The Autobahn-"Global Warming hysteria's next casualty!

[Brucelee]

By the way, the guys who is quoted drives an SUV that gets like 11 MPG. No kidding!





Berlin--


EU proposes limits on the nation's highways as part of the fight against global warming, according to comments published Sunday.

Many stretches of German autobahn lack speed limits — traditionally a cherished freedom in a generally rule-bound country. However, the current surge in concern over carbon dioxide emissions is putting that tradition under renewed scrutiny.

"There are so many areas in which we waste energy in a completely senseless way and burden the climate," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas was quoted as saying in the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

"A simple measure in Germany could be a general speed limit on highways," he added, according to the newspaper. "Speed limits make a lot of sense for many reasons and are completely normal in most EU states, as in the U.S.A. — only in Germany, strangely, is it controversial."

Click here for FOXNews.com's Europe center.

With Germany currently holding the presidency of both the EU and the Group of Eight, Chancellor Angela Merkel has made a priority of pushing forward efforts to combat climate change. Last week, she steered an EU summit to a bold set of measures to fight global warming.



However, Merkel has brushed aside previous suggestions that a general speed limit on highways would help, most recently last month.

Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said Sunday that he has "nothing against [a limit] for reasons of traffic safety" but argued that the restriction would not encourage manufacturers to produce more environment-friendly engines.

"This is a secondary front and a trivialization of the climate problem," he said at an event in Hamburg.

[husker boxster]

I'm not a scientist, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night so my simple mind fails to see the connection between global warming and speed limits on the autobahn. If someone is traveling from point A to B, will they generate significantly more CO2 at 125mph vs 75 mph in that same distance? If speed influences CO2 levels, then shouldn't LA at rush hour have some of the cleanest air? Do the Greenies think people are using the autobahn for frivolous banzai runs and putting a speed limit on will stop them from enjoying their cars? I doubt it, drivers are enjoying a freedom and if you limit that freedom they will trade their Ruf 911s in for Boxsters and go drive a twisty mountain road. I think the EU could focus on bigger contributors / violators but the autobahn makes for an easy target.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

consider this:

The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?

The sacred Kyoto treaty exempts China & India from the control over emmissions that mainly the US must comply to. Why, if it is so catastrophic, are these countries exempt? Kinda like banning smoking but still collecting taxes on tobacco products.

How come Mars is also warming, could it be Mr. Sun??????

Why does the rhetoric against the US from the enviro/dems so closely resemble the communist manifesto? Coinicidence, I think not.

How come Algores movie is being shown in the elementary and high schools in this country? Are students so up on math, English and real science that they need a humerous respite? How come no dissenting point of view is tolerated in these same schools? "Fairness doctrine" pops to mind but doesn't seem to apply here.

How come the weather channel has a program promoting the global warming theory and absolutely no dissenting point of view allowed?

How come the 'cure' is a lower standard of living, high fuel costs, and higher taxes the answer? How come we can't drill for our own oil in Alaska and the Gulf?

Mind your wallet and your freedom folks no matter what you drive. And for heaven sake don't ask questions or you will be called horrible names and be accused of 'killing the children' along with the planet. Any of you young guys remember Captain Planet and the Planeteers? Big Corp. (read capatilisim) was always the villian was it not?

986geezer, replacing the wheel well liner now that our record cold stretch seems to be over and my yard is 'warming'!

[FrayAdjacent]

I doubt LA traffic that crawls at a couple MPH would be very clean at all...


I used to have a Honda Insight a few years back, and it taught me a few things. One of which was what I call the 'sweet spot', which is the speed (highway) at which you get the best fuel efficiency.

This is a combination of things about a vehicle:

Mass
Speed
Aerodynamic efficiency (drag - can be affected by wind!)
Engine efficiency

Basically, every vehicle is going to have a point at speed where it will get the best fuel economy, then as speed increases, fuel efficiency drops. This is mosly due to the fact that drag DOUBLES every 10mph faster one travels. My Insight, although very light (1800lb) was VERY aerodynamic, and it's 'sweet spot' was at about 65mph.

If I bumped that up to 85mph, my fuel efficiency dropped about 25%.


Of course, it could get AMAZING economy at 35, 45 and 55mph... but above about 70, it starts dropping.

This same theory will affect ALL vehicles, but their 'sweet spots' will differ a lot.


And I'll cap it off by saying - I don't really buy into the whole 'global warming' crap that says we (humans) are causing it. The planet naturally goes through cycles, and we're probably just on a warmer upswing.

[Jump]

Quote:

"The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?"




I really wish people would quit trying to use this argument against the possibility of Global Warming. It was the '70s!!!! That was 30 years ago. Our family got their first color TV in the 70s. There was no such thing as a personal computer or cell phone. Technology, research methods/techniques have improved tenfold+. General and scientific knowledge has grown tremendously in all areas. I truly doubt that if the scientists in the 70s had access to the same equipment, techniques and knowledge as exists today, that they would have come to the same conclusion. This argument point is akin to stating that these same people once told us the world was flat. Now they try to tell us it is round. Why should we believe them?

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Jump

Quote:

"The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?"




I really wish people would quit trying to use this argument against the possibility of Global Warming. It was the '70s!!!! That was 30 years ago. Our family got their first color TV in the 70s. There was no such thing as a personal computer or cell phone. Technology, research methods/techniques have improved tenfold+. General and scientific knowledge has grown tremendously in all areas. I truly doubt that if the scientists in the 70s had access to the same equipment, techniques and knowledge as exists today, that they would have come to the same conclusion. This argument point is akin to stating that these same people once told us the world was flat. Now they try to tell us it is round. Why should we believe them?

Your making my point about tolerating no dissenting voice. Granted the science is more sophisticated, or so were told, to measure such things. But then how do you account for, using the same science more or less, that Mars is growing warmer? Since the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles since it came into being, why is this cycle man made and basically the fault of the US? I still ask you to ponder, what is Mr. Suns roll in our heating and cooling as opposed to our cars. Why also is higher taxes and the cut back on our standard of living the answer while the rest of the world gets exempt? Doesn't that bother you a bit? Why are you so willing to believe it is our fault and not the same forces that had a mile of ice over the spot I am sitting at right here in the Hudson Valley?

No, I don't buy it at all and basically I could make a computer model that would prove a pig is a steam engine but that would not make it so.

986geezer, with the Boxcar down off the jack and just about ready to go.

[Jump]

I really have no idea if we are truly in a global warming cycle or if man is playing a role. I'd say that there is as much proof proving definitevly that man is causing global warming as there is that he isn't. i.e NONE with the key word being definitevly. I would have a hard time believing that all the crap that modern man is throwing into the air through our vehicles, factories, power plants, etc. at the same time as we are clear cutting the rain forests, isn't going to have a negative impact on the environment in the long run. Are we to that point now? Well, of course that is what the global warming believers would tell us. At this point, only time will tell. I really hope for the sake of future generations that you are right because they're screwed if you aren't!

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Jump, if you truely are concerned that your car/s are doing all this you will get rid of them and walk or bicycle, cut off all electric to your house etc. but be mindful of your campfire as it will pollute some I am sure. I am being somewhat sarcastic but that is basically the answer if the premise is true. What bothers me about this is the absolute media blitz on this subject, a media that basically supports one political party. Again you must be suspicious that other emerging industrial countries are given carte blanche to burn coal etc. but only the US is to cut back. I am just not believing it based on seeing what has been predicted in the past and what has really happend. Again, the sun is constantly changing in intensity, take a look at stars that twinkle, that is changing intensity of far off suns. Why can't our sun be in a warming cycle, i.e. Mars warming up along with us. That rain forest argument is like the current polar bear argument, dramatic but lacking proof. I will rest my involvement in this subject right now and tell you to enjoy your '02S while you still are able to afford gas for it. After 20 years, if ecos get there way, and you are paying 5 or 7 bucks a gallon and nothing has changed, then what?


986geezer

[RandallNeighbour]

Setting the controversy over global warming aside...

I fly to Germany every three or four years just to rent a Carrera and drive the piss out of it for a long weekend! I would imagine there would be global-heat (non just warming) from those of us who love to drive the autobahns if they posted speed limits on it.

Let's pray this does not happen.

[Brucelee]

Another point of view!


Thursday, February 08, 2007
Global Warming Dissent
We have blogged fairly regularly on the fact that the notion of anthropogenic global warming has become an official orthodoxy, not a scientific theory subject to debate and discussion.

Yesterday’s column by Jeff Jocoby of the Boston Globe outlines how much serious dissent there is among reputable scientists.
You know that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here’s a flash: It wasn’t the big, new United Nations report on global warming.

Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page “Summary for Policymakers,” a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists’ conclusions, but it wouldn’t be the first time if it doesn’t.

In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers’ summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming. This time around, the summary is even more confident: It declares it “unequivocal” that the Earth has warmed over the past century and “very likely” -- meaning more than 90 percent certain -- that human activity is the cause.

That climate change is taking place no one doubts; the Earth’s climate is always in flux. But is it really so clear-cut that the current warming, which amounts to less than 1 degree Celsius over the past century, is anthropogenic? Or that continued warming will lead to the meteorological chaos and massive deaths that alarmists predict? It is to the media. By and large they relay only the apocalyptic view: Either we embark on a radical program to slash carbon-dioxide emissions -- that is, to arrest economic growth -- or we are doomed, as NBC’s Matt Lauer put it last week, to “what literally could be the end of the world as we know it.”

Perhaps the Chicken Littles are right and the sky really is falling, but that opinion is hardly unanimous. There are quite a few skeptical scientists, including eminent climatologists, who doubt the end-of-the-world scenario. Why don’t journalists spend more time covering all sides of the debate instead of just parroting the scaremongers?

Only rarely do other views pierce the media’s filter of environmental correctness. A recent series by Lawrence Solomon in Canada’s National Post looked at some of the leading global-warming dissenters, none of whom fits the easy-to-dismiss stereotype of a flat-Earth yahoo. There is, for example, Richard S.J. Tol -- IPCC author, editor of Energy Economics, and board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research at Hamburg University. Tol agrees that global warming is real, but he emphasizes its benefits as well as its harms -- and points out that in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced.

“Tol is a student of human innovation and adaptation,” writes Solomon. “As a native of the Netherlands, he is intimately familiar with dikes and other low-cost adaptive technologies, and the ability of humans in meeting challenges in their environment.” Whatever changes global warming may bring, Tol is confident that human beings will adjust to them with ingenuity and resourcefulness.

Another dissident is Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London and principal scientist of the European Space Agency’s CryoSat Mission, which is designed to measure changes in the Earth’s ice masses. The collapse of ice shelves off the northern Antarctic Peninsula is often highlighted as Exhibit A of global warming and its dangers, but Wingham’s satellite data shows that the thinning of some Antarctic ice has been matched by thickening ice elsewhere on the continent. The evidence to date, Wingham says, is not “favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming.”

Still other scientists profiled by Solomon contend that the sun, not man, plays the dominant role in planetary climate change.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, for instance, believes that changes in the sun’s magnetic field, and the corresponding impact on cosmic rays, may be the key to global warming. Nigel Weiss, a past president of the Royal Astronomical Society and a mathematical aerophysicist at the University of Cambridge, correlates sunspot activity with changes in the Earth’s climate. Habibullo Abdussamatov, who heads the space research laboratory at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, points out that Mars is also undergoing global warming -- despite having no greenhouse conditions and no activity by Martians. In his view, it is solar irradiance, not carbon dioxide, that accounts for the recent rise in temperature.

Climate-change hyperbole makes for dramatic headlines, but the real story is both more complex and more interesting. Chicken Little may claim the sky is falling. A journalist’s job is to check it out.
But when journalists have signed onto a moralistic crusade, don’t expect much checking.
Labels: Global Warming, Jeff Jacoby, Political Correctness, Skeptics

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

The whole topic of Global Warming is a very emotional and devisive one. Each side has an ample arsenal of reports and emminent scientists to support or bolster their view.

One argument which cannot be in dispute is the addition of free Carbon to the environment. Gasoline is made up principally of Hydrogen and Carbon. Carbon comprises 80% of this compound. A gallon of Gasoline weighs approx. 6.25 lbs. (@STP). This means that for each gallon of Gasoline you combust in your car, you are releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon (80% of 6.25lbs. = 5lbs.) into the atmosphere as free Carbon - Carbon which had heretofore been locked up in Petroleum.

It denies Logic to simply think that the release of this much Carbon (considering the Global use of Gasoline) into the atmosphere does not have some effect.

What effect? I cannot say, but here is where the whole Global Warming argument breaksdown from one of Science to one of Belief.

If one believes there is Global Warming, they offer all corroborating Scientific data as proof.

If one believes the opposite, they, in turn, offer their corroborating Scientific data as proof of their position.

But, in practice, if the World adopts conservation through better engineering for increased Range, and there turns out not to be a Global Warming crisis, what is harmed? In fact, profits would largely increase throughout Industry and/or costs lowered.

Costs tend to level out with increased costs in one area being offset by savings in others such as lowered Healthcare costs, lower Work Absence, and the like, so these arguments are largely moot or at least cancel each other out.

But, if the World simply ignores the issue and it turns out that there is indeed Global Warming, tremendous, and possibly irreversible, harm may be done. Not to us necessarily, but to future generations. What responsibility do we have to future generations? I'm not sure I can say.

So, it would seem to me that Prudence should rule the day and some measures in increased efficiency and possible alternatives be explored...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Back in the 1960s there were a little group of brat children known as Hippies. These people wanted to change the world. They protested the establishment without logic and at all costs.

They thought they could end the Vietnam war. Most were secret commies.

After the war they lost their purpose so they became peace freaks. In their minds they thought they could save the world. "Ya man, we can have peace, no nukes, lets save the world, man!". So they protested all government spending on military stuff like nukes thinking they were going to save everyone. They were now public commies and probably secretly working for the USSR, or just useful idiots.

The worse possible thing happened during the eighties and early nineties to the now-aging Hippies. A Republican President, a great man, spent so much money on weapons that the USSR fell to its knees. Peace was achieves in the exact opposite way that the old Hippies had wanted. This was such a tragedy to them that they are still in denial.

So how the hell can they save the world now? These old Hippies have no purpose anymore. The cold war is over. What can they do?

How about invent a new disaster? Remember Y2K Bug? Crap, the whole world is going to explode due to a computer error! Who can save the world from the Y2K bug? Of course the answer is the old retired programmers whose age just happens to be very close to the age of the old Hippies. As we all know nothing happened. The Y2K bug was a myth.

Ok, so how can these old useless/useful idiots save the damn world now? Well, what if they could convince everyone the world is about to die? The whole damn planet is about to turn into a microwave oven! We are all toast! But do not worry because the old Hippies are going to save us! Come on Algore, get out there! Lets have a protest! A big protest! In fact if anyone says we are wrong we will silence them with our protest! Just like the 1960s!!! MAN WE ARE GOING TO SAVE THE WORLD THIS TIME!!! YA MAN!

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

The whole topic of Global Warming is a very emotional and devisive one. Each side has an ample arsenal of reports and emminent scientists to support or bolster their view.

One argument which cannot be in dispute is the addition of free Carbon to the environment. Gasoline is made up principally of Hydrogen and Carbon. Carbon comprises 80% of this compound. A gallon of Gasoline weighs approx. 6.25 lbs. (@STP). This means that for each gallon of Gasoline you combust in your car, you are releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon (80% of 6.25lbs. = 5lbs.) into the atmosphere as free Carbon - Carbon which had heretofore been locked up in Petroleum.

It denies Logic to simply think that the release of this much Carbon (considering the Global use of Gasoline) into the atmosphere does not have some effect.

What effect? I cannot say, but here is where the whole Global Warming argument breaksdown from one of Science to one of Belief.

If one believes there is Global Warming, they offer all corroborating Scientific data as proof.

If one believes the opposite, they, in turn, offer their corroborating Scientific data as proof of their position.

But, in practice, if the World adopts conservation through better engineering for increased Range, and there turns out not to be a Global Warming crisis, what is harmed? In fact, profits would largely increase throughout Industry and/or costs lowered.

Costs tend to level out with increased costs in one area being offset by savings in others such as lowered Healthcare costs, lower Work Absence, and the like, so these arguments are largely moot or at least cancel each other out.

But, if the World simply ignores the issue and it turns out that there is indeed Global Warming, tremendous, and possibly irreversible, harm may be done. Not to us necessarily, but to future generations. What responsibility do we have to future generations? I'm not sure I can say.

So, it would seem to me that Prudence should rule the day and some measures in increased efficiency and possible alternatives be explored...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

The cost Jim, is not insignificant, not known, will not be voluntarily borne, will not be borne equally. Every resource that is devoted to alleviating a harm that is not agreed upon, is not measurable, and it quite possibly, not real, COULD be devoted to those things that we know are quite real.

For example, it is estimated that the cost of fighting this so-called distaster is in excess of what it would cost to eliminate drought and hunger from the continent of Africa.

What is interesting is that we can't get anyone enrolled in discussing THAT trade off at all.

Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a possible problem has made him a star!

Complete with a heated swimming pool and a private jet.

Do what I say, not what I do.

Sorry, I have been lied to by his type too many times to be taken again.

Gore is the biggest lying hypocrite the world has ever known. I know some people do not like Bush but we should all count our lucky stars Gore did not win!

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a possible problem has made him a star!

Complete with a heated swimming pool and a private jet.

[denverpete]

Ahhhh... Good times. Good Times...

Originally Posted by cartagena

Gore is the biggest lying hypocrite the world has ever known. I know some people do not like Bush but we should all count our lucky stars Gore did not win!

He did invent the internet...thank God!

I saw him on TV the other day...some award show...looked like he swallowed a down comforter!

I thought he invented the Information Super Highway?

Originally Posted by bmussatti

He did invent the internet...thank God!

[Allen K. Littlefield]

"an dat lucky ole sun, got nuttin to do but roll aroun heaven all day"

Party on, 986geezer

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

The cost Jim, is not insignificant, not known, will not be voluntarily borne, will not be borne equally. Every resource that is devoted to alleviating a harm that is not agreed upon, is not measurable, and it quite possibly, not real, COULD be devoted to those things that we know are quite real.

For example, it is estimated that the cost of fighting this so-called distaster is in excess of what it would cost to eliminate drought and hunger from the continent of Africa.

What is interesting is that we can't get anyone enrolled in discussing THAT trade off at all.

Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a possible problem has made him a star!

Complete with a heated swimming pool and a private jet.

Do what I say, not what I do.

Sorry, I have been lied to by his type too many times to be taken again.

Bruce,

Don't you think your arguments are a little extreme? I mean eliminate drought and hunger from the continent of Africa??? We're not doing that now so it seems a Non Sequitur for me.

But, this is an example of what I meant when I said it was an emotional and devisive issue. There may be a problem, I don't know, in fact I don't think anyone can say for sure.

But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue.

A 20% increase in Range was achieved by a semi Full-Court press during the Ford Administration and we all came through relatively unscathed. Where would be the harm of furthering our understanding and engineering of IC in an effort to increase Range?

No matter which way the argument on Global Warming finally swung, we'd have derived some benefit...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[szentej]

I don't know all the facts to this issue. Depending on which side gives the most compelling argument. Here is one side:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle
John