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
My 99 Ranger gets the most usage as we are still moving after 5 months. I told my wife we need to wrap it up and get the old house on the market. With two houses we will be getting a carbon tax bill from Al Gore LLC.
1988 Honda CRX HF combined 45 MPG, 4.10 tons of GHG per year
And we all know that with advances in engine efficiency in the last 20 years - like direct-injection, a modern CRX would get significantly higher mpg than that.
As far as longevity, I put 210K miles on mine before I got tired of it, didn't feel like doing an engine, and gas was cheap and I went and bought an AWD for my country roads.
You don't need a hybrid to get great mpg, you just need to lose all the things that have been driving up the size, weight and excess power of vehicles. As far as safety goes, that's all relative as to what we accept. We could be much safer, which costs money or fuel, or we could relax safety and save fuel - that's a trade-off in some respects. (We would all be much safer if we wore helmets, and had our cars built more like race-cars right?)
CRX should be compared to the Insight, which is roughly the same size, anyway, not a Prius. Insight is far more fuel efficient than a CRX HF was.
My roommate had one. On paper it sounded good, but that thing could not get out of its own way. It was dangerously slow, I mean it. A Prius is a hot rod compared to that slow car.
I'd remember it only had 62hp. The regular CRX had 92hp and cost $300 more. So $300 for 30 extra horses, or $10/horse.
The HF was not that popular, and was outsold by both other models (base and Si).
The Flux Capacitor was for Time Travel only.
The Delorean was powered by a Mr Fusion
Heck, I know a guy who got a BRAND NEW trunklid from Volvo for his 1975 240 a couple of years ago.
The only drawback to the Civic is the fact that you can't preen and pose in one like you can in a Prius :P
Without making ships disappear like Tesla supposedly did. Let's keep it real here.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I think you know the kind of preening that I am talking about.
The holier than thou, "I drive a Hybrid, I CARE about the environment" nonsense.
And by the way - that is a Genuine emotion. The feeling you get of doing something good for the world - it's a REAL feeling that is created by brain chemistry. Some people handle it differently than others.
I'm not deriding how genuine you feel about this; but from a scientific viewpoint I assure you "the Earth doesn't care". It doesn't care whether the atmosphere is 300ppm CO2, or 2,000 ppm, and it doesn't care whether species live or die. The Earth is inanimate, unless you believe George Lucas's mantra?
Now if when you refer to the Earth, you mean the people and species living on the Earth - you are to be commended, but unfortunately there aren't many like you, and never will be as long as resources are in demand. I don't think even you could begrudge the people of the 3rd world using more fuel as they try to improve their lives?; seeing they use little relative to you?
Oh, it has happened.
Considering the fact that you cannot make a purely monetary reason for buying a hybrid, then pious preening is the determining factor.
The Ford Escape Hybrid commercial is a pretty good example.Little girl disdains the Escape until she learns its a hybrid,then she can't wait for her friends to see her in it.
I don't know about YOU, but I can and have made a pure "monetary" reason for buying a hybrid. (That's really neither here nor there in the GW discussion.)
And I know a lot of hybrid owners, and not one of them does any "pious preening."
In case you aren't counting, hybrids have save hundreds of millions of gallons of gas and that number goes up every day. November hybrid sales were up 82% over November 2006.
Prius owners (and hybrid owners in general ) are like any other "section" of society - there are bad apples who make the rest look bad. Notice I said LOOK bad. It's only a perception and not a reality. People who act like that are in the small, miniscule minority.
The reality is that if you are concerned about GW, you need to have a hybrid that fits your budget and your needs on your shortlist.
Toyota Prius outselling major auto brands
Yep, the Prius is outselling Subaru. All of Subaru. And another dozen brands too.
But couldn't people who drive diesels make that claim too? If you drive a diesel ram instead of a gas one? Or the people who buys a Corolla instead of a 4 Runner? Or better yet the people who live 3 miles from work instead of the hybrid owner who makes their 25 mile commute affordable by driving a hybrid? I traded my V-8 Firebird for a smaller 3 liter Jaguar, am I "saving the planet?"
I don't think so as the news media keeps telling me the Earth's getting warmer; all the while snow blankets the country (and its still fall !)
November hybrid sales were up 82% over November 2006.
So with sales increasing so quick on hybrids, when do they save the Earth? what year? or is it as I state that their effect and other mpg increases will not be large enough to counteract growing demand. Your claims of "saving" means "slower growth"; not "overall reduction". In order to slowdown the supposed GW you need "overall reduction"; not just "slower growth".
Hybrids and other technologies that use fossil fuels are not a solution to GW. It slows the bleeding, like putting a band-aid on a severed limb.
If you can't get the energy, it doesn't matter whether you want hydrogen, electricity, batteries, diesel, gasoline cars. Right now they ALL require fossil fuels to be used to produce them. You can argue all you want about this one is 10% or 20% better, but they all need fossil fuels, and fossil fuel usage is going to increase as long as those fuels are available, and there is nothing to replace them.
That brings you right back to we need a viable energy source requiring a breakthru in solar collection, nucear fusion (or similar), or geothermal. There is no breakthru coming in wind as we know how to collect it; though we could collect a lot more if people weren't concerned about a few birds and the view. If you want another analogy: we're sitting in a liferaft with so much food and water, and yes we may find ways to stretch it out. But staying in the liferaft is not going to work, no matter how creative we are doling out the food and water. Similarly our fossil fuels will be used up and the ultimate goal is to work on new energy sources.
1. Yes diesel cars save money. Just waiting for the clean ones. (reminder: Hybrids and diesels are *NOT* locked in some "do or die only one sheriff in this town" life-or-death struggle. They can co-exist and should not be enemies.)
2. GW is not a "completely everywhere on Earf is getting warmer 100% of the time" phenomenon.
3. Slowing the bleeding is better than allowing the bleeding to flow freely.
4. Alt energy source research is ongoing and hopefully helpful.
The Prime Minister yesterday attempted to clarify a statement from the Australian delegation in Bali, which said Australia "fully supports" an earlier decision for developed countries to examine cutting greenhouse emissions by between 25 per cent and 40 per cent by 2020.
That stance suggested Australia was prepared to radically cut its emissions, forcing Mr Rudd and his Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, to issue statements stressing that Australia was not yet committing itself to any 2020 targets.
Mr Rudd said some countries had indicated "they do not necessarily accept those targets, nor do they accept those targets as binding targets for themselves". He added: "That is also the position of the Australian Government."
But by playing down the need for Australia to commit to the deeper cuts in its greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Rudd could find himself in conflict with the leading players at the Bali talks, including China and India.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-feels-the-bali-heat/2007/12/06/11968129- - - 22127.html
The diesel cars in the USA are more than clean enough. You are just part of the diesel denier group that are only interested in ONE technology. Well you got the gubment on your side. Oh, I forgot ethanol is also accepted. If GW was high on your list of importance you would let a little NoX get by to cut CO2 by a huge amount.
Wong is Australia's first minister specifically dedicated to climate change and water conservation. (BBC)
Rudd also appointed a former rock star as environment minister. :shades:
China and India made it clear they are not going to jeopardize their growth for the benefit of the World. It is just a big waste of money. The UN could be doing something productive, like feeding the poor. Instead they get caught up in these grand scams. They could go after China building a new coal fired power plant every week. Are they super clean coal plants, or very basic. Even the cleanest put out a lot of CO2. My understanding is Bejing may not be fit to hold the Olympics next year. That would be a big slap to that emerging economy.
Gary says, You are just part of the diesel denier group that are only interested in ONE technology.
Gary, you know better than making that statement. You know I am "pro-clean ANYTHING" but it has to be REALLY CLEAN. EVs, PHEVs, Hybrids, new-technology clean diesel, hydrogen, solar, ultra-capacitors, I'm PRO all of that.
Not one technology, my gosh - you know better than to say something like that about me.
So very true. I do not believe you can trace any of it back to diesel cars built in the last 5 years. I have no idea if AZ has complied with the ULSD mandate. I do not see that as an excuse to limit the sale of modern diesel cars, SUVs and PU trucks.
You know I am "pro-clean ANYTHING" but it has to be REALLY CLEAN.
I have asked you before. I will ask again. Show me data that a modern diesel car using ULSD is not as clean or cleaner than the average car that is sold. Of the listed technologies there is only ONE in your eyes that is available to the public and clean enough to satisfy you. So I stand by my statement and repeat. You are a denier that modern diesel cars are CLEAN enough using ULSD. I totally disagree with your view on current diesel cars. Don't bother using the totally flawed EPA Fueleconomy website. Those people are clueless. I tried getting information on testing for their little number scale. They did not know if any of the diesel cars were tested with ULSD. As close as I can tell the numbers are based on using the highest sulfur diesel still sold in many markets.
I do agree that most semis, trains, planes, ships and School buses are filthy stinky vehicles. I would not allow my kid to ride a school bus when he was younger because he had asthma and could have an attack standing next to an idling school bus. That was my decision and we would pick him and my daughter up from school. So your smokescreen is not changing my view of the situation. If we want to cut GHG and primarily CO2 diesel is the most obvious choice of fossil fuel.
If I buy a Corolla, and you buy a Prius, I will spend alot less than you will.
Plus, even factoring in the extra gas a Corolla burns, I'm still ahead of you.
2008 Corolla LE Auto $16,415
2008 Prius $22,175
According to the EPA, the Corolla will use $1604 worth of gas a year.
The Prius will burn $1009 worth of gas.
So, I save $5760 on the price of the car.
I spend $600/yr more to fuel my car.
So, it would take almost 10 yrs before we would even out.
Since neither of us is likely to keep our cars that long, I'd end up ahead on the deal.
The only difference is that i would be able to be seen driving a Hybrid and "caring" about the environment :P
I'm sorry, but there is just no way that buying a hybrid is a smart money decision.
Hybrid sellers realize this, so they are sold on the emotion that Hybrids are "better' for the planet than run of the mill economy cars.
THAT is why the Ford commercial is so apropos.
Even the "GW" argument is limp.
if I have a Tahoe,which emits 11.5 tons of CO2, and I trade it for a Corolla, which emits 6.3 tons, I'm "saving" the environment. The Prius, for all its hoopla, only emits 2 tons less.
Yes, you say, 2 tons is alot. But is it? Really? I have to spend $5700 MORE to save that 2 tons. Again,not a smart money decision.
So, we come back to image again.
You might make it up sooner than you think.
However, a concern would be battery life/replacement. Most original owners won't keep them that long anyway.
Read this:
Putting the calculator to the Civic Hybrid
As for the larger objection — that hybrids don't pay for themselves — that objection was certainly true two years ago, when gas was $2 per gallon, but it's a much closer call now that gas is roughly $3 per gallon.
Pull out your calculators. Let's say I was interested in a 2006 Honda Civic — because, well, I am — and I was debating between the sedan and the hybrid. With a navigation system, the hybrid costs $23,350; a similarly equipped Civic EX sedan costs $20,560. The hybrid premium equals $2,790.
The combined fuel economy of the non-hybrid is 35 mpg; the hybrid, 50 mpg, a theoretical difference of 15 mpg. In five years of average driving (15,000 miles per year), I would save 643 gallons, or $1,929 (assuming a gas price of $3 per gallon), with the hybrid. Combined with the current tax deduction (a savings of $580 in my tax bracket) I recoup 90% of the hybrid premium in five years. If I were to buy the Honda Civic hybrid in January 2006, the numbers look even better. The federal tax deduction becomes a credit worth $2,100. Combined with my fuel savings I actually come out about $1,200 ahead.
Now, put your calculators away, because the point is not whether I, or you, will recoup penny-for-penny the hybrid investment, since the compensations are not exclusively monetary. The hybrid haters actually have a valid point when they declaim the technology as touchy-feely. Its appeal is emotional, but that's not the same as irrational.
The reason hybrid cars are flying off dealers' lots is not because they make such a galvanizing financial brief. It's because people of goodwill, conservative and liberal, are growing weary of the moral calculus of gasoline. What people are learning is that private choices have public consequences. Sure, I'll make my money back, but the more important thing is the 643 gallons of liquid crack I will save. Now that's conservative."
Please don't counter with all the "Prius does not pay off in the long run" articles because most of them are speculation.
Hybrids are more than "recouping your investment" and until you understand that, you will not understand hybrids.
And I have answered the same every time: As soon as that test is done we will know the answer, O Diesel Swami.
I have NEVER, EVER denied that "modern diesel vehicles are clean." Not one time, after I did my research and understood the situation.
But even you have to concede that if they are not "50-state clean" then they must not be doing SOMETHING right in the cleanliness dept, correct? If they rate as 50-state clean, then that's good enough for me. How many "affordable to the average Joe Public" 50-state diesel cars are for sale right now?
What exactly did I "smokescreen," again?
No I do not concede that. CARB has a long standing vendetta against diesel cars. No matter how clean they get CARB will make new rules to try and keep them out of the state. At least till they have 7500 miles. If that makes any sense. The last time they pulled it was with MB over UREA cannisters. CARB wants 150k mile clean with nothing added. MB is being allowed to LEASE 100 Blutec "E" class vehicles CA. I think they want to smell them before they open the door completely. They know it will be a flood when that door is opened wide. VW has come up against similar treatment by the CARB [non-permissible content removed].
What exactly did I "smokescreen," again?
When we are discussing diesel cars not being allowed you throw in semi-trucks and buses as examples of dirty diesel vehicles.
2002:
Australia says it will not ratify the Kyoto pact on global warming unless the United States and developing countries get fully involved.
Japan and the 15 countries of the European Union have ratified the protocol and Australia is under pressure to follow suit.
But Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Wednesday refused to consider it.
"For us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry," Mr Howard told parliament.
The Kyoto pact, signed in Japan in 1997, requires industrialised countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 8% of the 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2026446.stm
2007:
"Every Australian needs to understand that if Mr Rudd, in our name, on our behalf, accepts in the order of 25 to 30 per cent by 2020, that will have a devastating impact on our economic development," he told reporters in Canberra.
"It will have serious consequences for electricity bills and many other burdens borne by working families in day-to-day life and pensioners."
Dr Nelson urged the prime minister to do the necessary homework before committing to a target.
"Before we sign up to anything, before Mr Rudd does anything on our behalf we need to understand what will be the economic consequences of that to our children and he must ensure that China, India, the United States and the large emitters are a part of any agreement.
"To do otherwise would not serve Australia's interests let alone those of the world.
PS
None of the original signing have fulfilled the Kyoto agreement from 1997. 2008 is on us and nothing has changed.
" 'Global warming' gets people's attention more," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a nonpartisan advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. " 'Climate change' is softer. It's why General Motors says 'climate change' and why the Sierra Club uses 'global warming.' "
Republicans abandoned "global warming" and started using "climate change" in 2002 after a memo from political consultant Frank Luntz. His advice, aimed at giving Republicans strong language to dominate the debate on environmental issues, served to politicize the terms.
"Climate change" has evolved into the preferred Republican term when political leaders talk about the effect of greenhouse gases. Democrats and many environmentalists continue to use "global warming."
While Republicans may have been deliberate about making "climate change" part of their political vocabulary, it also has become the preferred scientific parlance.
"The reason it's important to say 'climate change' is because it's an all-encompassing term," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental-advocacy group.
But it remains a partisan issue, colored by political semantics. The language has allowed some skeptical leaders to differentiate between climate change — which has multiple causes — and global warming, which generally is described as being caused by human activity.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004060068_warmingterm08.html
'It's the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in summer'
To some Churchill residents, who base their opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, this is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious ends.
When outsiders question whether anyone would be so cynical, they are reminded of that now-famous photograph of a polar bear which appears to be teetering precariously on an Arctic ice-floe, melting faster than ice-cream, in the depths of winter.
For a while, it became a powerful symbol of the perils of global warming - until it was revealed to have been taken three years ago and during the height of summer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id- =500424&in_page_id=1811
If not they do make good rugs.
This was taken just out of Barrow on butchered whale.
Was he ignorant and negligent a few years ago, and now he receives an award for a few years of making speeches? Where is the justice in that? I hope he donates that $ to a needy charity, or is it going towards a new jet for him?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/10/gore.nobel.ap/index.html
However misplaced or right on your opinion of Gore's handling of the issues he brings forth, it's hard to deny that the human population has had a huge negative effect on the planet we all share in very recent years, which represents a minuscule amount of time the planet has been around. Politicians generally don't take on unpopular issues like this, and make a it their point to bring them the topic of public conversation.
P.S. As far as logical arguments (regarding another post), photos of polar bears in their natural environment does not mean there isn't a problem with the way humans have been handling environmental issues like global warming (or devastating oil spills, etc). Nice photo, though. I'm guessing it was a great experience, I hope grandchildren and their grandchildren inherit an Earth where they have the opportunities to experience something like that.
Well as I noted before the Earth is not hurt physically or emotional about mankind's endeavors. If mankind has a total nuclear war tomorrow, the Earth is not hurt long-term; though the living species are affected. Similarly the planet is not hurt whether the oil is underground or spilt on the surface.
So what we are really talking about is affect on living species. yes nuclear war, GW and oil-spills have an effect on living species.
Then the question becomes whether the effect is necessarily bad, and while we can agree about nuclear war and oil-spills, I wouldn't put GW in that same category. Why, because while GW may be negative for some, it is also a positive for others. In warmer climates there are many more species and the concentration of life is much higher than in colder climes. If you want to know what I think is 3 of the biggest environmental issues would be - 1) deforestation of places like the Amazon and SE Asia, and 2) modernization of many 3rd world nations, and 3) massive pollution of lakes, rivers, and GW from modern agriculture (fertilizers and pesticides).
If you look at much of the U.S. you see that here in the Fall, not the Winter we are having snow and ice. Also the average temperature of the Earth is only around 60F, so I would say we have a lot more room to rise to a more comfortable temperature for more of the Earth. Yes some warm areas of the Earth could become inhabitable, but look at how much area of the Earth is basically uninhabitable now because of the cold.
He did write and publish "Earth in the Balance" while he was still in office. Granted it is a very poor example of what most environmentalist work toward. If he was arguing against cutting down the rain forest to plant crops. Or cutting the hardwood forests in Iowa to plant corn. Or going against mega-ag corporations like ADM for polluting the Gulf of Mexico. I might consider him useful in the field. He only wants to jump on a political cause that will generate billions of dollars in carbon credits. It is as bad as Starbucks charging $5 per bottle for water to the fire fighters during the 9/11 disaster. I see NO socially redeeming value to what Al Gore is doing.
PS
The polar bears that are in danger, are the ones the Eskimos kill to sell the gall bladders in the Orient. I have personally witnessed polar bear hides laying in the mud. Whale carcasses left to rot. Walrus carcasses with just the ivory tusks gone. We will lose more wild game by mis-use of man than me driving an SUV.
I once read that males drive that much, but females drive much less, only 9k/year on average. That data is old and may have changed.
The credits are significant, IMO.
But, no offense meant, it's not just your SUV-as well as mine, but it's the huge number of them that really adds up. The intelligent use of advanced technologies, even before they seem to make economic sense, will lessen the growing impact.
I agree that there are lots of environmental issues... I didn't mean to deflect the conversation on them. Oil spills and "mis-use" are definitely blatantly devastating.
Oil spills are generally accidents. Most are very costly to the responsible parties. I am talking about destroying 97% of the hardwood forest in Iowa to grow corn. Then dumping tons of fertilizer on the land that seeps into the streams and rivers, ending up in the Gulf of Mexico. I agree that SUVs if nothing else use more fossil fuel than they have to. I tack that directly on the over regulation by EPA and CARB. My SUV could be getting 30 MPG instead of 15 MPG. Just by offering it with a diesel engine. I see prospective buyers here on Edmund's salivating over the 2008 Sequoia. It has another 100 HP. Who the H--- needs that much HP? I would think getting the vehicle to give an honest 20 MPG would be better for all of us. Now you can have a Sequoia that will be nearly as fast as a Corvette, with 6.6 seconds going from 0-60 MPH. Whooopee!
I will probably not buy a small car as they are such a pain in my back getting in and out of. Sure I would like to get better mileage. Which in turn would produce less CO2. Tell it to the State and Federal Government. Neither Party is interested in cutting CO2 or fossil fuel usage. If they were we would have high mileage vehicles that are being sold in the EU.
Summer Arctic Ice gone by 2012?
2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:
_ 552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet, according to preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday. That's 15 percent more than the annual average summer melt, beating 2005's record.
_ A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12 percent more than the previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of Colorado released Monday. That's nearly quadruple the amount that melted just 15 years ago. It's an amount of water that could cover Washington, D.C., a half-mile deep, researchers calculated.
_ The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.
_ Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice, scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004's total.
Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.
That is great news and will save a lot of ships from making an extra long trip thru the Panama Canal.
But whether you dislike or like Change in general, and a possibly warmer Earth, automobiles are a relatively medium contributor to GHG, compared to other human sources. Converting every auto on the planet to a hybrid would only reduce the GHG for a few years, and then GHG would continue to increase to higher and higher emission rates.
You really cannot look at one event, over a small timescale, and postulate the end of the world. :lemon:
However, we should all be using less fossil fuels and as a European I think the USA must get to grips with it's mania for over-sized cars/etc. Your Legislators don't seem interested so I can only presume that the Auto and Oil Industries are running the show. Not healthy.
"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.
"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.")
Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies.
"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming."
Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence."
"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.
GW in Bali
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.
"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained.
"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.
"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
‘Dangerous time for science'
Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.
"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.
"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.
Carbon trading ‘fraud?'
New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.
"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.
"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.
•Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;
•Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;
•Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and
•Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.
Now tell me what the carbon footprint from all these concerts and conferences on Global Warming add up to?
Plus, the standard of living is improving in 3rd world countries.
We're already nearly as pampered as you can get.
In fact IMHO those statistics are useless. They ignore how high the number already were before, and distort the increase/decrease substantially.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. As the old saying goes.
No, the %-increases are quite meaningful, and actually the most important. In 7 years the U.S. only went up 6.6% which is probably what our population went up, if not more. So on a per capita basis the U.S. has either stayed the same or reduced emissions.
Now since U.S. citizens are only 5% of the global population, and the other 95% are people from China, India, Kenya ..., it is what that 95% does that matters!!
Yes the U.S. does have a relatively high per capita #. It is because we (U.S.) are successful as a nation. If these other nations were as successful, which many are becoming, they will have no qualms enjoying their success just like we have. I believe many of these countries have said they will sign Kyoto once they approach our wealth and llifestyle?
Maybe you would like to name any country that has lived up to Kyoto. I could not find one. It is a case of a lot of politicians spending a lot of tax dollars going to conferences and bloviating over nothing.