Environmentalists and Musclecars

[65post]

Its all over for us skeptics. It has been CONFIRMED in a summit in France yesterday that Global warming is REAL and HUMANS are to blame .Thats it I am going to fire up my rocket and blast off out of here before its too late!   Terry

[bull]

I think it's pure arrogance on the part of human "experts" to say that man is the main cause of global warming. Theories espoused by scientists on everything from zoology to space and time are voiced, discussed and disproven in a matter of minutes. Just because a bunch of guys with pocket protectors say we're to blame for all the ills on this planet means jack squat in the large scheme of things. Ten years from now they'll probably be laughing about it, just like they're already laughing at those bozos who demoted Pluto from its status as a planet (a decision which is soon likely to be reversed BTW).

IMO (which is probably as valuable as anyone's) is that the climate of this planet is cyclical and always has been. Global warming could be nothing more than the advent of a possible reverse in Earth's magnetic field, which scientists have been talking about for years. The point is that no one really knows. How can they know? Our perspective on the topic is way too limited. And if there is a problem there isn't a dang thing we can do about it anyway.

[pettyfan43]

I think it's pure arrogance on the part of human "experts" to say that man is the main cause of global warming. Theories espoused by scientists on everything from zoology to space and time are voiced, discussed and disproven in a matter of minutes. Just because a bunch of guys with pocket protectors say we're to blame for all the ills on this planet means jack squat in the large scheme of things. Ten years from now they'll probably be laughing about it, just like they're already laughing at those bozos who demoted Pluto from its status as a planet (a decision which is soon likely to be reversed BTW).

IMO (which is probably as valuable as anyone's) is that the climate of this planet is cyclical and always has been. Global warming could be nothing more than the advent of a possible reverse in Earth's magnetic field, which scientists have been talking about for years. The point is that no one really knows. How can they know? Our perspective on the topic is way too limited. And if there is a problem there isn't a dang thing we can do about it anyway.

Bull, From what I have seen you and red72chrgr have it figured out. I saw the silly story about the summit in Paris, WOW a big group of scientists/alarmists got together and said it is LIKELY all our fault, Inother words the people who have been selling this crap, just got together and said the same thing  WOW there's a shock!

Naomi Oreskes, she is one algore's right hand people in his little inconvenient truth fiasco, her "expertise" came from "reading every article related to global warming written since 1993" The number bandied about by her and gore is I think 938(!)! The problem? If she read every article as she claims, that number is about 10,000 short (YEAH TEN THOUSAND).

So I am really of the opinion that the "experts" are doing nothing more than guessing (remember 30 years ago the SAME group was screaming about us going into another ice age, 15 years ago it was the ever expanding hole in the ozone and before that, Mt St Helens was gonna put half the country's lights out!) and pandering to the people that are looking for evidence to prove this theory, can't lose that grant money and those donations now can we?

[Lord Warlock]

I think its funny that gasses emitted by everyday cows (yes those things with horns that make milk) are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the automobiles worldwide.  Blaming global warming on the US, or old cars for that matter is only for the moronic to believe.  Our old mopars get just as good mileage as any hummer, or 90 percent of the SUVs on the road (ok, 50%) but there are more hummers on the road in the last 3 years than every old muscle car surviving today.  And China as well as other 3rd world countries with lower environmental standards than what we mandate in the US cause more pollution than we ever will.  At least we try to reduce industrial pollution, that can't be said for many other countries lesser developed than we are. 

Maybe we need to cork up some cows....no, then i would have to give up Filet mignons (ate one tonight...yummmm)

[hemihead]

Why is it that the old hippie/enviro geeks all drive Musclecars or the gas guzzling SUV's ? Then they tell everyone else how bad we are for causing all the pollution?You never hear any complaints about every time the Space Shuttle takes off,all the pollution from the old computers in landfills, or all the paper the bureucrats waste with all their unecessary paperwork.As far as limiting how many cars someone owns,well that is just Communism.And I agree with pettyfan except the point of 'as long as they are all registered and insured'.Why if you aren't driving them should they need that? But that is another subject.As soon as pollution is mentioned everyone points there finger at the automobile.They should be looking at Corporate America but then that would affect things like bottom lines,profit margins not to mention multimillion dollar bonuses.If if you are thinking that it would affect workers jobs, it would.Not blue collar jobs ( those have already been prostituted to foreign countries in favor of greed), it would affect the white collar people.Not going to happen.

[65post]

Why are the greenies not putting pressure on CHINA. Why not? Because they know where the easy money is.Do you see green peace making huge protests in CHINA? No because CHINA controls what PEOPLE CAN AND CAN`T DO ! If you think about it it`s what THESE people want to do.They want OUR TAX DOLLARS to turn around and tell us what we CAN AND CAN`T DO ! The silent majority of us have been silent for too long.We just sit back and are afraid to speak out.Liberals are out there lobbying our governments for everything from gun control to same sex marriage and the list goes on.And our governments are caving in to them.Now that this GLOBAL WARMING thing has got legs it will run for your money  and freedom .I read a quote  ( some red neck hillbillys can read ) by Paster John Hagee of Texas once that said - If some are told a lie long enough they will believe it. Terry

[defiance]

What I think is hilarious is the number of armchair PhD's with enough environmental expertise to dismiss the consensus of over 90% of the enivironmental scientists on earth.  You guys are obviously much smarter than them.  I have no choice but to defer to your overwhelming genius.  Well, that and hope for a comeback of that "logic and reason" thing someday.

[bull]

What I think is hilarious is the number of armchair PhD's with enough environmental expertise to dismiss the consensus of over 90% of the enivironmental scientists on earth.  You guys are obviously much smarter than them.  I have no choice but to defer to your overwhelming genius.  Well, that and hope for a comeback of that "logic and reason" thing someday.

I've just heard "the sky is falling" BS one too many times, that's all.

[65post]

One thing is for sure. We still live in democratic countries where we all can voice our own opinion.

[RECHRGD]

I love to vacation in the Banff area of Alberta and take drives to the north along the ice fields (glaciers), even did it in the Charger once.  The Glaciers have been receeding for a very long time.  At a museum in the town of Banff they have displayed pictures of one ice field taken every ten years starting back in the mid 1800's.  In each picture you can see the decline in the mass of the glacier.  The same is true when reviewing old pictures taken in Montana's Glacier National Park compared to what's there today.  There were no Chargers or SUV's when this warming started and very little industrialization when compared to today.  The Earth has always been in some kind of warming or cooling cycle.  I like clean air as much as anyone and am all for keeping the planet green for the future generation to come.  But, I just cannot buy into fact that we have caused any significant contribution to this natural process.  I live in the eastern Washington area.  Ever heard of Lake Missoula?  It was formed by a huge ice damn in the northern Idaho panhandle and backed up river water all the way back past Missoula, Montana.  In fact you can still see what used to be the shorelines on the mountains above the towns.  A lot of research has proven that this damn had broken and and reformed abount ten times during an ice age only about ten thousand years ago.  When it broke walls of water hundreds of feet high flooded the whole landscape of eastern Washington all the way down to Portland, Oregon via the Columbia river.  When flying over eastern Wa.  You can easily see whats these flood did to the landscape.  The whole place looks like a riverbed.  I do not profess to be a scientist or to have any formal training in this area, but I've been around a good while and possess something called common sense.  It just seems to me that this whole deal is being seen as yet another profit opportunity.   Bob

[65post]

I love to vacation in the Banff area of Alberta and take drives to the north along the ice fields (glaciers), even did it in the Charger once.  The Glaciers have been receeding for a very long time.  At a museum in the town of Banff they have displayed pictures of one ice field taken every ten years starting back in the mid 1800's.  In each picture you can see the decline in the mass of the glacier.  The same is true when reviewing old pictures taken in Montana's Glacier National Park compared to what's there today.  There were no Chargers or SUV's when this warming started and very little industrialization when compared to today.  The Earth has always been in some kind of warming or cooling cycle.  I like clean air as much as anyone and am all for keeping the planet green for the future generation to come.  But, I just cannot buy into fact that we have caused any significant contribution to this natural process.  I live in the eastern Washington area.  Ever heard of Lake Missoula?  It was formed by a huge ice damn in the northern Idaho panhandle and backed up river water all the way back past Missoula, Montana.  In fact you can still see what used to be the shorelines on the mountains above the towns.  A lot of research has proven that this damn had broken and and reformed abount ten times during an ice age only about ten thousand years ago.  When it broke walls of water hundreds of feet high flooded the whole landscape of eastern Washington all the way down to Portland, Oregon via the Columbia river.  When flying over eastern Wa.  You can easily see whats these flood did to the landscape.  The whole place looks like a riverbed.  I do not profess to be a scientist or to have any formal training in this area, but I've been around a good while and possess something called common sense.  It just seems to me that this whole deal is being seen as yet another profit opportunity.   Bob

I think what most eludes scientists is the lack is common sense. Terry

[jamie1974]

What I think is hilarious is the number of armchair PhD's with enough environmental expertise to dismiss the consensus of over 90% of the enivironmental scientists on earth.  You guys are obviously much smarter than them.  I have no choice but to defer to your overwhelming genius.  Well, that and hope for a comeback of that "logic and reason" thing someday.

I've just heard "the sky is falling" BS one too many times, that's all.

   Yes, I think we all have. The other thing I find interesting is that just 10 months ago, within this same pool of environmental scientists, only 60% were convinced that global warming was due to human intervention. Why the sudden change? What breakthrough in science did we have which persuaded so many scientists so suddenly? Can anyone tell me that? Defiance?

   Personally, that fact sets up a red flag with me.

[Ghoste]

They do, but it's spelled common cents.  I'm convinced that man does all sorts of terrible things to the planet but I remain a skeptic on human caused global warming.  I can't pretend to possess the incredible genius that resides behind the braintrust collectively becoming known as climate experts but it does seem to me that if any of them were to say, "don't worry, everything is fine", an awful lot of them would have to find productive work in order to eat.
Remember, at one time a consensus of the worlds best minds were also convinced that the world was flat and it was the center of the universe.  Their "truths" were held in such high regard that speaking against them was punishable by death.

[defiance]

The money thing doesn't hold up quite as well when you're talking about colleges.  Most university researchers double as tenured professors and researchers for the University.  As such, it would take something on the scale of a child pr0n conviction to get them to lose their jobs!  Tenured professors are some of the most job-secure people on Earth .  Of course, grants do affect the University as a whole, but I don't see the logic behind grants just disappearing if global warming is incorrect.  The government gives research grants to Universities for just about anything (as long as it's not politically loaded).  That's why I feel those particular sources carry the most weight; they have the least to gain from lying.
Further, I have little faith in humanity.  There are a lot of stupid people out there.  And there are a lot of highly unscrupulous people out there.  But my faith in humanity is not so little that I would belive 90% of the scientific community that prides itself on raw, logical, reasoned evaluation of the facts, would be so willing to lie in order to protect their grant money.  Sure, there are some that would,  But 90%?  Come on.

[Ghoste]

Right, like when 90% of the world's scientists KNEW the world was flat.  This is a guess that is made by taking what they observe and trying to apply it to what they've seen before.  So far, the only thing I've seen proven is that the average global temperature has changed.
For that matter, how de we know it's 90%?  Is it just 90% of the ones who responded, 90% of the ones the environmental movement embrace, 90% of the ones engaged in a panel to establish a link to mankind, 90% of which ones? 

[bull]

For the sake of argument, let's say these scientists are right. What can be done? Is anyone in power willing to stand up and say, "that's it, no fuel production, no more electricity and everyone who works or relies on either of those industries is now unemployed until further notice. Everyone take the deed to your home, all your cars, appliances, etc., right now and turn them in to the nearest government agency." Because that's what it would take to possibly, maybe, reverse the influx of gases that cause global warming.

You'd be lucky to be able to pry the ipods and cell phones out of most people's hands, let alone tell them they can no longer drive their cars or make toast. But if these scientists are to be believed it all has to stop right now or we're dead, incrementalism is not the answer. Even if it was the answer you cannot tell a farmer to stop farming, a coal miner to stop mining and a logger to stop logging, now or even 10 years from now. We're talking civil war/military state/panic/chaos/anarchy, you name it. It's just not going to happen without serious amounts of gunfire and bloodshed.

[defiance]

Nothing in science is "fact", it simply hasn't been disproven.  That is a key component of the scientific method.  But just because it isn't a "proven fact" that we breathe oxygen, does that mean I won't have a problem if oxygen dissappears?  Hell no.  Given that, how can we decline to act on the best information available to us?  That doesn't make any sense at all.

As for civil war/etc., just as there are some statmements about the impact of global warming that are unfounded alarmism, that's the other side of unfounded alarmism.  We most certainly have the power to change the way our society functions without a civil war, it just takes clear direction and leadership.  You're right that we wouldn't be able to effectively cease to use fossil fuels in a short period of time.  That's why most in favor of making changes like this want them to take place over the course of decades.  But if you don't believe we could come up with a domestic, clean, reliable source of energy that would work as well as fossil fuels (given enough motivation to do so), I think you far underestimate American ingenuity (not sure how to spell that word ).  For that matter, other than the disposal of spent fuels, even nuclear fission, combined with a shift toward electricity in transportation, home/commercial air and heat, etc.etc. could cover a HUGE portion of the gap with current technology.  I'm not saying that's a better solution, but with some R&D on waste neutralization, it probably could be. 

The big thing as it relates to here, however, is that Americans would not tolerate any act that forced them to stop using their existing cars, so there's no reason to be alarmed initially.  If changes were made to production guidelines enforcing an alternative energy source, then ater on sure Muscle cars will be too small to have any political weight - and too small for anyone to care about.  They won't even work for a political band-wagon because people love the image too much.  And of course, that's all as it should be; they contribute such a tiny amount to pollution and greenhouse gases that they're essentially irrelevant.

As for 90% of which scientists, 90% of those who cared enough to attend this panel.  Since, as stated earlier, the consensus was only 66% last year among the same group (a large portion were uncertain that the changes were driven by mankind last year, and have since been convinced), I don't think it's reasonable to assert that the group is foundationally biased.

[Ghoste]

On the contrary, I think it is very proper to make assertations about them.  To make a statement that implies that 90% of all scientists support the findings of a panel on climate is wrong.  Are you really trying to tell me that 90% of the world scientific community was polled on this?  90% of the people who sat on THAT panel are in agreement. 
BTW, it is a proven fact that we breathe oxygen.  Global warming being caused by mankind is still a theory.

[jamie1974]

Nothing in science is "fact", it simply hasn't been disproven.  That is a key component of the scientific method.  But just because it isn't a "proven fact" that we breathe oxygen, does that mean I won't have a problem if oxygen dissappears?  Hell no.  Given that, how can we decline to act on the best information available to us?  That doesn't make any sense at all.
could cover a HUGE portion of the gap with current technology.  I'm not saying that's a better solution, but with some R&D on waste neutralization, it probably could be. 

   Right, everything in science is provisionally true. True until proven false by new evidence.

As for 90% of which scientists, 90% of those who cared enough to attend this panel.  Since, as stated earlier, the consensus was only 66% last year among the same group (a large portion were uncertain that the changes were driven by mankind last year, and have since been convinced), I don't think it's reasonable to assert that the group is foundationally biased.

  Right, but my question is this: what new scientific evidence convinced this remaining set of folks to change their position?

[jamie1974]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about in *production* vehicles, and I agree with him entirely.  Probably 90% of the cars being driven regularly right now are from the last decade, so if you can ensure that *NEW* cars don't pollute at all, then in a few years gasoline vehicles will become a rarity.  Problem solved without 'banning' anything.

The problem isn't solved for Charger enthusiasts. Can you imagine what this would do to the price of gasoline? When only a small percentage of motorists rely on it? The cost of transporting the fuel would skyrocket when it's no longer transported in bulk, and special trips need to be made to tool up for distribution. Once new cars don't rely on ordinary pump gasoline, the problem for our community increases radically.

[hemihead]

Defiance, since you seem like you are Pro-Enviro,I will make you a deal.When you junk your 72 Rallye and buy a bicycle, I will too lol.Jk with you.

[defiance]

Give up my charger?  Not a chance 
But I'd be VERY happy driving one of those 400-HP electrics as a daily driver    And no, I feel no guit, as the charger will never be driven more than a few hundred (maybe into the low thousands if I go on a road trip or something ) miles a year

As for why the change since last session: Good question.  Although I should make one correction to what I said before; the last time this panel convened was 2001, so it was 6 years, not 1.  Still a pretty short time frame for such a sweeping decision.  Still, it's enough to convince the Bush administration, who were VERY open about thinking it was bunk earlier.


I don't know that the petroleum-based fuel issue you described would be a problem.  Factors of scale are definitely important, but so are supply and demand.  Initially, supply would drop severely, so the price would decrease severely as well.  Over time (relatively short), since the profitability of supplying petroleum-based fuels would have dropped dramatically, quite a number of suppliers would leave the market.  However, the demand would not disapper, it would simply reduce.  Therefore, not *all* suppliers would leave the market.  My guess is that most likely, local performance shops would take on the task of keeping fuel (just as they do now for drag gas).  That's really just a shot in the dark, but it's *not* a shot in the dark that someone would.  In the end, the loss of scale would increase the price of fuel, but my estimates would put it in the 2-3x current cost range.  As unpredictable as our fuel prices have been the past 8 years or so, there's no way to know whether fuel would have been in that price range on it's own a decade now or not, but it's certainly within the realm of plausible.  As a Sr. Marketing Analyst for a Fortune 500/250 (we bounce back & forth ) company, this isn't *completely* pulled out of my nether regions - although I should clarify that my company has no direct dealings with petroleum fuel or energy production (other than putting gas in our vans )
Ghoste: No, it's a theory. 
Wikipedia, 'Scientific method' - "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases."
In short, everything scientific is a theory, we just treat them with different levels of confidence.  I'm not saying global warming should be treated with the same confidence as breathing oxygen, but I *am* saying that people have attempted to disprove it for years now, and since no actual negation of the theory has occured, I believe (as does the scientific community at large, as far as I can tell) it should be treated with a bit more confidence than it often is today. 
I know, that's just symantics, but that's the biggest wedge that detractors use to argue against it: "It's a theory, it hasn't been proven.", so it's important to understand that it will always be a theory, and it will never be proven, just as humans breathing oxygen is a theory and hasn't been proven.  That statement alone means absolutely nothing.

[Ghoste]

I think if you hold your breath long enough, you may be disinclined to move it up a hair from the theory/hypothesis category.  The difference is that oxygen respiration can be proven by depriving the oxygen.  We have no way of proving or disproving that global warming is caused by man unless we eliminate the man.  You're right though, it is semantics.  Maybe this is all a dream?
In any case, none of the findings on global warning should matter because one of the other great alarmist theories, peak oil, has us on or near the downside of fossil fuel production now anyway.  (btw, that by no means is my way of denying that oil is an infinite resource.  I don't know that it is or it isn't but I theorize that it will run out at some point)

[jamie1974]

  Heh, I thought this was interesting...or scary. I meandered on over to http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/

   and one of the first things being targeted: Personal Transportation. If I go to their handy dandy personal carbon generation calculator, the first thing they want to know is...WHAT KIND OF CAR I'M DRIVING. I punched in the numbers for my big block...and their site malfunctioned. As a matter of fact, it probably sent an email to Al Gore with my address.

   The thing that really bothers me about this site is their approach they suggest for saving our environment. On the front page of the link above, they basically say "Let's first start by cutting down our CO2 emissions, and then find ways to absorb, or offset, our emissions by becoming carbon neutral."

   Okay - fine. You know...I can see I'm not going to win this war with the environmentalists, so I'm gonna have to "play it their way". I'll agree to be carbon neutral, fine. But keep your mits off my Mopar. I guess I don't really mind calculating how much CO2 my machine makes, and then going out and planting X number of trees to have a net neutralizing effect on the environment. What really bothers me is that their plan is, remove all fun from my life, and then, after that, plant a couple trees to offset the remaining co2 from my farts and burps.

     Why not leave me alone if I'm "carbon neutral"? If I plant enough trees and shrubbery to offset the carbon the 440 spits out every year, leave the car and me alone! Why not do that on a national level, too? Stop focusing on making us all drive little race hondas that sound like vacuum cleaners. Let us drive the new Challengers with big blocks, but we'll plant more trees, etc. I think a lot of these environmentalists just see something "ishy" about that idea. Ick! They're not as concerned about the NET amount of CO2 produced per person as the GROSS amount produced. And THAT is a BIG ERROR!

   Sounds like a fair compromise to me! But you know, I can't help think that a lot of these environmentalists (not saying you, Defiance) have a secret little place in their hearts that wouldn't go for that. Because they have this euphoric Xanadu vision in their heads where everyone rides around on 10 speeds, sipping water from Evian bottles, and who wipe their hands down with sterile wet naps every time they open a door.

  I get the feeling legislators are going to try to first EXTRACT pollutant causers before making moves to subtract  co2, even if it means sacrificing everyone's fun. That seems to be the trend thus far. We need to start lobbying for the alternative approach.

     We could probably offset this WHOLE "global warming" problem by not changing a THING with our factories, our cars, our homes, etc by changing our MIND SET. Instead of CUTTING DOWN on the CO2 produced, lets create new ways to ABSORB, or NEUTRALIZE what is generated! Heck, it could create a whole lot of new jobs! Environmentalists will have saved the planet, Detroit can start building some big iron, and everyone goes home happy! The other way means theres gonna be a lot of opposition straight across the board.

For me, theres something about the roar of a big block that can't be replaced by an electric motor.

[694spdRT]

Oh man I'm in trouble.

I own old gas guzzling Mopars, a smoky diesel truck, and just cut down 240 trees on the farm last week.