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
Combine with the almost complete and utter lack of R & D and killer applications to use Carbon and C02. is also VERY telling !!! It literally speaks VOLUMES !!!
Indeed people who advocate the use of bio diesel are vilified as wacko's, by the wacko's who say GW is a TRUTH !!!
That has been a claim which has bothered me since the first time I heard it, and I still will not believe it to be true, because it makes no sense to me.
Scientists are not paid to promote an agenda. They are paid to produce objective results.
If any grant money is dependent upon expected results, then it is tainted from the git-go, regardless of the intended goal of the science at hand.
If grant money is dependent on a projected result, then the grant is a sham anyway, and the scientist is better off not accepting that money.
..."Scientists are not paid to promote an agenda. They are paid to produce objective results. "...
I am glad on some level, you understand the conversation !!!!
Dr David Bellamy has felt the chill wind of derision for more than a decade, ever since he declared that he did not believe the planet was warming up.
Dr Bellamy accuses supposed experts such as the former US vice-president Al Gore, of “cherry-picking“ the models which help to substantiate their argument.
“Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up, but that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them. So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe.
"Any noticeable warming is more likely to be linked to sun spot activity on the sun, which is getting hotter as it ages.
“They [the sun spots] are enormous eruptions, an atomic powerhouse. You can actually see them. At least half of the temperature rise that we have seen correlates with these sun spots.“
What we really should be worried about is killing off biodiversity - that delicate, impeccable-functioning balance which Nature maintains so perfectly, just as long as we don’t meddle with it. That is where the billions poured into greenhouse gas control would be far better spent.
For voicing such “heretical” views, some extremists have called for climate sceptics such as Dr Bellamy to be tried for crimes against humanity. Scaring people to death buy telling them we’re all going to die and there is nothing we can do about it now appears to be acceptable.
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/78805
And that doesn't even count the gas I give off after eating beef
No but the point would be if we stop eating them people will stop breeding them. I'm guessing if you turned all the cows lose into the wild, they would starve in the winter or the hunters would kill them off in one generation. No more emisions.
The always missing "they"
"some (unnamed) extremists"
It's just an opinion piece Gary.
And you know as well as i do that "extremism" in any direction is unwise.
You're kidding right? I mean you are seeing the option of killing off the cattle and raising no more? If you don't eat meat or dairy, why would you have more than a handful of cattle around - just enough to keep the gene-pool going.
If you can't think of the technology, I bet you can ask most any 16 year old male how you kill cattle. And many would pay you to "hunt" them.
But if we don't want to do altogether as a society, ANY individual who stops eating meat & dairy can prevent 1 extra cow from being raised. So Larsb - you a vegan?
You can't really be that naive to believe that politics or groupthink doesn't effect who gets the money, can you?
Back in the 70's I was director of a government grant program that was supose to deliver social work services to occupants of a public housing project. What I didn't know was that the director of the housing authority expected me to act as a spy for management and report any problems that might cause non-payment of rent.
I told her that it would be unethical for me to report back on problems which my clients had revealed in confidence. The next year my grant was pulled and the money was reallocated to hire security guards.
I can tell you my friend, if you don't tow the company line you WILL lose your grants.
Of course, government funded scientists may be above all that nasty stuff.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Of course they are....until they are out of work because they do not get the grants!!!
The obvious one is the NASA guy, James Hansen, who's been saying that since the 80's.
"In 2003 Hansen wrote a paper called Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb where he argues that human-caused forces on the climate are now greater than natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes." (Wikipedia)
He has a BA, MS and PhD, so I think he qualifies as a real scientist.
As larsb said, opinions don't count. Actually he said opinion pieces but is there any difference?
So, I'll just call this guy a crockpot. I mean crackpot.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
(AP) PASADENA, Calif. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena he erred when he aired his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview.
In a video of the Monday meeting obtained by The Associated Press, Griffin said “Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”
Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.
The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his remarks ignorant.
Griffin reiterated that NASA’s job is to provide scientific data on global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do with it.
It looks like Mr. Griffin was taken to the woodshed for actually telling the truth.
And more of the politics at NASA:
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.
Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
Now all you AGW alarmists can begin trashing this man and his reputation. The status quo when presented with someone arguing against man-made global warming.
The battle of the scientists goes on.
Alert: James Hansen Responds to John Theon! - Theon Fires back - Decries Smears on Skeptics
Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s Response to James Hansen’s Reported Comments – February 5, 2009
NASA’s James Hansen reportedly responded to comments made by retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s . Theon, one of Hansen’s former supervisors, declared himself a skeptic and said Hansen had “embarrassed NASA.” See: “James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic: Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ – January 27, 2009 -
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
The whole long story
Hmm that's interesting that he came to that conclusion back in the 1980's, given that there was a lot less data, modeling and computing-power available. I find it hard to believe he knew definitively in the 80's or even in 2003, how much of a %-age man contributes, when many of the natural emissions were not even discovered - undersea vents, frozen methane ...
I hate to say it but there are scientists out there who want to skip the work and become famous anyway they can. Anyone for cold-fusion? I believe those cold-fusion scientists had PhD's and were fairly well respected before their rush to fame.
And I found you one. :-)
Almost missed you jumping in there Kernick. Hansen started developing his GW theory back in his astronomy days when he was studying Venus. That was back in the 70s (I think this is all on the Wiki page about him).
Something about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming.
You might recall that after Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.
And who can forget NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem? After the outrage that ensued, I suspect he wishes he had never brought it up.
And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in my published research.
I remember the old days at NASA, when even John Theon was singing the same tune as most people at NASA were. Manmade global warming was a potentially serious threat, and NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.
Global warming research was a relatively new field back then. Was Theon always skeptical, and just being a team player at the time? I don’t know. It could be that Dr. Theon, after watching 15 years of climate research go by, decided that he was no longer convinced that mankind was at fault for warming.
After all, there is some precedence for scientists changing their minds. One of today’s leading global warming alarmists is Stephen Schneider, who did a major about-face from the 1970s when global cooling was all the rage. At least Theon didn’t write a book back then about how serious the global warming issue was, as Schneider did on global cooling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
So larsb there are 3 scientists that were forced out because they did not promote Man Made Global Warming.
Congressman Darrell Issa questioned Hansen's motivations in criticizing the Bush administration, noting that Hansen supported 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and also received a $250,000 Heinz Environment Award from the Heinz Foundation, run by Kerry's wife, in 2001
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
We can play this game all day long.
"I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming." Peter Doran, Ph.D., associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, writing an Op Ed in the NY Times in 2006. link
Doran also published a survey just last month and found that "a group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."
Shall go through them one by one? Surely there's one or two more paid mouthpieces in there, lol. :P
University home page and Survey: Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming is Real.
Those food for oil crooks at the United Nations are big proponents of GW because they also smell MONEY from U.S. taxpayers.
Now it turns out that they have also been lobbying heavily for their "fair share" of the latest stimulus fiasco and they want billions because this whole financial crisis was brought on by the U.S. so we owe them. I am sure they will get a big check because it is sure to help our economy.
You know that money that is now in your wallets? Well it will soon be contributing to the lifestyle of the rich and crooked and people who hate us. Our politicians truly have gone insane and have no shame.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Shoot, I forgot all about Chris Field, who I linked in here the other day.
I don't recall anyone mentioning the Primary Cause of Global Warming Discovered story in here. The author is a retired USGS PhD running a consulting firm next state over in the Tetons. Nice spot to hit the books.
Anyway, he says "Yet by 1962, human activities were putting as much sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere every 1.7 years as one of these large eruptions. That was enough to cause world temperatures to climb rapidly." More speechifying about humans and global warming in other words although he doesn't place the initial blame on us.
The guy has some carbon credits to account for though - tetontectonics.org.
In the 1700's this happened and there was a period of 40 years with no sunspots, also
known as the little ice age.
The “Little Ice Age” Argument Makes a Comeback: Abrupt Climate Change Goes Both Ways, Warns Scientist (Daily Galaxy).
(Gary, your post didn't have anything to do with cars or climate so I pulled it).
The Air car being built and sold in India by Tata Motors.
http://www.mdi.lu/english/cityflowair.php
It has an onboard compressor that will give you a range of nearly 1000 miles on 8 gallons of gas. Or it can be charged at a station equipped for quick charge. Sounds almost too good to be true. It will not help the congestion problem. But do wonders for the air.
http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=43
This one is kind of "iffy" looking to me, need more info. I still look at this type of car as an improvement over GM and their V8 mayhem. Good riddance.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Seems like a reasonable request.
Is THAT his basis for his belief? Well, that's certainly a stretch. Venus has a surface temp which is hot enough to melt lead. It also has an atmosphere made almost entirely of CO2. That atmosphere is also 30 times denser than Earth's. Venus is half the distance to the sun.
To extrapolate what is going on with Venus to Earth is quite a leap.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
So while I would agree there are "SOME" so called fuel sippers, to use your " low standard" bar of 30 mpg, the segment that actually gets 30 mpg are in the minority population. So for example, compact cars with only the CABABILITY of increased fuel mileage (a LARGE percentage of them do not get good mileage) are less than 25% of the vehicle fleet population.
But even www.Edmunds.com has an article on this, which because of K-12 math and science (lack there of- the non pc version) education, most folks do not fully comprehend about fuel savings.
There are exceptions to that of course. But ultimately the real metric is to let folks have a choice without the force aspect. Indeed it is the "force or regulatory aspect that is keeping the consumption artifically high.
So for example which has greater savings? 1. 15 mpg gassers with diesel options that now get say 30 mpg 2. VW Jetta that gets 50 mpg with improvements that now get 60 mpg? Here is a handi dandi plug in calculator for those educated in K-12 math and science. link title
Don't like my numbers? Want to change things? etc etc. Go ahead !!
One spin off: a sizable population of the passenger vehicle fleet (PUG users) pays a lot more per mile driven. I have NEVER seen estimates as to what % PUG users are. But I will certainly swag they are a HUGE % in comparison to the passenger diesel car population !!!
Study: 'Astonishing richness' in polar sea species
AP Environmental Writer Michael Casey, Ap Environmental Writer – Mon Feb 16, 7:39 am ET
link title
I guess you never had a gotcha moment where thinking about one thing led to an insight about something else?
Robins abandon Texas for Alaska.
Fosters.com
Al Gore and his cronies are so damm ignorant that they do not even realize that it was "Global Warming" that ended the last Ice Age, and that was LOOOOng before autos, or even humans.......
Autos are a VERY SMALL part of Global Warming!
If the Global Warming Nuts would just cap off all the volcanos in the world, 99% or "Global Warming" would be ended! The bad thing is that when Global Warming ends, we will return to another Ice Age.
Than with the Volcanos capped off, and their energy tapped we would also solve all the world's energy problems without any fossel fuels or necular energy.
Under "Bush" foreign and domestic surveillance has increase exponentially !! The reason why we dont really know the extent is most to all of it is still and will remain probably for at least 50-75 years, at some of the highest top secret classifications.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Unfortunately stupidity has no political boundaries when it comes to falling in line with the GW mindset
The real question is how do the American people feel about GW? Latest polls say only 30% think it is of any significant importance. More than I would guess being sucked into the religion.
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Yes I have. I recall back in college thinking that beer drinking made you smart. As more data was collected I revised my theory.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible