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!

[YellowJacket]

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?

Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.

But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology. Sure, we have better ways to measure climate, and we have better models for analyzing those data, but we have not fundamentally improved our accuracy in intepreting ambiguous data in the last 30 years, and that's what people are doing over and over.

I don't understand why the media and warming advocates have to take such a hardline stance on Global Warming. Why isn't it acceptable to say "there is EVIDENCE to support the theory, just as much to refute it. But just to be safe, we're advocating/lobbying/whatever to reduce emissions, improve gas mileage, etc." When you start saying "it's DEFINITELY happening" I become skeptical immediately, unless you're just telling me that the world is round. Then, people like myself who would otherwise advocate a bit of green social responsibility, get offended and want nothing to do with it.

Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.

For all you guys that believe in global warming, I have a idea how you can help.

I live in an area that at one time was completely tropical jungle. I am right now doing some landscaping on my property. For only $1,000 I will plant a tree on my property in your name. I will even send you a photo of it. Imagine, your very own rainforest tree? You can show all your democrat friends just how you are stopping global warming. Imagine how warm and fuzzy you will feel knowing you own a part of the solution. And since cars are part of the problem, you can always sell you Porsche to finance your trees. PM me if interested! Save the world like an old Hippy should!

[Jump]

Originally Posted by YellowJacket

Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.

But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology.

Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.

I have no proof that the world is round. They tell me that it is and they show me pictures but how do I know that the pictures are real? The best I've seen is a slight curve when I'm up in a jet but that doesn't prove it is round does it? Why should I believe them? OK, I'm being facetious obviously. I don't think I ever said that there was undeniable evidence. In fact, in a previous post I was pretty clear in stating that there was no definitive evidence. You seem to have completely missed the point, that what scientists thought yesterday doesn't always hold true today as our knowledge increases. Pretty plain and simple to understand I think and you seem to understand it as you then confirm it in your next point.

Doesn't your supposed hole through my point actually add credence to what I said? Wasn't the point that referencing 30 year old data can be mostly irrelevant? All that we can go on is what we have today. Does that mean we'll believe the same 30 years from now when our knowledge, technology, and research base multiplies some more? Of course not. And thirty years from now it is also possible that they will look back and say, those people in 2006 had all of the evidence right in front of them and they refused to do anything about it. Right now I'll put it at 50-50 as to which of those two viewpoints they have in 2036.

Am I totally sold on man caused Global Warming. No I'm not. Do I see a possibility that it could be true? You'd have to be clueless to at least not be willing to entertain the discussion until we know for sure either way. My statements were not a defense of anything and I really don't understand how someone could interpret them that way. What I was merely suggesting was that we consider the evidence as it stands today (for or against) and not bring silly arguments into the discussion like was done.

Can you please explain to me what you're chuckling about?

[Peer]

Rich Belloff wrote:
> I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring.
> As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring. [...]
> 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!



My take on this is that when it comes to science, I trust the scientists. Hence, I believe global warming is real, and therefore I agree with Jim that it would be a mistake to gamble with their findings -- especially since it could be catalytic to the future of our planet -- way beyond the current world starvation (which you used as an argument to discredit global warming).

However, the data that the scientists now agree on regarding global warming should be approached scientifically -- to think, for example, we can cure global warming by setting speed-limits on the Autobahn is almost as silly as thinking oceanic flooding can be caused by people spitting in it.

By the way, if you think I'm trivializing the current world starvation, I suggest that you read one of my articles on this matter:
http://tinyurl.com/udrqx

-- peer

[Allen K. Littlefield]

[QUOTE=Peer]Rich Belloff wrote:
> I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring.
> As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring. [...]
> 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!



My take on this is that when it comes to science, I trust the scientists. Hence, I believe global warming is real, and therefore I agree with Jim that it would be a mistake to gamble with their findings -- especially since it could be catalytic to the future of our planet -- way beyond the current world starvation (which you used as an argument to discredit global warming).

Rich, did NOT use current starvation as an arguement to discredit global warming, he used it as an example of a real problem that was not being addressed while some are hysterical about a 'thoretical' problem. If you are an academic I give you a D- (see me), for this work.

Also do you trust ALL of the scientists, including the ones that do NOT agree that the normal temperature change is caused by the SUVs in the US? C- (see me) for this ambiguous statement.

986geezer

[porschegeorg]

When it comes to science, I trust the Creator. Actually....when it comes to anything, I trust Him.

[Boxsterund914]

Global warming? Let's see....Who is really all hot and bothered about this issue? Politicians right? Oh wait, no...not just them... there is also a lot of concern amongst actors (Hollywood elite)! OK actors and politicians are the ones who keep pushing this issue to the forefront right?

As a group...I think that maybe actors would be less than totally reliable as spokesmen for science. I mean really, the only credibility they ever have is when they are pretending to be something else...get real. Are the great minds on most college campuses found in the drama department?

Politicians, now they can be trusted for sure. And Al Gore...if he is the spokesman for global warming...don't make me laugh! He is a cardboard cutout, a caricature of a geek politician. These guys (politicians) will pick any cause, any calamity (real or imagined) in order to increase their power base. I propose that these guys will not stop at just picking any cause or calamity, they will in fact create or fabricate any cause or calamity in order to increase their power base. The more strident they are in proclaiming the truth of something, the more you can be assured it's a lie. If global warming is true....then we ARE in danger because they have poisoned the issue with their endorsement of it. And if Al Gore is the one leading the issue.....I rest my case.....what a sad-sack clown to have champion your cause.

The only time a Democrat politician tells the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Republicans. The only time a Republican politician is telling the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Democrats. History will judge our country harshly for choosing the Tweedeldee party over the Tweedeldum party or vice versa time after time....

[Brucelee]

For the record, my cite of the issue of starvation was to show that as a group, politicians and their ilk do not get in a lather to solve a problem that costs human life everday right now, that is directly addressable, and for which there is NO disagreement on, as to its existence and human costs.

No, they would rather chat about something that MIGHT be ocurring and that might have serious consequences and that we MIGHT be able to curtail a bit, if at all.

Why? Imagine Al Gore or anyone else trying to sponsor a gasoline tax that would pay for food, water, water projects, and related matters. Well, I assert, this would go nowhere fast.

However, if Al is trying to save Malibu beachfront property being to Alec Baldwin, well, that is another matter.

Oh, yes and those polar bears. BTW- I love polar bears.

I would always go back to my list of those who WIN under the global warming is real and we did it scenario. That list explains alot.

[Brucelee]

The only time a Democrat politician tells the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Republicans. The only time a Republican politician is telling the truth is when he is bad mouthing the Democrats. History will judge our country harshly

So true, so true!

[bringer666]

Originally Posted by Peer

Rich Belloff wrote:
My take on this is that when it comes to science, I trust the scientists.
-- peer

However, not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans and the emissions from our vehicles.
Most of the time, when you hear any global warming hysteria alert, the first thing they say is "Most scientists agree.." and go on from there. The truth is that most scientists (I'm not sure of the percentage) believe that we don't have enough data to make a decision as to why we are experiencing a warming trend.

[Peer]

Bringer666 wrote:
> The truth is that most scientists (I'm not sure of the percentage)
> believe that we don't have enough data to make a decision as to why
> we are experiencing a warming trend.

What you are saying here is not correct. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real and that it's the result of OUR activities and not a natural occurrence.

-- peer

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by Peer

Bringer666 wrote:
> The truth is that most scientists (I'm not sure of the percentage)
> believe that we don't have enough data to make a decision as to why
> we are experiencing a warming trend.

What you are saying here is not correct. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real and that it's the result of OUR activities and not a natural occurrence.

-- peer

Well, the report has NOT been issued but a summary has been. The summary was published by politicians, not scientists. Many of the scientists who participated in the report have complained of this process but to no avail.

We have no idea what the report really says and who said it.

However, that has NOT stopped the media and various governments from acting.

Same as it ever was.

Refer to my "who wins" post above.

[Brucelee]

BRW-many of the scientists who are considered skeptics were not allowed to participate in this so called "study"!