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 7/25 for details.
Options

Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

1202203205207208223

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That will teach them to drive those big ole SUVs. Holland has the same problem. For hundreds of years they have built dikes to stop the sea. They continue to lose land to the sea. This is not something that started with burning fossil fuel. Climate Change is eternal, better get used to it. Don't build a home on a pretty sandy beach if you want it to last.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19551204&id=xcYqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Mcw- FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1266,769273
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, THIS island has not had it happen for hundreds of years.

    It's NEW.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If they lived on a volcanic Island they could be expanding. The earth is constantly changing. I read where some AGW nuts have actually blamed GW for increased earthquake and volcanic eruptions.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Climatologists have been raising alarms about global warming for years, and now geologists are getting into the act, warning that melting glaciers will lead to an increasing number of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in unexpected places.

    http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/earthquakes.htm
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    edited March 2012
    Well, if the headline is correct, the island is actually sinking, not being submerged by rising sea water. Looks like the bottom dropped out of the center of the island. It looked OK along the shore line.

    Reminds me of the time when one of our ignorant lawmakers was afraid a certain island was going to tip over because most of the population lived on one side. GW was probably going to cause that also.

    Very amusing.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • ClairesClaires Member Posts: 1,219
    It looks like a lagoon that you'd see in the middle of an atoll.

    There seems to be some scientific disagreement about whether or not sea levels are rising, as well as a number of self-inflicted reasons that might prompt the inhabitants to seek donations from rich countries higher ground.

    MODERATOR

    Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Perhaps we should be suing these people for destroying a great vacation spot?

    I can believe they are trying to scam the rest of US. That is what all the conferences like Copenhagen were about. Scamming the rich countries to transfer wealth. I say let the chips or in this case the Island sink as it will.

    Both articles give a more balanced picture of what is really happening. Thanks.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Should be home in ~3 days. Maybe I should stay away. It's about 40 degrees above normal. Nuts. Suspect the maple sugar harvest is already tapped out.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,419
    Come out west - plenty of cold here for you. Dustings of snow in suburban Seattle every other day or so in the middle of March...this is no fun.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That'll be the summer trip. Unless gas prices get even more nuts. :-)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    We have had hail going on two days. This is hardly Springtime weather. We will be lucky if any blossoms are left on the fruit trees. This GW sucks. I want our old hot weather back. My Son in Law sent me an email laughing how they were getting CA weather without the high cost in Indiana. It was 84 there and topped at 48 here.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "We have had hail going on two days. This is hardly Springtime weather."

    Just a wet Spring storm. They happen almost every year.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Just a wet Spring storm. They happen almost every year.

    Only since we entered into this coming ice age. Or maybe it is all those SUVs in the Midwest causing the problem.... As you know SUV and PU sales are Booming even with the high price of gas.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Coal powered generators cool the climate. Natural gas generators do not. Tough choice.

    image

    image
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study


    Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

    It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

    A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

    In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heat- ed-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Seriously, Gary? Are you waiting for the "smoking gun" that will indicate man has no effect on the climate?

    We'll all be dust before that "proof" is established.

    By the way, just read a story this morning saying that March is going to be the hottest March ever on record.

    So the warming trend CONTINUES with an unknown cause.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It may be the warmest month somewhere, not globally, as we are averaging about 10 degrees below normal. That is the issue GLOBAL WARMING. That is what this study was saying. The Medieval warming was not just the Northern Hemisphere as many scientist believed. It was globally a lot warmer than today.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am reading my latest Smithsonian Magazine. Came today. This is a big time AGW publication, so I am wondering how this slipped by them. They have discovered a huge source of fossils including a huge snake. This in the largest coal mining area in the World. The author makes the statement when this snake was alive 58 million years ago it was hotter and wetter than it is today. We just read that the Medieval period was warmer than today. Now we find out that it was warmer 58 million years ago. That leads me to believe Climate changes are normal on this planet. And it is still here after several billion years of changes. Man was not always here and may not always be here. I don't think the climate will kill us off before we kill each other.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Did they say anything about the rate of change? Millions of years vs a hundred or so?

    I'm a bit bent out of shape about this warm winter because I ran into my maple syrup guy tonight. It's been too warm up here and for the first time in 40 years, he got zero sap. :cry:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I just bought some at Costco and it was expensive. So I don't think the last few years were good for Maple trees. What is strange here is the overnight temps are warmer than normal. The day time are cooler than normal. Not sure what that means. I still don't believe man is all that responsible. If so it is our Federal government pushing coal to china for them to expand.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary, I don't think anyone disagrees that "climate change is normal on this planet."

    Everyone with an iron in the fire understands that is true. Even AlGore.

    But that fact STILL does not PROVE that man's pollution and invasion into the atmosphere has ZERO EFFECT on the global weather patterns.

    THAT is the questioned item.

    Not if warming or cooling periods are normal. Everyone knows they ARE.

    Nothing about that fact changes the fact that there have NEVER been as many people and machines on this planet before today. What effect that has on the climate is the only remaining UNKNOWN factor.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    But that fact STILL does not PROVE that man's pollution and invasion into the atmosphere has ZERO EFFECT on the global weather patterns.

    No one has PROVED that man does have any appreciable effect. Until they do we should not spend a dime trying to negate those unproven claims. Point of diminishing returns.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited March 2012
    houdini1 says, "Until they do we should not spend a dime trying to negate those unproven claims."

    That's akin to shutting the barn door after the horses are long gone.

    Dateline, 2035, NYT headline: Man-Made Global Warming Proven Beyond Doubt

    New York - Scientists today released a peer-reviewed, iron-clad climate study based over the last 20 years that definitively proves that man has contributed to the Global Warming which has caused severe world-wide droughts and destroyed beaches all over the world's coastlines.

    Data shows that had we begun aggressively curbing CO2 and other greenhouse gases by the year 2012, we night have saved the lives of 80 million people who have died in drought-ravaged countries around the globe.


    Better safe than sorry. Cleaner air is the result of almost every "green" initiative, so even that is worth the money.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    Well, the only check you will get from me is a reality check. We have already driven off the "already spent too much money" cliff, we just have't crash landed yet. But it is unavoidable.

    2035? Heck, we have to get past 2012 first.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You have completely missed the entire point of the Warmers. It is to extract enormous amounts of money from the US and distribute it around the World. All based on a theory that the USA is the major cause of GW. Or when it cools off a few years CC. It is a UN initiative that soothes the conscience of the World's Wealthiest people without costing them any money. The worst part being the weasels behind it will siphon off a few million here and a few million there. If the carbon tax scam had gone through as planned Al Gore would now be worth $500 million instead of the paltry $100 million he has made off the little minds in this country. Man has likely over stayed his welcome on Planet Earth as it is. With 7 billion people and climbing we will be killing each other off until the big bang when we blow our selves into the after life.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2012
    We're actually number two, behind China, per the Union of Concerned Scientists. Then the "rich" countries of Russia and India follow.

    The insurance claims are going to start rising I guess. GW is being blamed for our "March summer" as well. (USA Today, UPI).

    The Wall St. Journal isn't buying it however. "Weather patterns worldwide over the past few months were very similar to those in 1942 when the continental United States basked in a warm winter at the same time that Alaska and Asia were slammed with severe weather...."

    Somewhere I saw a link about the loss of summer Arctic ice being permanent now, but lost it.

    Meanwhile, March car sales are predicted to be the highest since 2007 (WSJ). I'm sure most of those will be cleaner hybrids and EVs. :P
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,419
    I'd be more worried of the impacts of the developed world alone footing the bill to fight "warming" more than I would the money printing game. The financiers can creatively account their way out of the latter, not so much the former - it will just be more excuse for the treacherous executive class to send employment offshore.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    No, Gary, YOU have incorrectly assumed that this was their purpose. I can't make you disbelieve if any more than you can make me believe it, but it's not for that at all.

    A scam cannot melt arctic ice. A scam can't make "however many" of the last 20 years be the hottest ever.
  • monkstermanmonksterman Member Posts: 46
    Everybody holler, for the almighty dollar!!!....THAT'S what it's all about. Courtesy of the elites (e.g. Rothschild family, Bilderbergers, Club of Rome, UN, "The City", etc. etc.). Can you say CONTROL?!?

    The Hegelian dialect recycled for the 21st century:
    http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

    In my research on this I remember reading that at a huge meeting of all those folks, they knew that the "old way" of controlling masses, war, wouldn't do anymore. So they came up with a new, more subtle, this time bloodless purportedly, "environmental war" that was all cuddly, touchy feelie, and of course nobody would dare not go along, so they thought.

    To me, for the nanosecond that "modern, industrial man" has been on this planet, I'll say again, it's the height of arrogance to think that MAN is the cause of "climate change"... we MIGHT have a TINY influence, but the cause? NO!

    And they know it! Whomever believes and champions their crap is a usefull tool who, save a very few, will be swept aside once the eugenics begins.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I've got far more than a scintilla of knowledge and I know it's not a scam.

    There are two types of arrogance:

    1. one based on ignorance
    2. one based on assuredness

    For example:

    LeBron James might be arrogant and therefore think he is the best thing since sliced bread. He's ignorant, however, of how good Michael Jordan REALLY was. Michael Jordan can be arrogant, however, and have the assuredness to know he has a reason to be.

    If indeed man is "arrogant" enough to thing his pollution can affect the climate, it's based on the scientific facts which have been discovered relating pollution to climate and the facts that the warming trend over the last 30 years is not a mirage.

    Like I said earlier - a scam can't melt arctic ice.
  • monkstermanmonksterman Member Posts: 46
    edited March 2012
    Yeah, just like the Time magazine article of the 70's that INSISTED
    we were rapidly approaching another ICE AGE. What happened??

    Your scam can't melt ice statement is a clever red herring and deflection which fools nor convinces anyone. It still remains a scam.
    As many have pointed out on this and other forums, it is a scam to redistribute wealth and the hijacking of natural occuring phenomena that happens age after age.

    Oh, btw, since you're joined at the hip to your science:

    "Consensus is the business of politics. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
    Dr. Michael Crichton M.D., author of "Jurassic Park" and creator-producer of "ER,"

    To wit:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/16/the-myth-of-settled-science/

    Even Galileo knew it.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Uh...You are using arguments that are more than a decade old and have been abandoned by the majority of people who question climate change. There is new stuff that might support your cause. You can check it out on Wikipedia.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    You are hilarious, thanks !!

    Your "redistribution" of wealth thing, to me, amounts to this:

    making people who promote green technology as rich as people who promote fossil fuel pollution technology.

    I'm all for that kind.

    I'd rather the CEO of SolarCity be a gazillionaire than the CEO of Exxon/Mobil. At least we know in that case that the air is getting cleaner.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Like I said earlier - a scam can't melt arctic ice.

    You are right. However a flim flam man like Al Gore can get people to believe the melting ice is somehow their fault and scam them out of huge amounts of money. No different than gambling. Making people believe they will be the one that strikes it rich by putting their money down.

    Seems kind of funny for someone that believes the oceans will rise and destroy the coastline to by an ocean front mansion. AGW and carbon credits are a scam built on fear of the future using changes in the climate to suck in the gullible.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    larsb, how about a change of pace. How is your solar array working out?

    Also, as I recall, you are a single dad. I hope you and yours are doing well and wish you the best. I still disagree with your stance on GW, but we don't always have to be contentious !!

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • monkstermanmonksterman Member Posts: 46
    edited March 2012
    Uh...check the date stamp:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-c- - hange-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
    Note Pat's comment from Jan 16th wherein he speaks of the Banks paying off the TV stations broadcasting in Austrailia non "factual programs" on the subject. Hmmm, could that be going on here?!?

    Here's a few videos that are a couple of years old for you though:

    How about the Al Gore of the EU (unelected btw) the brunt of a little "Brittish" humorous sarcastic truth:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViPm0GUxw-M&feature=related

    Take the time to watch, listen, and understand Lord Mockton:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuoP1c5Uimc&feature=related
    Surely one has an hour or so to hear pertinent information on the subject to further their knowledge, right?

    We're all being punk'd....DUH...

    I respectfully await your counterpoint.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2012
    "Lord" Monckton isn't a "Lord" in spite of his protestations. He's a policy wonk, an Al Gore for the conservative side if you will. Some of his footnotes may be believeable but he just cherry picks facts to further his agenda (much like Al). I'd rather hear from the scientific community, even if they aren't very smooth with talking and handling the PR aspects. More about him on Wikipedia.

    We dissected the Muller brouhaha back in October. Curry doesn't disagree with Muller (link), unless something has changed. She had a good blog but I haven't followed it. You can find skeptic stuff there but she seems to appreciate all comers. More of a scientific approach if you will.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I meant the old '70s global cooling and Michael Crichton stuff.

    As for the article, the detractors are saying that global warming has perhaps paused in the last decade - nowhere near saying climate change is not a problem.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It sounds like Curry has backtracked on the pause comments attributed to her too.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited March 2012
    Solar Array doing great. Check my stats here:

    Solar System Performance

    Still paying the "utility company minimum" of $16.51 for 7 months out of the year, in addition to the $41 per month solar lease payment. And getting a rebate from the utility of $30-$55 in May when my solar overage resets.

    Me and mine are also doing well personally, thanks for asking...hope the same is true for you and yours.... :shades:
  • monkstermanmonksterman Member Posts: 46
    edited March 2012
    Understood, point made, I stand corrected; or do I?...: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/lord-christopher-monckton-and-that-waste-of-tim- - - e-lord-debate/

    Did you take the time to watch the entire series? It is very compelling.

    Also, he is an individual (as opposed to a group who have their livelihood directly dependent on their "results" otherwise it's bye-bye UN funding), with the means (read $$) to do his research on his own dime, and show up at all the GW, oh sorry, CC pep rallies to at least challenge the uselful idiots on the street; strike that, on the street and at the conference table.

    Moreover, his logic and deductions seem to me to be more transparent than the AGW crowd. Kinda akin to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in this inexact issue. He doesn't conveniently use fraudulent examples (e.g. the polar bear analogy) for disingenious effect. Nor leave out, as Paul Harvey would say, the other side of the story, such as pointing out that 10% of the ice is melting on one of the poles, but declining to say that the other 90% is actually growing, if I remember correctly.

    And, finally, and perhaps most importantly, none of his emails have been exposed to be panicky "damage control" as have his supposedly well credentialed and unbaised, opponents.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2012
    Sorry, I have a low tolerance for video, YouTube, TV or movies. Rather read footnotes. Never saw Gore's DVD either. :shades:

    Monckton doesn't impress. Rather hear from the front line; people who do studies, publish them and let others poke holes in their findings. Curious to see what round 2 is going to bring from the guy/group that the Koch brothers partially funded.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think the more they study the climate and its variables the more frustrated scientists will become. Kind of like the human body. Just when they think they have seen it all up pops some new disease or condition. If as scientists say 95% of all the species that have roamed the planet are now extinct, there have been a LOT of changes that man could not possibly had any influence over. That does not mean I believe we should trash the air and water. However, it would be nice not to have to go back to living in caves as hunter gatherers. That is the alternative if we were to carry out some of the absurd agendas being pushed on US.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It also seems like the more you learn about a subject the less you know.

    Maybe that explains why I haven't purchased a new car since I found Edmunds in late '98. :shades:
  • monkstermanmonksterman Member Posts: 46
    edited March 2012
    Too bad about your low tolerance...but you know one can do both...prose, footnotes, indexes, erratta, compendiums, etc. :) Be truthful: was it the Marty Feldman eyes?!? :D

    I too, like you, aren't looking as to whether Mockton impresses {though he certainly does}, but rather am looking for the nature of the content in the discourse.

    Though I may be wrong, give him 5 minutes of video 1 and you might find yourself being intrigued and continue, for maybe another 10 or so; and b4 you know it, viola!, it's over!!!

    One by one, he exposes many of the lies, err...contradictions central to the AGW mantra in a logical, erudite, measured way, with nary an ad-hominem statement anywhere.

    Edit: well at least we got the "Is he or isn't he a Lord" straightened out didn't we!?! Thought the whole thing was a bit of a distraction to begin with, along with the crys of "he's not a scientist", which have no factor whatsoever the truthfulness of his findings.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2012
    Yeah, and next I'll want to shut down the UN, imprison Al Gore (the elder, not the speeder) and become a birther. Oh, and he'll cure me of my flu and cold too (not to mention AIDs and MS).Those are also claims and pursuits of "Lord" Monckton. The more I learn about him the less I want to know. Sounds like a crackpot.

    It's interesting to look at comments by his old boss, Ms. Thatcher on the subject:

    "And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later."

    Margaret Thatcher Foundation
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited March 2012
    Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

    Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.


    This woman belongs in a padded room. She has imbibed on too much Al Gore Foolaid. ..

    http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treate- - d-says-professor/
  • monkstermanmonksterman Member Posts: 46
    Sheesh, why all the vitriol :mad: ?? Must've hit a nerve...Amusing "reply" though.
    I for one can't wait to give more of my taxpayer $$ to that wonderful organization. They do so much good! Can you remember the Oil for Food scandal of 2004? They're all wanna be elitist crooks and are doing a decent job of the latter. But they just learned from our congress as De Tocqueville observed over a hundred years ago:

    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money - De Tocqueville

    As for Thatcher, some say she gave the old GW issue a goose in the pants internationally in order to give herself a little cache, being the first woman of stature politically:

    Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. {emphasis mine} This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)
    Here's the entire piece:
    http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

    Interesting article and review comments at the bottom.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2012
    I'm less interested in someone who constantly seeks out the media to advance a position, especially someone without any training in the field. The people in the trenches (i.e., the PhDs) are doing the research and feeding recommendations to the policy makers. And those people publish and their work is peer reviewed. If their data or models are skewed, we hear about it. And in theory, a scientist will change and adapt if a favorite hypothesis isn't supported by the data (Mueller being perhaps the best recent example).

    This one is real topical:

    GM Pulls Support of Climate-Change Denying Heartland Institute (Straightline)
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    edited March 2012
    Mrs. Thatcher gave that speech 22 years ago. According to her, the end was almost upon us back then. Hmmm...none of the bad things have happened...guess she missed that one.

    At the rate of climate change, get back to me in a couple of million years and we will re-evaluate. Right now we have to concentrate on the important things in life, like what's for dinner.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

This discussion has been closed.