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.
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?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19551204&id=xcYqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Mcw- FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1266,769273
It's NEW.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/earthquakes.htm
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
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 countrieshigher 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
2035? Heck, we have to get past 2012 first.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
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
A scam cannot melt arctic ice. A scam can't make "however many" of the last 20 years be the hottest ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Maybe that explains why I haven't purchased a new car since I found Edmunds in late '98. :shades:
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.
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
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/
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.
This one is real topical:
GM Pulls Support of Climate-Change Denying Heartland Institute (Straightline)
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