|
The Autobahn-"Global Warming hysteria's next casualty!
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. |
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.
|
Points to ponder
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'! |
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. |
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? |
Quote:
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. |
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!
|
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
Today's History Lesson
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! |
Quote:
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!
Quote:
|
Ahhhh... Good times. Good Times...
|
Quote:
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?
Quote:
|
Mr. Sun
"an dat lucky ole sun, got nuttin to do but roll aroun heaven all day"
Party on, 986geezer |
Quote:
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 |
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+sw indle John |
"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."
Of course, I never said that and I am not the one creating hyserical arguments, that is up to the Gore folks. I simply pointed out that the costs of doing something are very very signficant and will not be borne by Al Gore or his type. The point is that money spent on one problem cannot be spent on another, another that is very real and very impactful every day. There is no contesting the fact that thousands die of starvation across the glove everyday. Where is the media's attention to THAT little problem. I guess those Malibu beach houses at risk are more interesting that dying children. |
Quote:
Famine, Drought, HIV-Aids, Alzheimers Disease, Cancer, the Elderly, Inadequate Housing, the list goes on and on. Of course our resources are Finite and devoting some to one problem naturally means they are not available for others. So, it's one of prioritizing how we allocate these resources. But a very proper debate on Global Warming gets stifled when Gut-wrenching arguments like these are made. It side-tracks an issue which if correct has Global Implications, not regional or demographic ones. I'm not picking at you so much as trying to point out the need to stay on-point. I'm not convinced that Global Warming phenomena do exist (no Chicken-Little syndrome), but neither do I believe that the continued unrestrained release of Industrialized Carbon, measured annually as approx. 6,400 Million Metric Tons Worldwide, with about 30% of that amount being stored in Carbon Sinks such as Forests, Oceans, etc. resulting in a Net release of approx. 4,480 Million Metric Tons of Carbon annually is without any effect whatever. And, if that effect is negative, impacting all of us rather than some small portion of the World's population, then I believe that some allocation of resources is prudent to acsertaining it's implications and any possible corrective measures which may be available. GHGs, CFCs, Aerosols, Free Carbon, Organic Carbons etc. each have their own implications and make the issue extremely complex - there is no one simple answer, or a simple debate. If interested, a good source of pertinent information (but certainly not the only one) can be found in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States - http://www.pnas.org/ Happy Motoring!... Jim'99 |
Life is full of tradeoffs! :)
Only Moonlight for Vermont? By GEOFFREY NORMAN March 9, 2007; Page W11 It probably came as no big surprise to the citizens of Burlington, Vt., this week that their city finished first among 379 metropolitan areas in a "Best Green Places" survey conducted by Country Home magazine. If Burlington hadn't won the contest, it might have led to an emergency session of the state legislature, investigations and, who knows, even special prosecutors. The Green Mountain State is seriously green. It is also seriously small. Its population of some 600,000 is about equal to that of Charlotte, N.C. Its signature export is maple syrup. None would mistake it for a player on the world stage. Still, the Vermont legislature has lately been engaged -- to the exclusion of just about all other matters -- in a discussion of how it might lead the world in the mortally serious fight against global warming. The president pro tem of the state Senate, Peter Shumlin, was emphatic on this point. "Historically, when we do bold things in Vermont, others follow," Mr. Shumlin was quoted as saying in January. "It is our moral imperative to lead again . . . and if we succeed in being part of the solution, we can help regain America's moral leadership and trust in the eyes of the rest of the world." A charming vision. Millions and millions of people in China and India, waiting on orders from little Vermont before they fall-in and march. Las Vegas turning off unnecessary lights to conserve electricity and reduce greenhouse gases because Vermont has shown the way. Movie stars flying coach because they crave approval from the citizens of Bethel, Brattleboro and Bennington. It's a pretty good bet that whatever the Vermont legislature does about global warming and greenhouse gases, nobody in India or China or anywhere else outside of the state will notice. If every living creature in Vermont disappeared tomorrow, their lack of activity wouldn't compensate for the carbon dioxide produced by one of the coal-fired generating plants that China brings online every 10 days. So the concern over global warming in Montpelier (the country's only state capital without a McDonald's) seems quixotic on the face of it. And besides, Vermont is already a relative good guy -- its "carbon footprint" is fairly small. Why? Because the state's electricity comes largely from dams and a nuclear plant, called Vermont Yankee, located in the southeastern corner of the state. And here is where the discussion gets really interesting. We have all become accustomed to political anomalies. Democrats for balanced budgets, Republicans for Wilsonian foreign policies, etc. etc. Now we have, among other odd spectacles, global-warming zealots relentlessly bashing the best available alternative to burning fossil fuels to make electricity. Meanwhile, some serious environmentalists who once opposed nuclear power as a threat to the environment now support it as the most environmentally friendly means of producing large amounts of base-load power (i.e. that is available even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining). Patrick Moore, among the founders of Greenpeace, is one of these converts, and he visited Vermont recently to make the nuclear case. Which, in Vermont, is not about building new plants but about extending the life of the one that is operating now. The Vermont Yankee plant is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to operate until 2012. The plant's owners -- the Entergy Corp. -- have made an application to extend the license for another 20 years. The state can block the extension by denying permission to store additional spent fuel on site. If this happens, then Vermont's utility companies will be compelled to buy power that is produced by burning fossil fuels. Unless, that is, Vermonters are willing to cut their power consumption by a third -- not likely, since even Ben and Jerry need electricity to make their ice cream -- or find a way to provide the power through renewables. Wind is the current favorite in that category. But Vermonters have been reluctant to allow the construction of 450-foot-tall towers on their ridgelines, and many of their objections are based on green arguments. Last year, three wind projects were either voted down by referendum or denied permits by regulators who cited -- among other things -- the potential threat to birds and bats from whirling turbine blades. Resistance to wind is, if anything, increasing in Vermont, where uncluttered views are an essential part of the environmental agenda. In other words, it seems unlikely that Vermont will, in five years, find a way to generate a third of the electricity it currently uses through renewable sources. Still , for more than 20 years now, the Greens of Vermont have wanted to shut down Yankee nuclear plant in the way that Frenchmen of the late 19th century lusted for the liberation of Alsace-Lorraine. Their ardor allows no compromise, no retreat. Shut it down. Yet if Vermont is truly "bold," as state Sen. Shumlin claims, it could accept the risk of storing spent nuclear fuel or construct bird-chewing wind farms -- or both. In short, it could step up and take a hit for the sake of the environment. If the planet has 10 years to get its act together -- as some of the more messianic prophets of doom-by-global-warming are saying -- then it seems almost suicidal to close down a source of electricity that produces virtually no greenhouse gases, just for the sake of false piety. A truly "bold," environmentally conscious state would go nuclear even more. Burlington will only really be the "best of" Green Places when local postcards show its charming leafy streets, with a view of Lake Champlain -- and a nuclear power plant looming in the background. Mr. Norman writes frequently for the Journal and is editor of the Web site vermonttiger.com. |
Hysteria?
To the followers of this thread, I find it amusing when after the most hysterical presentation that the planet has 10 years at best etc. When finally an opposing view is presented with back up info. and examples showing the absurdity of real (starvation) as opposed to theoretical calamity, those critics that are not buying into the theory are now labeled as hysterical? Why wasnt the group pushing the global warming theory tagged as hysterical? This is one of the reasons I do not buy it. This name calling is like when one defends the original meaning of the constitution and is therefore labeled a right wing extremist. Sure we must find out what damage is being done, if any and act on it but that is not what is being proposed by the truly hysterical. The adaucity to show Algores movie in public schools without an opposing view is more than hysterical, it is outr :barf: ageous!
986geezer :barf: |
Quote:
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! |
Is there any benefit to the fact that higher speed limits will cause cars to be on the roads LESS time than slower cars, in terms of co2 emissions?
|
You always have to examine the motives of those who would have you galvanize against a sudden and imminent calamity.
For example, in the scenario where we "have to do something drastic" about global warming, the winners are: 1-Lawmakers and regulators-We need a bill! 2-Taxing advocates and their agents-We need money! 3-Energy/carbon traders-We will make the money on the spread! 4-Climatologists-who ever heard of these guys ten years ago? 5-Candidates running for office-You need us to lead you! 6-News media-read about it here 7-Book publishers-Read more about it. 8-Alternate energy advocates-Buy from us! 9-Environmentalists-Worship at our altar! Who are the losers? All of us who will be taxed, regulated and rationed. Let the good times roll! |
Quote:
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? |
BTW-
I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring. As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring. What I am suggesting is that: 1-The news media has decided what IT wants to write about and it is NOT a balanced discussion of the topic. There will be no airing of solid scientific discourse. 2-The conclusions about the degree of climate change, its rate, how to measure it, what it all means, are WAY off from being agreed upon. Yet, it is being presented as simply so. 3-This will NOT stop the guys I alluded to above, ALL of whom have a vested interest in having man made global warming be a reality and that it have AWFUL consequences. 4-It is not at all clear to me that ANYTHING that we do right now will make much difference in the long run. Moreover, any discussion of the positive consequences of a warmer planet are also verbotten. 5-That government actions will have an agenda that suits the government just fine. Look for LOTS of regulations and LOTS of new taxes, hidden and overt. After all, the government has been making a living off of "sin taxes" for many years now. Carbon is the new SIN. |
A little balance!
Written By: Thomas Gale Moore Ph.D. Published In: Environment News Publisher: The Heartland Institute -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pundits, politicians, and the press have argued that global warming will bring disaster to the world. Their dire predictions aside, there are many good reasons to believe that, if global warming occurs, we will like it. Where do retirees go when they are free to move? Certainly not to Duluth. People generally like warmth. When a television weather reporter says, “it’s going to be a great day,” he usually means the weather will be warmer than normal. The weather can, of course, be too warm, but that is unlikely to become a major problem if the Earth’s temperature warms as projected. How Warm, When, and Where? Even though it is far from certain that global temperatures will rise noticeably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the United Nations body that has been studying this possibility for more than a decade) has forecast that, by the end of the next century, the world’s climate will be about 3.6o Fahrenheit warmer than today. Precipitation worldwide, it is projected, will increase by about 7 percent. IPCC scientists predict that most of the warming will occur at night and during the winter. In fact, the temperature record shows that, over this century, summer high temperatures have actually fallen, while winter lows have gone up. Temperatures are expected to increase the most towards the poles. Thus, Minneapolis should enjoy more warming than Dallas. But even the Twin Cities should find that most of its temperature increase will occur during its coldest season, making the climate more livable. Warmer Winters Are Good Warmer winters will produce less ice and snow to torment drivers, facilitating commuting and making snow shoveling less of a chore. Families will have less need to invest in heavy parkas, bulky jackets, earmuffs, mittens, and snow boots. Department of Energy studies have shown that a warmer climate would reduce heating bills more than it would boost outlays on air conditioning. If we currently enjoyed the weather predicted for the end of the next century, expenditures for heating and cooling would be cut by about $12.2 billion annually. Most economic activities would be unaffected by climate change. Manufacturing, banking, insurance, retailing, wholesaling, medicine, education, mining, financial, and most other services are unrelated to weather. Those activities can be carried out in cold climates with central heating or in hot climates with air conditioning. Certain weather-related or outdoor-oriented services, however, would be affected. Transportation generally would benefit from a warmer climate, since road travelers would suffer less from slippery or impassable highways. Airline passengers, who often endure weather-related delays in the winter, would gain from more reliable and on-time service. Warmer Is Healthier, Too The doomsayers have predicted that a warmer world would inflict tropical diseases on Americans. They neglect to mention that those diseases--such as malaria, cholera, and yellow fever--were widespread in the United States in the colder 19th century. Their absence today is attributable not to a climate unsuitable to their propagation, but to modern sanitation and the American lifestyle, which prevent the microbes from getting a foothold. It is actually warmer along the Gulf Coast, which is free of dengue fever, than on the Caribbean islands, where the disease is endemic. My own research shows that a warmer world would be a healthier one for Americans and would cut the number of deaths in the U.S. by about 40,000 per year, roughly the number killed on the highways. CO2 No Pollutant for Plants According to climatologists, the villain causing a warmer world is the unprecedented amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we humans keep pumping into the atmosphere. But as high school biology students nationwide know, plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Researchers have shown that virtually all plants will do better in a CO2-rich environment than in the current atmosphere, which contains only trace amounts of their basic food. Plants also prefer warmer winters and nights, and a warmer world would mean longer growing seasons. Combined with higher levels of CO2, plant life would become more vigorous, thus providing more food for animals and humans. Given a rising world population, longer growing seasons, greater rainfall, and an enriched atmosphere could be just the ticket to stave off famine and want. Sea Levels Pose Little Threat A slowly rising sea level constitutes the only significant drawback to global warming. The best guess of the international scientists is that oceans will rise about 2 inches per decade. The cost to Americans of building dikes and constructing levees to mitigate the damage from rising seas would be less than $1 billion per year, an insignificant amount compared to the likely gain of over $100 billion for the American people as a whole. Let’s not rush into costly programs to stave off something that we may like if it occurs. Warmer is better; richer is healthier; acting now is foolish. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Thomas Gale Moore is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming recently published by the Cato Institute. |
|
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 |
[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 |
When it comes to science, I trust the Creator. Actually....when it comes to anything, I trust Him.
|
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.... :barf: |
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. |
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! :) |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website