier you were questioning accuracy of theories, and that you weren’t comfortable with anything less than 99.999999999%
me: no if you go back and look I said I was talking about 1 particular example - I believe that was containment of a virus. I've stated that based on the effect or risk, the amount of proof varies.
If you are asking people and economies to make major changes with GW, then I say scientists should be expected to have a high degree of proof and concensus not just that GW occurs or that a little extra GW occurs because of CO2; but that they can say with confidence that if we continue the CO2 production that the temp. will rise X-degrees. They should be pretty sure that the increased CO2-GWW isn't mitigated by a drop in other greenhouse gase, sunspots, the earth's magnetic field ...
And you think warmer temperatures help. And are about to roll out the red carpet to welcome GW. Understand the consequences first.
The heat-capacity of the ocean is a lot higher than the heat capacity of the atmosphere. So if you think a 1F rise in the atmosphere will do much to the average ocean temperature ... probably the main factor in ocean temperature is geothermal activity, though sunlight surely is a factor. But if temperatures increase in the atmosphere there will be more water evaporated - clouds which will block the sunshine and the oceans cool again. So do you fully understand that there could be many interconnected variables to whether GW would continue.
Again, explain to me how research, studies, recommendations on GW is affecting FDA's stand on sweetner in your diet pepsi. If they concern you so much that your life revolves around it, stop consuming it.
me: U don't understand that I was telling you that GW is not much of a concern to me? I don't see scientists agreeing whether the earth will warm 2F, 5F or 10F. And I would adapt to any of those. I have more concern of us running out of energy, having an accidental nuclear war, a plague, or many other serious natural disasters. GW is insignificant compared to the threat of a major comet impact. I'd rather see our international focus be on avoiding planet-killers.
And to get right back to topic, personal autos and trucks are estimated to be 15% of the CO2 emissions, while total transportation is 23% per li sailor's info., a while back. Electricity generation is the main contributor. And both autos and electricity are growing due to global demand. We are going to see how much temps. go up due to CO2.
I wonder how much CO2 is generated in getting the materials to the stores and baking those donuts?
I think they have some historical references to the last 100 years of predictions on the varying "impending climate disasters" that were "theorized".
_________________
reference text::::
I think Dunkin Donuts is actually a bigger threat to peoples' lives and health than GW! The data and proof can be seen on many Americans.
I wonder how much CO2 is generated in getting the materials to the stores and baking those donuts?
PS
I drove from Mesquite, NV to San Diego this morning. The smog in Las Vegas and San Bernardino was horrible. I would not consider spending a minute more in either place. We need to spread out a bit and let the air clean out. Too much building in all the cities I visited on this trip. No smog in the thousands of square miles I went through with only a few people living there.
It seems that no matter which energy source you choose, someone has environmental issues. We all know the issues with fossil fuels and nuclear energy, but even wind, hydro, solar, and hybrid bateries have environmental issues surrounding them. There is no "win-win" energy source, in terms of not changing the environment. Somebody's going to dig up materials to burn or build something, and the manufacture-waste or the fuel-waste is going to go somewhere.
Seeing we have 1) limited supplies of fossil and nuclear energy, and that we don't have anywhere near enough renewable energy; and 2) that we have growing global population that has as a goal longer lifes and higher standards of living (increased economies) - I really don't see how these fuels will not be used. They will be used in X-years if we don't conserve or X+30 (or 50 or 100) years if we conserve.
When people are desperate they will use what fuel is available, just like hungry or thirsty people eat and drink what is available.
I'm not against striving toward cleaner and cleaner energy sources, but IMHO, there will never be a "no footprint" source that meets all of societies needs.
Sure there will be, "maybe" not in our lifetimes though. I'm working on a little project now to harness the power of the earths electromagnetic field. Remember the little hover craft in the first Star Wars movie? Stay tuned.
Improved shovels?
Maybe in England that wasn't practical as the fog keeps the dung from drying in the sun. The English ships though could have traded dung for spice.
I did some caulking this morning - I think we've barely scratched the surface on conservation efforts. I take cloth bags to the supermarket and use my recycle bins, and it's still amazing (depressing?) how much waste two people can generate in a week.
Dumping iron into the ocean to ultimately reduce GW doesn't seem like much of a panacea. (link). Maybe if we dumped millions of cars in there instead....
Talk Back Tuesday: Voices of Reason/Insane Maelstrom
I remember reading Cockburn before he got fired by the Village Voice in '84 - I knew he was "out there" but didn't realize he was the Left's voice against the human caused theory of GW.
I would like to see THE formula on how CO2 is forecast to grow, and how it is going to affect
the climate. I would like to see them go thru the formula variable by variable, showing what data was used to quantify the effect of the variable. I would like to see how the model takes into account solar-activity, water temps. and currents, water vapor and other greenhouse gases in the air, and other variables such as whether increased CO2 causes more vegetation or algae which in turn decreases CO2. I suggest there be a live audience of scientists who question the data/source/and statistical confidence of the data.
I don't think it is too much to ask to see the details, and invest an afternoon. As I said before I don't dismiss GW; I would like to see some detailed proof (or high probability) of significant GW. I do not trust getting science info. from a news show that's looking for ratings. And I do not want to invest hours and hours over the years to keep up with the latest theories on GW.
If the scientists have reached a concensus and have a good understanding of all the interacting variables of the climate, then I would like to see that several hour presentation, going thru THE model. Until something similar to that happens, I will still suspect they are making an educated guess, looking for media attention, and looking for $ and fame in their field.
And I really can't believe that Al Gore thinks we believe he is intelligent enough to judge whether the scientists are correct on GW. C'mon, this buffoon thought we'd believe he invented the Internet! Looking at how complicated a subject like the climate is, I doubt any human can put together a model that will work. Probably a thinking quantum-computer, available in the near future will be able to do that.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21579
I don't know about big tobacco (or why it would be relevant) but the Sun Times is a right wing newspaper while the Heartland Institute appears to have ties to big oil. However, they are citing real publications and reports. Shoot the messenger if you want but the primary sources are sound.
Your question is a bit like asking "Are those the ones in bed with IPCC et al?" :P
The real question is whether unsubstantiated claims should go unquestioned and unchallenged.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper