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
Flooding is not synonymous with drowning. He meant the places they live would be flooded.
The sooner you accept that GW is a political tool, and nothing more...
I prefer rational thought, where I look at issues and the facts and apply reason and common sense to determine what should be addressed. Rejecting every issue that has political ramifications (how many do not?) is silly.
And calling every person that has an opposing viewpoint an "alarmist" is fundamentally self-defeating. Oh well, moving on.....
Then we share that viewpoint. When I read a report such as the one done for the UN, and see "possible causes" I accept that. When it becomes political the "possible" part is dropped and all of a sudden it is the cause that is threatening our very existence. I consider that alarmist politics. So what might be an issue of concern becomes a polarizing tactic to try and sway voters one way or the other. Science is no longer part of the equation.
If using Bangladesh and the millions threatened by flooding or the East coast going under water, is not alarmist, we are definitely out of step with each other. I suspect at this point it is pretty much 50/50 on the subject.
The US is not going to use any less fuel over the next 50 years. Fat cats and politicians are not going to fly around the World any less. Third World countries are considered off limits until they catch up with the rest of the World economically. So why get in such a tizzy? Nothing is going to change no matter who is in office.
And May was the biggest ever for many automakers. We are not going backward to satisfy the wishes of a few people along the Eastern Seaboard that may lose their homes if the tide gets higher.
I just hate to see my tax dollars wasted on rebuilding homes in vulnerable locations anywhere.
The Chiricahua Mountains are volcanic-induced rock spires that are indeed amazing to view. We actually saw a young Bobcat on the way up to the Chiricahua National Park Visitor Center. SE Arizona is also where Geronimo made a long stand of evading the Cavalry. He was held at Fort Grant, about 35 miles NE of Willcox. Very interesting part of the country here, the true Wild, Wild West.
Back to the topic at hand-would it be rude to suggest that "global warming" is just a natural earth cycle projection and that the shorelines are not in such a grave danger as it's made out to be?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I think it is a valid point. And a good possibility. I don't think throwing our whole economic system into a turmoil to satisfy the theories of a few people wanting to get into power is justified. I would like to see us use less fuel. If that helps cut GHG that is a plus. I want a diesel SUV to do just that.
Those SE Arizona trips sound good around February. If I get my GL320 CDI by then I will give it a go.
I'm glad you think that's simple. Wholesale destruction of all major cities on the Atlantic coast will occur, and your answer is: they'll just have to deal with it. Um, ok, I think we're done"
And, after all that we have said, if wholesale destruction of all major cities on the Atlantic coast WAS to occur due to the elevation of the ocean level, please tell me what YOU would suggest they do, other than move inland, since you obviously believe my answer is flawed.
If climate change due to use of fossil fuel is a risk, should we do something about it before it occurs. Like stronger CAFE, gas tax, gas rationing, etc.
The topic is not "Tips for Coping With Coastal Flooding".
Your points seem to be:
a) Climate changes is not a problem
b) If it is, tough darts
If that's not your POV, you can correct me. If it is, there's not much room for discussion, given POV 'b'.
Your trip to SE Arizona would be the same in the opposite direction. San Diego is playing host well over there for the family, I must go see what the stink is all about. Come to think of it, SD is lacking a NBA bb team. Anybody have an extra $600 mil they can loan for a period of, oh, 10 years?
Oh, back to global warming. Give it another 10 years to play out it's warming effects and see if LA and SD are still there. Granted a tsunami and earthquake changes the rack and that's different. But waters rising above LA and SD harbor wakes from global warming effects alone? Is that reaching a tad, with what we know right now?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Here in Boise, we drown in ~12 inches of precipitation a year. And we keep growing and driving.
Remember the headlines in the 70's?... global cooling, the beginning of a human caused ice age. Global temperatures declining over the previous 25 years.
Now the reverse is being preached. The truth is that the Earth's temperature fluctuates all by itself. It was here before us, and will be here long after us.
Why is global warming a political issue?...something new to levy a tax on, plain and simple. This tax, however, will be a global tax. Industrialized countries that use lots of energy (read that as us) will pay third world countries money as a penalty for using resources.
The preceeding paragraph would have been laughed at a few years ago. Sadly, the first steps to such taxation have already been taken. Even if you buy in to the man made global warming myth, I find it difficult to understand how taxes would be the ultimate logical solution to it.
Members of the global warming religion parse words to prove their points. There is a huge difference between global warming and man-made global warming. Does global warming exist? Of course it does, as does global cooling. There is absolutely zero science to prove man-made global warming, though. It is a theory that has never been proven, and never will be.
Global warming is being used as a tool to fleece the masses, nothing more.
Oh, yeah, the poor Mount Graham red squirrel...less Doug Firs mean more scrambling for the little rodent...and their numbers have decreased from 500-something to about 276...Forest Service keeps a good count of their numbers. Kind of sad even though I've never met a Mt.Graham Red squirrel.
Very interesting read, though, on Arizona's plight for more water. We are growing but with all the dryness continuing will we stay nourished with enough water. Conservation sohuld be on our minds after reading that article, people from Arizona at least. I'm doing my part by letting our front yard's grass heat up and starve for water for a few days while my wife is gone. She'll drench the front yard with aqua once she gets back but I do the mowing so my choice is to starve it out a tad. Lot's of yards in this little cow town are little pieces of desert...regular grass is not the natural thing in these parts. Or let's just say it takes mucho effort to keep it green.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
In the 1930s, drought covered virtually the entire Plains for almost a decade (Warrick, 1980). The drought’s direct effect is most often remembered as agricultural. Many crops were damaged by deficient rainfall, high temperatures, and high winds, as well as insect infestations and dust storms that accompanied these conditions. The resulting agricultural depression contributed to the Great Depression’s bank closures, business losses, increased unemployment, and other physical and emotional hardships. Although records focus on other problems, the lack of precipitation would also have affected wildlife and plant life, and would have created water shortages for domestic needs.
Was that global warming? If so why did it not continue as we have created more and more GHG since that time? Climate changes are going to be with us as long as the planet exists. Species will be lost. Look at the dinosaurs, that was not caused by too many Suburbans burning fossil fuel.
You might check to see if AZ wants a few of our squirrels. We are over-run with them I kill an average of 4-5 per week. Them and the rabbits & gophers destroy more vegetation than I can afford. The coyotes and hawks cannot keep up with them. It is nearly impossible to keep a garden going with the high price of water and the horrible rodents. I would drive a Yugo if I thought it would solve the critter problems in So CAL.
PS
I imagine the same politicians that are calling for conservation are signing the permits to develop those huge housing tracts between Phoenix and Tuscon. They want them tax dollars to spend.
So Lake Tahoe solved the problem years ago. You can own a lot just cannot build unless you have a water permit. Those are limited.
Climate change is something we must adapt to, because I do not believe that Man can cause it, hence, it is quite natural, considering what we believ we know of the history of the planet...it WILL be here long after we are gone, and it certainlt has been here for millions (billions?) of years before Man and the dreaded red herring, the SUV...
You can take any attitude you wish, but whether it is coastal flooding on a massive scale, earthquakes that take out California, or the Middle east deserts under water, if it is a natural occurrence, I see only once answer...Adapt to it...what other choice can logically be verbalized???
Will it cause pain???...ALL change causes pain...cutting out carbs from your diet causes pain, giving up cigarettes causes pain...and losing the east coast will cause massive pain, but, unless one phycially moves his person and his family, what else can ANYONE do???...stop an earthquake???...stop a tsunami???...
You seem to write, at least to me, that my answer is simplistic...if the land you live on will not be there 15 years from now, and since we cannot fly like birds, give me another answer to my solution of "move"...
My solution, of course, will not work if ALL land masses on the planet are under water...but the east coast???...move to Indiana...
We don't have grass (except when the "pasture" greens up a bit in the spring). Lots of yucca and other xeric plants but I do water every day with a hose this time of year. Gotta keep my gourds going. :shades:
I drove again today (two days in a row - sheesh!). Saw a fox in downtown Boise at 7:30 am with a squirrel in his mouth, about 3 blocks from the capitol building. GW pushing the critters down from the foothills?
Bob, we seem to have a handle on the ozone hole thanks to the Montreal Protocol. Why not pass Kyoto and try to limit the effects of GW?
Global warming pushing the lowly fox over to downtown Boise? Hee-he...I just got an image in my mind of the Seinfeld crew having their way with that one! I don't understand the connection it's just there!
In Washington state they're constantly building further out into the Cascades, away from Seattle. Freaks 'em out when cougar take out one of their Yorkshire's. Humm.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
"As global warming heats the earth, the waters of the seas and oceans expand, elevating water levels across the planet. In New York, this means that by 2020—just 13 years from now—rising sea levels will have raised the waters around the city by three to four inches; by 2050, the waters will have crept up a total of eight to 10 inches; by 2080, 14 to 19 inches." The New York Observer. Doesn't help that New York is sinking.
Maybe that's one reason New York hosted the C-40 Large Cities Climate Summit a couple of weeks ago? Check out Bloomberg's remarks (he touched on the potential for destructive storm surges from the rising sea level, and came out in support for congestion pricing for Manhattan).
Every issue has its extremists, at both ends. Why dwell on it? The questions are a) is climate change being caused at least partly by human activity and b) if so, how much is due to automobiles?
Why would your opinion depend on some particular extremist POV?
Science is no longer part of the equation.
If science is no longe a part of your equation, then it's no one's fault but your own.
The US is not going to use any less fuel over the next 50 years.
LOL, I'm fascinated that you've decided that by fiat
...to satisfy the wishes of a few people along the Eastern Seaboard...
Ye gods, I give up.
The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world."
"The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China."
And China is swapping cars for bikes rapidly - or is it just their coal burning?
Global warming is three times faster than worst predictions (The Independent)
Gee, I feel so smug, except that all the hydro dams killed off all the salmon. :shades:
Texas leads in carbon emissions, and Wyoming tops for gases (Chron.com)
Looks like people in NYC should start moving out now while the prices are still good. If they think they can legislate away the inevitable they are dumber than I thought. Even the UN report says that any changes we make with regards to GHG will not take affect for about 100 years. Well goodbye Big Apple. I bet they are as concerned about my falling into an earthquake fault as I am if the sea rises and swallows them up. You build in a vulnerable spot you are taking a chance. I like looking at the ocean as much as the next guy. I will not build on the side of a hill that is likely to come washing down with a heavy rain. We should be accountable for our own actions.
I would be happy to emit about half as much CO2 if certain entities would allow me to drive an efficient PU truck. Sorry NY CARB made me do it.
The people of Idaho(a right to work state)are very ...ummm...fundamental. So are people in another rural state I lived in, South Dakota. Keeping it natural is a great thing to them.
Global warming couldn't touch Pocatello, it's literally locked in ice for about 6-7 months and cold and windy for another month or two. It is nice when it finally breaks out in sunshine for a while. Same is true of Seattle but Seattle's problem is not extreme cold it's extreme gray cloudy coverings...drizzly, gray days. Seasonal affective disorder reigns supreme there. Green River killers, Ted Bundy, et al.
It is a creative area for musicians. Incredible musical talent has come out of Seattle and the Pacific NW. That scene I do miss greatly.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I simply believe that all the "scientific" evidence is refuted by the other evidence that is completely discarded by the alarmist movement...
We seem to be concerned about carbon dioxide, yet we exhale CO2, and have been exhaling it for 1000s of years...why can't the plant kingdom thrive if the CO2 level goes up 1% in the atmosphere???
If Saudi Arabia ends up under water, maybe we will GAIN millions of square miles of fertile farmland, to grow food to feed the starving in that part of the world...what is wrong with that???
Species are becoming extinct before our very eyes...why is this a problem???...haven't millions of species become extinct long before Man came on the earth???
In essence, the reason I consider the "enviro movement" alarmist is because they have the arrogantly smug attitude that "the way it has been for the last 100 years is the way it should stay forever"
Whether you call it God, Nature, Allah, or whatever, this planet has been undergoing change since the beginning, something that NO scientist will deny...then, THEY, the scientists, of all people, decide that change is happening faster than THEY think it should, so they become Chicken Littles, arguing that the sky is falling...
Who are these arrogant scientists who decide how long planetary change should take place???...they ALL seem to join the alarmist movement, simply because, like the Duke Univ rape case, they literally ignore every piece of evidence that refutes their position...
I accept all the changes that are described...I simply cannot accept that Man the Meek is so powerful that we can control the glaciers and flood NYC by driving SUVs...
I accept the ozone hole varies...but it has also varied in the last 1000 years...why, all of a sudden, is Man the cause when Man was never the cause in the past???
This world can NEVER be under the control of Man...there are even wackos, and I do mean wackos, who thought that the earthquake that caused the Indonesia tsunami a few years ago was caused because Bush will not sign the Kyoto treaty...am I supposed to deal with these people as anything but insane???...to think that the INSIDE CORE of the earth is now controlled by a politician who won't sign a treaty to limit emissions???...and you expect me to give these people credibility???
When will these people start advocating that the earth's core will only cool if Explorers and Tahoes are removed from the planet...BUT, don't forget that third world nations will still be able to drive these behemoths for the next 50 years until they "catch up" with the first world...what hypocrisy...it is simply childish guilt because we have what other 3rd world nations do not have, and never will have...
Do you not see the ignornace, hypocrisy and stupidity in some of these positions and declarations???...
Man is simply NOT that powerful to affect something that has been in a MASSIVE state of flux, from ultra hot (when created) to covered with ice (the Ice Age, lasting, I believe, 1000s of years), to thawing, a range of 10-50 degrees (I do not know how much it had to warm up to thaw out the continents)...
And you want me to believe that Man can stop a mere 1-2 degree change, as tho it isn't part of the master plan???
Regardless of your belief, so far, in the last few BILLION years, it has progressed on its own master plan quite nicely, altho some of the climates of the last few billion years may have been uncomfortable for humans...
Sorry, the only "science" behind climate change is just that, change, and the enviro movement is pretending that they will stop change and control the world climate...
How arrogant to believe man has such power, when we can't even stop one simple tornado or one small tropical storm...yet we are supposed to believe that we will stop glaciers from melting, a procedure that is a long term thawing from the Ice Age...who are YOU to decide how much glaciers the planet NEEDS...simply on the number of polar bears who live on it???...how do we know that polar bears and penguins are not some transition species, just like dinosaurs were from years ago...if these alarmists existed in the pre-historic age, they would be lamenting the continual loss of species by extinction, like the dinosaurs, and try to stop the Ice Age by eliminating the wheel...would it not have been ignorant, futile and arrogant of Man to try and alter the climate???...it is NO DIFFERENT with the new enviro movement...
I'm with Bob on this one. You succeeded in ruining my taste for beef. You cannot have my GL320.
There are bright sides to Global Warming. It has made jobs for a lot of folks that would otherwise be a non-productive part of society. Think of all that grant money spent on all aspects of the issue. Think of all the construction jobs it will create for our grandkids, building new high rises in Ohio for all the displaced nuyawkers.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
HA! Just for that, I'm dropping collision on both my cars next time around. :P
(Bob and I have had this conversation a few times before over in Questions About Auto Insurance & Accidents)
btw, the way you talk, I guess "man" is going to be another one of those transitional species. Party on!
Despite such obtuseness Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. As Lindzen wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, "there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
(seriously, the guy is prolific and must leave most Mensa types in the dust).
I can't figure the Solomon guy out - both Tol and Dr. Nigel Weiss deny being "deniers" and Tol "published one of the first papers [in 1993] that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions." (link)
Btw Gary, there's always grass feed beef (not my favorite, but it's out there)
Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.
These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."
In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.
"The deeper the crash, the longer it will last," Dr. Weiss explains. In the 17th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. That was the coldest interval of the Little Ice Age, when New York Harbour froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and when Viking colonies abandoned Greenland, a once verdant land that became tundra. Also in the Little Ice Age, Finland lost one-third of its population, Iceland half.
The previous cooling period lasted 150 years while a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century was accompanied by a cooling period that lasted only 30 years.
In contrast, when the sun is very active, such as the period we're now in, the Earth can warm dramatically. This was the case during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings first colonized Greenland and when Britain was wine-growing country.
Most of the beef in Hawaii is grass fed. Kind of tough, not bad in stir fry with lots of veggies.
"Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it."
You know you started this discussion last October - this is all your fault! :P
The "desmogblog.com" site has had a lot of fun debunking several of the articles (search on "Solomon" there).
[edit] Ok, more research tells me that the National Post is a conservative paper founded by Conrad Black - the British peer currently facing criminal fraud charges in US Court in Illinois, and who's soon to enjoy supporting testimony from Donald Trump. And you thought GW was entertaining, lol.
Seems like there's a bit of an agenda on the anti side as well as the pro side, eh?
C'mon Tides, you gotta do better than this link. :shades:
LoL! Don't provoke me. I'm trying really hard to just be an observer in here. :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
The worst of this is our children are being taught to believe without debate. When a film such as "Inconvenient Truth" is forced on young people without any opposing viewpoints, education becomes indoctrination. I thought that kind of lopsided teaching was isolated to groups like Jim Jones, David Koresh and Heaven's Gate.
When News organizations like CNN report that something is scientific fact when it is still far from being universally accepted by the scientific community, I think it is wrong.
Too many prominent scientists are not in consensus with the media and Hollywood.
Germany's Hans von Storch, one of the world's leading climate scientists, believes that climate change is for real and that humans are responsible. He also believes that we shouldn't fear climate change, that predictions of doom are "hysterical" when they aren't "completely idiotic and dubious," and that many of the science establishment's pronouncements on climate change are bereft of scientific merit.
"Theories of global warming have left laboratories far behind. Now, they are the stuff of Hollywood," he wrote in Der Spiegel, in an article that castigated global warming alarmists for debasing scientific inquiry and intimidating those who would challenge the conventional wisdom. Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear has it right in its portrayal of environmental extremism, Dr. Storch believes.
Interview with Storch:
SPIEGEL: Is it even possible to prevent global warming at this point?
Storch: No. Because of the inherent time lag in the climate system, the greenhouse gases that have already been pumped into the atmosphere will undoubtedly lead to a certain increase in temperature in the coming decades. We can no longer completely avoid anthropogenic climate change. At best, limiting the temperature rise to two degrees is just about possible, according to optimistic estimates. That's why we should spend more time talking about adjusting to the inevitable and not about reducing CO2 emissions. We have to take away people's fear of climate change.
SPIEGEL: But many believe that the end of the world is upon us. Is the climate debate gradually becoming too hysterical?
Storch: Indeed. The fear of climatic catastrophes is an ancient one and not unlike our fear of strangers. In the past, people believed that the climate almost always changes for the worse, and only rarely for the better -- God's punishment for sinful behavior. And nowadays it's those hedonistic wastrels who pollute the air so that they can look at some pretty fish in the South Seas. It would be better if we only ever rode bikes. Oh, there's always someone wagging a finger in disapproval.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
The second guy in your video link, Shaviv, caught my eye last night. Apparently his current position on GW is that "the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century."
So Shaviv isn't sure Kyoto isn't the right way to go, but he is in favor of using less fossil fuels (and he grew up in a solar house).
Oh yes we can make changes, and that means the fuels last a little longer, say we go from 250 years to 300 years supply. But the fact is ALL the recoverable fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) will be burnt by SOMEONE in the world, in the next few hundred years. We will never have enough solar or wind for the global population, and electricity mainly comes from carbon-fuels. All the fuels get burnt in the next few hundred years no matter how you try and extend or conserve those fuels.
Mankind will see the effect. The only energy source, and "out" of this will be a breakthru of a nuclear nature.
But that brings up a quandry; if we really do find some great simple way (cold fusion anyone?) to have energy. Say you can have a $5 nuclear cold-fusion battery the size of a D-battery power your car for 6 months. Great huh? Until someone puts a bunch of those together and makes a bomb. Think about what the world would be like if we each had power sources beyond our carbon-based fuels. And if the technology is simple, there is no way to control it. I guess we're fortunate (so far) that nuclear power is difficult to fabricate.
Of course, it couldn't be otherwise, and it's the only way big problems like environmental ones can be addressed. And just like any other political issue, politicians have to be made accountable by well-informed, engaged voting citizens.
Germany's Hans von Storch...believes that we shouldn't fear climate change, that predictions of doom are "hysterical" when they aren't "completely idiotic and dubious,"...
Actually, his major contribution was a flawed critique of the IPCC's reports. His paper, which was widely reported on and was used in the US Senate to refute Kyoto, turned out to be "simply wrong": A Mistake with Repercussions.
Today, Science published an important comment pointing out that there were serious errors in a climate research article that it published in October 2004. The article concerned (Von Storch et al. 2004) was no ordinary paper: it has gone through a most unusual career. Not only did it make many newspaper headlines [New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming, Past Climate Change Questioned etc.] when it first appeared, it also was raised in the US Senate as a reason for the US not to join the global climate protection efforts. It furthermore formed a part of the basis for the highly controversial enquiry by a Congressional committee into the work of scientists, which elicited sharp protests last year by the AAAS, the National Academy, the EGU and other organisations. It now turns out that the main results of the paper were simply wrong.
Look at this graph:
Note the increase in CO2 that is occurring in the present time. Try to rationalize that it means nothing, will have no effect and we should ignore it.
First, it's not true that they will be burnt. If cheaper, readily available alternatives are found, that could be avoided.
Secondly, this totally ignores the other half of the GW equation, that of sinks. If effective sinks can be developed to capture some of the carbon, effects from existing and future emissions can be reversed.
The notion that nothing can be done about it is a bit scary, frankly.
Until someone puts a bunch of those together and makes a bomb.
Risk is certainly a byproduct of advances in science and technology. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to stop
We hope that after this new correction, the discussion can move on to a more productive level. The key issue is how we can improve reconstructions of past large-scale climate variability - of which by now almost a dozen exist. We should not lose sight of the fact that the debate here is about a few tenths of a degree - a much smaller change than is projected for the next century.
It looks to me like a lot of very fine scientists are being put in bad light because they will not whore themselves out to political zealots. When funding is given or withdrawn because someone in our government is not happy with the results put out by the scientific community, we need to examine that department. There are far too many variables for me to jump on any bandwagon.
The economic challenges to cutting GHG, as laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, are nearly impossible to implement. How would you deal with a law that said because of rising ocean levels over the next 50 years we are condemning all private property within 300 yards of the high tide mark? Sounds radical doesn't it? Yet Kyoto is asking for much higher economic toll in the quest to cut CO2.
We can burn bandwidth all day with nonsense about how everyone is biased because they get money from someone else. Guess what, we all do. And few scientists sell their output retail, so someone has to pay the grants. On both (all) sides. So to use this as a basis for discrediting them all is disengenuous.
At the end of the day, every theory, every opinion has to stand the light of day, be it peer review or the critique of a well-informed public.
There are far too many variables for me to jump on any bandwagon.
Good decision, same as me. Instead, look at the facts and stop looking under the bed for boogeymen.
Kyoto runs out soon, to be replaced by something better, hopefully. Constructive contributions are so much better than abdication, don't you think?
And I'm simply stating that there is a significant problem with technology and science advancing exponentially why human beings are emotionally and psychologically not much more advanced than our cave-dwelling ancestors. (Actually I see a few on the Geico commercials.) Maybe this would have been a good Kurt Vonnegut story about a scientist who finds out how to create anti-matter, and is faced with the decision whether to let the world go back to the 19th century or give society such a great power.
What do you think the debate would be like on starting an anti-matter powerplant? The safety risk would make Chernobyl look like a pea-shooter.
I see a few here on TH
What do you think the debate would be like on starting an anti-matter powerplant?
There's no going back. Bring on the dilithium crystals.
I like that idea - next time I go to Maine I could actually do some beach combing without trespassing. Not sure how I'm gonna get there if Kyoto requires me to cut my carbon footprint down to size. No flying, no driving.
It seems like many scientists have a lot in common with politicians - they spend most of their time trying to raise money or trying to justify how they spent it, so they can get another grant so they can afford their next car payment.
I might add that I had a friend in Prudhoe that was a scientist that studied the whales and how the oil production impacted them. She was very well educated and making a fraction of what most of us doing much lower level work than she did. Her biggest complaint was the time wasted applying for grants and the butts that had to be kissed to get those grants. I do feel for scientists that put their whole lives into research and are then destroyed by some entity with a political agenda. It used to be that the Universities sheltered the researchers from outside influences. That no longer seems the case. Especially with hot button issues like GW and stem cell research.
me: now don't start again with those personal slights of posters, or you'll instigate the demise of this topic. Stick to SUV's ...
Oh, dear.
We have had numerous legal cases caused by those who own up to the top of the dune wanting to keep everyone else off that state and federal property and for once the rich guys lose that one every time.
Greenhouse gases are caused by children, so let's eliminate children...no more sports, especially running, since runners hyperventilating at the end of a run emit more than their share of CO2, compared to, say, me...
The ozone hole is about to disappear in about a mere 3 weeks if we do not all drive Mini-Coopers...burn your SUVs!!!
Will that make me a Kyoto-treaty tree lover sufficient for the "movement?"...
Just kidding...........but keep collision and medpay, and do NOT drop it w/o my permission...
Bob