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
If I'm going to cherry pick claims from people, newspapers or institutes to try to influence public sentiment and governmental positions, I may as well go with the UN summary - none of this money grubbing corporate profit chase, all they want is world dominion, right?
The Sun Times cited New Scientist. I remember linking to one of their stories a couple of years ago and it was immediately shot down as a left wing mag with a pro GW slant. Go figure. :P
I'm still on the Incliner fence (to go with the Denier word play from that other advocacy journalism source I didn't think much of).
Where are the 1000s of scientists that are aligned with the GW is caused by man? It always seems we hear these claims from laymen with little or NO scientific background. Does AG or RFK jr have doctorates in any of the scientific fields associated with GW?
After 64 years in this country I have learned one big truth. If a politician's lips are moving he is LYING. The red, Green & blue ones.
"What Is Man" still holds true today. There has been little that changed in Washington DC since Mark Twain's day.
Yeah, may as well but I'll still take what they say with a very large grain of salt. :shades:
BTW - this is what happened to "opposing views" in the past. I happened to know Will Happer and he is regarded as a gifted, capable and highly respected scientist.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
And, not picking on any one Ph.D. here, but scientists aren't always the objective, unemotional seekers of truth that the public seems to think they are. So it does help to know if they were raised in Bartlesville and owe their education to Phillips or where their lab funding comes from.
Toss out the name of a GW scientist and you can likely guess what her finding will be based on who's funding the study.
That is a very good point to remember.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Here is the question. Are there any independent scientists without an agenda in the whole Global Warming issue? If so I would be interested in their findings.
It is the private corporate or foundation-funded scientists that are more likely to be biased or prejudice on a subject. They will be biased by the $; working to produce some data that shows the goal of the project. Basically the goal (or result) is written before the work is done. I would liken this to a lawyer's work. Johnny Cochrane had no trouble dismissing evidence on OJ, of his guilt; but could find enough "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" data/evidence to prove his point. That was his goal and what he was paid for.
So yes I'm sure you can find some temperature and some glaciers that are melting, and some islands that are sinking to make a GW case. but when I look at the 70-degree July temps., the lack of oceans rising along the majority of coasts (has anyone's favorite beach disappeared due to high water?), I don't see GW or if there is - it is very, very minor.
So do I suspect that GW scientists are biased, and there are alarmists and ecolologists just looking to fund some GW studies - yes.
And if there is GW, there is not a thing we are going to do to stop it, unless we find a great new energy source, or spend a bunch of energy to produce machine's that'll scrub the atmosphere.
We just found an "objective scientist". :shades:
So, there seems to be factual data that we have fewer hurricanes making the landfall in North America than we did in 20, 200 and 2000 years ago. Looks like Al Gore and those folks are using different baselines to count.
Let's nominate Tides for a MacArthur Genius Grant!
There's no strings attached to that money and Tides can use his Edmunds handle when he publishes his findings so the yahoos on either side of the issue won't find him and camp out on his front yard and picket or try to sway his findings.
The rest of us can hire on as his fact checkers. :shades:
LoL! I suppose $500k could buy a lot of facts.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Who said you can't negotiate facts anyway?
The worst part is these over paid entertainers will get up and ask me to sacrifice my piddly carbon footprint so they can continue their decadent lifestyle. The estimate for this one day of concerts is 74,500 tons of waste. Go AGore!
The best thing people could have done to keep CO2 emissions down was to stay home and watch the concert on TV. How many people do you think drove some part of the way to the concerts?
Point well taken about Madonna; maybe next she'll be going to schools promoting sexual abstinence.
Then they have $10 donations to plant a tree. I would plant 1000s of trees for $10 donation each. Just another GW scam. That gives me an idea, hmmmm.
All those with no kids, pat yourselves on the backs for having the "softest-footprint".
Also I saw on the news last night, that it's finally being recognized - that people drinking bottled water are contributing to GW by causing more oil and fuels to be used for plastics and transport. I rather like the image of society becoming more accepting to drinking locally-made beer from kegs, delivered on horse-drawn carriages.
I disagree. the best thing he could do is keep his mouth shut. with every word he utters he's expelling dangerous, planet destroying carbon dioide. Algore needs to shut up, for the sake of the planet
IEA forecasts 2010 oil supply crunch
CO2 is going up because we have so many carbon-based fuels that are used for many purposes - electricity is #1. Make more electric cars, and generate that electricity with natural gas or coal and you create CO2.
Of course if you put off some trips, and combine trips to save $ in your Suburban now, having lower fuel bills may simply encourage you to take more weekend jaunts. I know I haven't taken some weekend trips this year because of the price of gas.
Next, we're going to not worry about deforestation. CO2, landslides, rain etc... are unaffected by human influence anyway.
But then we'd be debating methane emissions from the horse.
Whether it's the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, the use of nuclear fuel, windmills, dams, solar panels, or hybrid batteries, there's change, and someone crying about the pollution and environmental damage. And yes it is true there is change, but the only way I can see humans aren't going to affect the environment is to not exist. Not a good solution.
So we try to strike a balance, where we accept some negatives for the positives we receive through our technological advancement and in the interest of making 6+ billion people more comfortable on this Earth.
With 6+ billion people, all who want a better lifestyle which requires more energy resources, and energy resources mainly based on carbon-fuels, the reality is more CO2. You do not reduce CO2 unless you can greatly reduce 1 or more of those 3 issues. To optimists that may seem negative, but in fact that is a realistic view based on trends, basic human psychology, and energy supply data.
But that does not mean I am convinced we are SIGNIFCANTLY affecting it, and certainly am not convinced that any GW is detrimental overall.
It is quite contrarian of our country that many people have migrated South and West to the warmer areas. If we don't like it hot, why isn't everyone moving to Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Maine amongst other cooler states? Do you think that migration pattern indicates a preference for a warm or cool climate?
What interests me is the unintended consequences of actions we take. Stuff like the waste stream of the discarded hybrid batteries (in ten years), MtBE leaking into the ground water, dams killing the salmon runs and food price increases related to turning cropland into ethanol production.
When that butterfly flaps, we get hurricanes in Miami....
And everyone who uses electricity or any sort of energy is contributing to some sort of pollution. By growing our economies (and who wants recessions) and growing our population we consume more resources, and create more waste by-products. What goes in must come - the foundation of engineering mass and energy balances.
It is very, very infrequent that you can make any choice that has all positive attributes. In fact if you examine what the 2nd law of Thermodynamics tells you - that any action increases entropy. So if you don't like change, and do you like order, you're not going to be happy long-term.
Companies have already stepped up to say they'd buy the used batteries, and hybrid owners are the single MOST likely people to recycle anything, period.
The chances of them being discarded are smaller than those for Jessica Alba returning my phone calls.
Yes, but with billions of butterflies around the world it pretty much turns out to be a wash. Miami's best strategy would be to stock up on butterflies.
But, speaking of the butterfly effect, it also applies to models of global climate change. Make a small change in your initial data and/or assumptions and you get very different results - particularly as you try to project further into the future.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Speaking of the computer models, I've a question:
How do the models handle the issue of water vapor? Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas (fact) and has a MUCH bigger impact than CO2 (fact). Yet, from what I understand, it is difficult to get a firm idea of just how MUCH water vapor is in the atmosphere and how it varies over time and/or location.
Do the models include water vapor or is it just left out?
Last night on the local news I saw some group doing a news conference in our state capital, saying that in 100 years we won't have much snow; and my reaction was great! Let's speed it up!
When I retire I'm moving to southern Nevada, Hawaii, or possibly to a coastal area of Mexico or northern Australia. 70 - 100F is an ideal range for me. If it gets a little hotter there's a pool or the ocean for those couple of hours.
If you have "models" and not a model, then that indicates to me that there is still a lot of uncertainty as to what the inputs and magnitudes of the inputs are.
Am I wrong though - is there now 1 model which everyone has hung their hat on? Could we see it?
The old-timers around here say Boise doesn't get as much snow in the mountains now. That's bad for our aquifer and bad for us, since we ski/snowboard and less snow means a shorter whitewater season.
If the climate here is changing because of global warming and not simply a prolonged drought, we'll suffer other effects, like beetle infestations (that was a big issue in Anchorage right before I moved and is probably hitting the NE too eh?), and even higher wildfire risks. (link)
Heck, some vehicles have DUAL A/C, and if one were not enough. Few cars nowadays don't have A/C standard, even most econoboxes.
At home, central A/C is nearly universal, and window A/C units are as cheap as $99.
Sure, running A/C ain't cheap, but your heating bill in Minnesota will be FAR greater than you A/C bill in Florida.
I'm near the Mason Dixon line and while my summer A/C bills do get high, they're only about half the cost of heating my house in February.
Bottom line - the cold is more extreme than the heat. We have more days below freezing here in DC than we do days above 90. And for old people, 90 is more tolerable than 30.
Also, to run the A/C, you're taking the temperature from, say, 90 degrees on a bad day, to perhaps 75. So you're paying for a change of 15 degrees.
To run heat, you're going from perhaps 30 degrees, up to let's say 68. That's still a change of 38 degrees. More than double the temperature change. So your heating system has to work much harder.
Burning oil, or coal for electric heat, or natural gas, all those things affect global warming too.
Cost of living, and opportunities. I prefer to live in Texas over NYC or Bay Area, not because it is warmer down here.
What would propel you to move to Mojave or Death Valley?
You want the outside temps to be close to where you set your thermostat, so figure 68-75 is ideal.
Just kidding!
I've only been to south Texas, Harlingen and Brownsvill, plus South Padre Island. Liked it down there. In particular I loved how truckers would move all the way over to the shoulder to let you pass.
Of course, given the cost of housing in San Diego, hardly anyone can afford to move there.
Water vapor is "included" in some of the climate models but it is completely ad hoc meaning that it just becomes another knob to turn. The full effects of water vapor are poorly understood and, while the models include it as a "greenhouse gas" (i.e., positive feedback) they don't account for reflectivity from clouds.
Now, according to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., I have to be regarded as treasonous for having said that!