By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It took a very long article to finally admit that they actually had no scientific proof....but that they SUSPECTED that all the claims they made were due to larger forces at work. I noticed that even they did not have the arrogance to try to pin their bird migration theory on man made global warming.
Yes sir, that Al Gore is not the only sneaky baasterd around here !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
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
That will go well in some of the urban areas near me where they have "neighborhood guns" which are shared by many gang members and then returned to hiding in abandoned houses until needed again.
Who knows, this could be the beginning of "green" drive by shootings using neighborhood guns and neighborhood electric vehicles.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
(the antitheses of global warming)
link title
People can play all the political football they want, but nature really doesn't care.
The warming isn't natural, and people are causing it. End of story.
So the "serious" debate (by people who care enough to become informed, or what to BE informed) has really shifted to the question of what are sensible responses and what are foolish or useless ones.
In THAT respect, I think there is plenty of room for criticism and lots of room for error.
But if someone is still doubting it, IMO the party has already moved to the other room.
HOWEVER, jumping to "it isn't natural and people are causing it" has no scientific foundation.
Lets not forget that the surface of MARS has also been warming over the same time period. If you can convince me that people caused that to happen.... then I will beleive people also caused it here on earth.
OTHERWISE - Lets stick with the obvious... The SUN is radiating more heat!
As for somone trying to suggest that "carbon" is linked to global warming.... Perhaps it is. BUT, do not assume this is all caused by humans. One volcano eruption spews out more carbon than all the human activity on earth over several years.
I will concede that the many years of humans burning acres of rainforest has reduced natures ability to consume carbon from the atmosphere. (Plants consume carbon during photosynthsys... this is how crude-oil was originated long ago.)
Planting trees is the best (only?) way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Plants are solar-powered carbon-conversion factories!
Lets not forget that matter is neither created nor destroyed. The carbon that everyone is talkig about has ALWAYS been here on earth. Over millions of years, this same carbon has been recycled from gasious state to solid and back to gas many times over. This cycle will continue for millions of years after humans are gone.
Two examples.
Boston is a harbor town. With access to all the information that is " written in stone" why did they build the undergrounds with literally BILLIONS? Undergrounds if I may state the absolute obvious will not hold back rising tides!!??
NYC another harbor town, rebuilt the WTC in its original "bath tube" and on reclaimed land aka formerly under water!? Why aren't they halting construction and in effect moving to higher ground!?
Plenty more examples here, but the point is the so called regulatory agencies are "acting like gravity does NOT EXIST" so to speak.Those very same regulatory agencies probably also believe the absolute certainty of global warming .
What we have is the conclusions put forth by the best minds of our collective world intelligence.
Everybody who's truly credible and credentialed is on board looks like, at this point.
The biggest debate right now I'm seeing is "how much, how fast". This is still mostly unknown, being an unprecedented event with respect to its rapidity and its causation.
And yes, you will see plenty of human stupidity regarding the reaction to it, from all sides of the fence.
Are we all insane? Yeah, probably :P
Well GEE that Nevada desert BEACH front property is starting to look more appealing all the time !
This time, the science is extremely good. It's data, not belief. Data tells you 2+2 =4, belief is when you don't want to believe 2+2 = 4.
Back then, they couldn't accept the natural world because beliefs forbade them to see what was right in front of them.
We don't have that hindrance (hopefully).
BUT, having said that, we can still be stupid about it all, by either doing nothing, or doing the wrong things.
Nobody likes the world to change...it just does it anyway.
Well that part is true. Just like how we went from a SCANT 40 years ago from global ice age that was going to mass FREEZE the world as we know it, aka cooling/winter etc.... to.... global warming. The same science didn't even acknowledge the change or even attempt to explain WHY !!!!??? They did however drop it like the hot or frozen potato it WAS. Global warming 20 years, hence will be another hot or frozen potato !!
The warming isn't natural, and people are causing it. End of story.
Being a host doesn't make you right. There are a lot of scientist that disagree.
Last count I saw was over 30,000 had signed the denier list. It is difficult to get a job when you go against the political grain. So many scientists just keep their mouth shut. It has been obvious from the beginning of the MM/GW cult movement that those that agree will get the grants. Those that do not are out in the COLD. The consensus is only in the minds of a few politicians that are looking to extort billions from every Citizen on the planet. Why not jump on board if you can make a killing ripping your fellow humans off?
On Inside Line one of your bloggers (The Mechanic) would disagree with you.
While there is some evidence for minor warming of the earth there is no proof that man has anything to do with it. That is the crux of my position on this board. Some are using the single fact that the earth has warmed slightly to go off the deep end for all sorts of political reasons.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That list was thoroughly debunked, and there were thousands upon thousands of "scientists" on the list who specialized in ANYTHING BUT climate science.
The goal and issues of that petition have been misconstrued all over the place.
And they are not "deniers" at all. They are just agreeing the "global warming causes and effects have not been proven one way or another." The purpose of that petition is to show that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.
You might want to quit quoting that as your "go-to" argument. It proves nothing except what smart people already know - that the jury is still out on climate change CAUSES.
Not on the WARMING. The warming is happening. The CAUSES are still in debate.
I have researched the issue for many many hours, many times, and read exhaustively, and I am totally convinced that Global Warming is real.
But you know, god bless any individual who doesn't want to believe in global warming. It's their right to an opinion. One hopes it would be based on their own careful analysis and not bad information. If you're an MD or a Host or Joe the Plumber doesn't matter. Either you research it or you don't and come to your own conclusions.
As long as industry leaders, political leaders and military leaders in America believe it, that's all that really counts in my book.
Any country that does not respond in positive ways to global warming is going to be left in the dust IMO, because those countries that develop the technology to deal with the crisis will be able to clean the clock of countries who ignored it.
China wants to ignore it? Swell. We'll develop all the clean tech and sell it to them at such high prices we'll have all our money back in ten years. :P
This is BIG. I hope Detroit is really paying attention.
Again it is a when life gives you lemons make...lemonade kind of issue. The production of C02 whether natural, not natural , man not man made has not gone away for literally BILLIONS of years.
I consider shiftright a smart guy and he believes it is a done deal. I just happen to believe the opposite. That there is no evidence that is conclusive tying man's activities to any global change in Climate.
Of course the issue always devolves into my scientist is smarter than your scientist. You are right, there is NO consensus among scientists one way or the other.
Earlier you were convinced it was man made. That is where you and I disagree. I believe there is enough evidence to show the planet has warmed and cooled without man being involved. The MM/GW politicians would like to stick it on the backs of the working class. So that is when I call BS....
I have no problem getting behind energy savings and putting out less pollution. I think if you were to look at the BIG picture, it is state and Federal agencies that are mandating and blocking alternatives. Chasing red herrings that they know will not change the status quo.
At a seminar I listed to a scientist from Pittsburgh that has showed how the supporters have skewed data, shifted curves to match missing information and just outright lied to try and prove their theories.
He is treated as an outcast by his peers because he hasn't fallen into line.
"Warm a cists", deniers, GW, climate change - this issue has some of the worst shorthand labels attached to it.
What makes you think China will give a crap? What if they don't buy into the theories. Bottom line is if the developing countries do not get on board our efforts will amount to a drop in the bucket anyway
The problem is that global warming is a complex issue. One has to dig into it. This isn't cocktail party chatter. One has to read the scientific papers, and it's tedious. So mis-information abounds. I waded through a lot of it. So many myths, so many erroneous assumptions. And so much really bad information on blogs, etc.
I can understand the challenge to grasp this issue and that not everyone has the time to research it. A lot of it is really boring. And confusing. I'm still learning a lot, and unlearning some things, too.
You know,there were countries who didn't believe in "smog" or AIDS. And now they are choking to death and 1/3 of their populations are infected.
Historically, it takes about 10 years for the media to catch up after something monumental has been discovered. This was true of evolution and relativity and will be true of Global Warming IMO.
Oddly enough, when a scientist declares the True to be Untrue, and is eventually proven wrong, he is disgraced. When a radio talk show host or newspaper columnist is proven wrong, he suffers nothing but merely goes on to the next thing.
Not all science is cast aside with time. Newtonian physics still looks pretty good and Jupiter still has its moons as when Galileo first saw them.
The US ships so much coal to China that the backlog is due to our rail roads and dry shippings inability to get it to them. So do we REALLY want them to stop burning coal, aka OUR COAL!??... Stop shipping it to them !!!!!
With a statement like that, the giant flushing noise you hear is the sound of any credibility you ever had going down the drain...
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So you didn't learn anything from the inaccurate satellite data, scientific analysis, CIA data, and Colin Powell and George Dubya telling the public and the Congress that WMD certainly existed in Iraq?
But I can tell you that if I do suddenly become convince GW is significantly affected by man, then I'm going to do all I can to put MORE CO2 in the air. :P
There is plenty of evidence linking man to changes in climate. You are arguing that a person could drop pebbles in a bucket of water and not displace any water. Keep dropping pebbles in the water and you will eventually displace a lot of water. The same is true for man and the climate of the earth. Build enough power plants, cities, or cars and you will make an impact.
"Of course the issue always devolves into my scientist is smarter than your scientist. You are right, there is NO consensus among scientists one way or the other. "
There is a pretty good consensus among the scientists that actually study climate - 97% (has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? ) http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
Real scientists do not put percentages of causation by man. Only that man plays some role in the changing climate. I believe we have impact on the earth when we cleared 99% of the state of Iowa to grow crops. That had a big impact on the area. I just do not believe man can make much change over the short haul that will impact the climate noticeably. If the pols that push the GW crap were examples it would be a bit more believable.
True, climate has changed many times over billions of years. The problem is people do not like change. They like to build cities on the coast or plant crops on lake beds when the area is dry. Then along comes change and oops! If we were a nomadic race we could just move on.
If climate change turns the climate in the southwest into a permanent drought condition..... do you think the millions of people living there are going to care?
Years ago people started building around Devils Lake, ND. They did it when the climate in the area was dry. Now that the area is in a wet cycle:
"According to the North Dakota State Water Commission's Devils Lake Quick Facts, the Devils Lake flooding that began in the 1990's and continues to the present [2008], "has destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses and inundated thousands of acres of productive farmland. The State of North Dakota and the U.S. Government have spent over $450 million dollars in flood mitigation efforts including moving roads, rail and power lines, and building dikes.""
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/devilslake/index.html
This is just one little community in a sparsely populated state. Do you want to hazard a guess as to what will happen if 5 or 10% of Florida goes under water?
We really need to put a good effort into understanding climate change especially on a regional level.
That is like saying "90% of chiropractors believe that bone manipulation is good for your health". The only surprise is what in the world happened to the other 10%?
The headline should have read, "10% of Man Made Global Warming Advocates do not believe in Man Made Global Warming". LMAO !!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Yup! China, India and the Middle Eastern countries are in the drivers seat now. The mad scientist in me will watch with interest as events unfold. The downside is that I won't be able to see how the experiment turns out in another 80 or 90 years...Oh well, such is life....
Someone needs to get the percentage right. You need a good estimate of the percentage for each human activity before you start talking solutions, otherwise you could be throwing a lot of money down the drain.
"I believe we have impact on the earth when we cleared 99% of the state of Iowa to grow crops. That had a big impact on the area."
I would agree and think that land use changes by humans needs a better look. Some of the increase in GW might have started hundreds of years ago with deforestation and planting crops.
The recent global recession/depression might give us some clues down the road as to the impact of CO2 and cars on GW. Will CO2 levels keep rising even with a reduction in fossil fuel use world wide?
"I just do not believe man can make much change over the short haul that will impact the climate noticeably."
I would disagree. Six billion humans can produce a lot of mischief. It took the Russians just a few decades to dry out the Aral Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
So you're saying that the climate has always changed, and society doesn't like change. So what you're suggesting is that our global society needs to do whatever's necessary to offset the natural-change (if we knew how, and could.)?
If you want to refute their report point by point, here it is:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
I think automakers better take that report to the executive mens' room and start reading fast, because they are going to have to start dealing with it.
Glad you plugged into my post about insane and insanity given the GW cult of true believers.
SO what!?? YOU could say the same thing about almost anywhere.
Indeed, New Orleans Founded in 1718 has been there what... 291 years? LONG..... enough to study would you not say? So are you trying to say Hurricane Katrina was the first time NO has ever flooded? Keep in mind cars were probably not around for most of its' existence!!??....
This abundant and forgiving earth gave us 200 years or so to figure this out and now she's had enough of it I guess.
Even if governments were only 90% sure Global Warming is man-made, that's more than enough for action. (public opinion always lags scientific fact).
This is not something a nation wants to roll the dice on.
Even John Nash has recanted.
So what did the people do when they got flooded out in the 1990s. Did FEMA fix it all up? Or did they just have Congress Mandate NO MORE FLOODING?
straight....we stole it fair and square !!
link title
1.
..." and in effect semantics in general, while semantics or theory of meaning was overwhelmed by mysticism, propagandism and even scientism. In the Preface, he said:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue." "...
But he did know a lot about jazz!
Hey California is the butt of a lot of jokes (many deserved) but they did pioneer emissions laws. L.A. would be unlivable without them I think. Ever been to Athens?
You know-- it comes down to a) what man can control and b) what man cannot control.
I have tried buying a PU truck that would emit less than half the GHG of my current PU Truck. The State of CA & EPA has blocked just such a PU truck. Emits too much PM. So what is a person or persons to do about this impending doom? If it is as bad as Al Gore would have US believe you would think the progressive minds in Sacramento would welcome any decrease in CO2. They would rather wait for the pie in the sky magic bullet that will save US all from ourselves. I predict that the roadblocks by well meaning environmentalist over the next couple of decades will create more GHG than less.
RE: Athens-----I love Athens but I wouldn't want to live there. There is a Greek island though where cars are forbidden. (except garbage trucks).
RE: Global Threats from GW----Don't you think Global Warming could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to mankind---I mean if they all had to band together, every nation, for survival? There won't be winners and losers if the earth goes totally haywire in 50 years.
I find it interesting that most people regard the earth as this 'benign" system, all balanced and harmonious and harmless---when in fact it surely is not. Even without human intervention, it's a dangerous place to live.
Those that do are deluded, or live in the very cities that the GW types advocate.