Global Warming believers, I have a question for ya'...

[bull]

That's nice, and that's what you are willing to do but I'm not "willing to pay a lot more" to support something you believe in. Your beliefs are not for everyone because some people like living farther from the city and driving their big V10 Dodge truck to work 30 miles one way. And that's not going to appease the average environmentalist wacko. The role of an extremist, religious or otherwise, is to effectively force those to think differently than they do into acting the way they act. These extreme environmentalists don't really give a rat's a$$ about winning hearts and minds to their cause, instead they just stir up you-know-what with fear and then try to force everyone into their way of thinking whether global warming is real and is our fault or not. It's the same tactic that's been used forever by people so desperate for affirmation they'll do anything to get it, including ruin people's lives and decimate entire nations and industries. That just plain ain't going to happen without a fight.

You'd certainly be correct if we were discussing a "belief".  This is resounding scientific evidence - something that sadly, Americans want to distance themself from lately.  How is refusing to "believe" in scientific evidence becayse you prefer "living farther from the city and driving their big V10 Dodge truck to work 30 miles one way" protecting some "belief" system?  As far as I can tell, the vast majority of those who don't "believe" choose willful ignorance, knowing that they'll never have to deal with the repurcussions.

It is a belief. What "resounding scientific evidence" are you referring to that says otherwise? The scientific community has a long history of changing its "resounding scientific evidence" on every hypothesis they espouse from natural science to space anomalies so what is "resounding scientific evidence" today is typically proven to be balderdash tomorrow. Probably 99% of the "resounding scientific evidence" they come up with is nothing more than unprovable hypotheses.

[MichaelRW]

That's nice, and that's what you are willing to do but I'm not "willing to pay a lot more" to support something you believe in. Your beliefs are not for everyone because some people like living farther from the city and driving their big V10 Dodge truck to work 30 miles one way. And that's not going to appease the average environmentalist wacko. The role of an extremist, religious or otherwise, is to effectively force those to think differently than they do into acting the way they act. These extreme environmentalists don't really give a rat's a$$ about winning hearts and minds to their cause, instead they just stir up you-know-what with fear and then try to force everyone into their way of thinking whether global warming is real and is our fault or not. It's the same tactic that's been used forever by people so desperate for affirmation they'll do anything to get it, including ruin people's lives and decimate entire nations and industries. That just plain ain't going to happen without a fight.

You'd certainly be correct if we were discussing a "belief".  This is resounding scientific evidence - something that sadly, Americans want to distance themself from lately.  How is refusing to "believe" in scientific evidence becayse you prefer "living farther from the city and driving their big V10 Dodge truck to work 30 miles one way" protecting some "belief" system?  As far as I can tell, the vast majority of those who don't "believe" choose willful ignorance, knowing that they'll never have to deal with the repurcussions.

That's the problem. There is no proof (evidence) of human induced global warming. An accepted practice within the scientific community is peer review and that therein is where the problem is. Many climatologists do not believe in human induced global warming. Remember global cooling, saccharine was going to kill you, margarine was better than butter and now transfats (margarine) are going to kill you, the DDT fiasco, to name a few "scientific fact" blunders.

[MichaelRW]

This is hilarious! 

An expedition designed to show how global warming is heating the Arctic had to be called off after one of the explorers got frostbite, thanks to incredibly frigid temperatures that got as low as 100 degrees below zero...........

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/12/230500.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2F33-1

[defiance]

Ah.  good point.  Since scientists have made errors, we should immediately dismiss what the overwhelming majority are saying.  Especially since there are a minority saying that the theory is incorrect.  The fact that those detractors are overwhelmingly being paid by parties with heavy financial interest in the continued usage of fossil fuels is, of course, irrelevant.  Good call.

[MichaelRW]

Ah.  good point.  Since scientists have made errors, we should immediately dismiss what the overwhelming majority are saying.  Good call.

Overwhelming majority? Where did you get that nugget of information? From Al Gore?

[dodgecharger-fan]

well if global warming is going to melt the ice caps there will be no rise in the ocean levels because ice takes up more space then water so if it all melts there probably wouldn't be a significant change at all

careful. That's logical. You can't discuss global warming and be logical. It's against the rules.




I had that argument with my grade 9 chemistry teacher when he was trying to make a point about volumes of solids and liquids. I was the only one who would argue that the volume would be less when melted, but he wouldn't let me state why until everyone in the class voted as to whether it would be the same or not when melted. After an entire class was wasted, he finally asked why I thought the volume would be less when melted. Because the opaque lines and spots and areas in ice are trapped air. When the ice melts, the air will dissipate. He stared at me for a full 2 minutes and said, "We'll do this again tomorrow." The next day the question changed to "If this ice were perfect, with no flaws, how much volume would it consume when melted?"


Seriously though, I do feel that many of the arguments made about the human race's impact on global warming fall just short of being complete.

That's one that always seems to get left out.
Another is from a couple of posts in this thread: With regards to measuring CO2 in the bubbles in arctic ice and comparing that to CO2 levels today... Well, ever heard of the paradox of Shrodinger's Cat?

It addesses many different things related to quantum physics, but can be simplified to "The act of measuring something affects the subject being measured."

Apply that to the bubbles in the Arctic ice. No one has considered that measuring the bubble may have changed what they are. If they have considered it, they're not stating that as part of their argument. See? Just shy of complete.

Does measuring the bubbles change what they are? I don't know. But as someone else mentioned, scientists deal in theories. Nothing is ever completely proven.

Take that same idea about the CO2 bubbles in the arctic ice, combine that with another statement about how thousands of years ago, the ice cap reached as far south as Chicago.
Never mind that it's been melting for those thousands of years and likely a lot faster in the early part of that period. Just consider all of the ice that melted before the industrial revolution when man supposedly really started doing some damage. Where's all of the CO2 that was in that ice? Where did it come from? Why was the hole in the ozone over the arctic circle? Just shy of complete.

Don't take this as an argument against environmentalism. Take it as constructive criticismn to get complete facts and not just convenient facts before you try to state your case.

Personally, I think we could clean up this planet. We certainly have done some damage and that needs to be sorted out.
Do I think we're making it warmer? Maybe. But not to any extent that is significant.Especially compared to what the planet is doing on its own.

Another concern I have is with the fact that people seem to want to reduce pollution and energy consumption to stop global warming.
They are important enough to stand on their own. Let them.
No one is going to argue that things need to be cleaned up - except if they're footing the bill.
No one is going to argue that using less energy is a good thing - especially if they're footing the bill.
In my opinion, lumping them all together comes across as an alarmist tactic and dilutes the message behin the two causes.

A couple of final points that I've always thought interesting - they are a bit off topic but still interesting.
1. Did you know that 60% of the soot floating in the air over California comes from Asia?
2. Did you know that in terms of percentage of land mass, the U.S. has more wilderness than Africa?
I usually bring those points up when discussing the effects of gas guzzling cars and how most think North Americans are the worst offenders.
I don't raise them as points to argue. So, don't rebut them. I just think they are interesting.

[defiance]

Overwhelming majority? Where did you get that nugget of information? From Al Gore?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

[MichaelRW]

Overwhelming majority? Where did you get that nugget of information? From Al Gore?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Now that's a problem because it's a UN founded panel. Of course they want global warming. It's good for their view of the global order.

[AKcharger]

Are there any studies that support GW that are not funded by the govenment or enviromnetalist groups? ...just wondering

[John_Kunkel]

Fact: NOBODY posting in this thread has the education necessary to make a real, scientific judgement of Global Warming.

To paraphrase another contributor "careful. That's logical. You can't discuss global warming and be logical. It's against the rules."

I can't wait for this group to take on nuclear physics or the "string theory" or some other such subject that it's unlikely anybody here is qualified to voice an opinion about.

[bull]

Fact: NOBODY posting in this thread has the education necessary to make a real, scientific judgement of Global Warming.

To paraphrase another contributor "careful. That's logical. You can't discuss global warming and be logical. It's against the rules."

I can't wait for this group to take on nuclear physics or the "string theory" or some other such subject that it's unlikely anybody here is qualified to voice an opinion about.

Well, John, this is a car fan website. But I do find it interesting how we are considered so dumb for not freaking out over the latest apocalyptic hypothesis. Because, you know, it is a hypothesis.

[defiance]

There's no cause for "freaking out", but it is nonsensical to reject it, and potentially deadly to humanity.  Just act responsibly and support further research (into global warming, solutions, alternative energy sources, etc).  Then if it's wrong, you lose nothing but a little bit of effort.

As for support, American scientists were part of the group I mentioned above.- supported by our government, NOT the UN -which is currently VERY averse to the UN and environmental regulation.  In fact, there have been a number of government-funded scientists who have reported they were pressured by the US government to minimize verbiage which would support global warming in their documents and research.

Further, research costs money, and there are really only three major sources of funding - government, commercial, and private interest.  Between the three, commercial is generally most biased, followed by private interest, then government.  University-based research is basically a 'branch' of government-funded, since governments fund the universities, but the added layer of accountability leads me to believe they are the least biased source of research.  If you look at research funded and supported by universities, they overwhelmingly support global warming.

[Charger-Bodie]

There's no cause for "freaking out", but it is nonsensical to reject it, and potentially deadly to humanity.  Just act responsibly and support further research (into global warming, solutions, alternative energy sources, etc).  Then if it's wrong, you lose nothing but a little bit of effort.

As for support, American scientists were part of the group I mentioned above.- supported by our government, NOT the UN -which is currently VERY averse to the UN and environmental regulation.  In fact, there have been a number of government-funded scientists who have reported they were pressured by the US government to minimize verbiage which would support global warming in their documents and research.

Further, research costs money, and there are really only three major sources of funding - government, commercial, and private interest.  Between the three, commercial is generally most biased, followed by private interest, then government.  University-based research is basically a 'branch' of government-funded, since governments fund the universities, but the added layer of accountability leads me to believe they are the least biased source of research.  If you look at research funded and supported by universities, they overwhelmingly support global warming.

maybe our awesome govt should blast thru it with some space shuttles and see if that helps!!??!!   im with the SCIENTISTS who believe that this has been going on forever and the climate changes are just part of a pattern that none of us are in control of just like when they said freon was so bad then after more testing they discovered it dont float it falls ....buy by that time Dupont had a brand new pattend on it replacement r134a sound like greed motivated BS to me!!

[mikepmcs]

Wow defiance is well versed on all this.  Interesting indeed but... I'll still kill you if you come into my house or yard and try to sway me.
J/K you are welcome amytime.

[bull]

I don't think anyone here has said they are refusing to act responsibly or support further research but as I've said several times before there's a limit to how far the average Joe is going to go in supporting this hypothesis. If it's going to cost him more money from his already-strained budget he's going to give you the middle finger. If, on the other hand steps are made to where a Prius doesn't cost $9k more than a Yaris the average Joe will follow suit.

[no318]

I recently was at a seminar about the Yarus and Prius.  They were showing that at 15k miles/year @$2.50/gallon for gas, it would pay to get the hybrid after 18 years.  That is with NO extra maintainance cost AND assuming that its city MPG is as advertised.  Recently Automotive News had an article about the EPA rating the hybrids in a more accurate method to normal driving.  This is to LOWER their rating.  Keep in mind that they only utilize the electric motor to help MPG in city type driving.  Highway driving is the same MPG on both hybrid and non-hybrid.  It doesn't pencil out yet.  I hope that they become more efficient and less expensive to maintain, but for now they aren't practical. 

Also, the controversy about charging more tax/liscence fees for a hybrid since they don't pay as much "gas tax" which is used to maintain the roads.  Atleast here they are.  If the hybrids are using the same roads, shouldn't they help contribute to the cost of maintaining them? 

[pettyfan43]

I recently was at a seminar about the Yarus and Prius.  They were showing that at 15k miles/year @$2.50/gallon for gas, it would pay to get the hybrid after 18 years.  That is with NO extra maintainance cost AND assuming that its city MPG is as advertised.  Recently Automotive News had an article about the EPA rating the hybrids in a more accurate method to normal driving.  This is to LOWER their rating.  Keep in mind that they only utilize the electric motor to help MPG in city type driving.  Highway driving is the same MPG on both hybrid and non-hybrid.  It doesn't pencil out yet.  I hope that they become more efficient and less expensive to maintain, but for now they aren't practical. 

Also, the controversy about charging more tax/liscence fees for a hybrid since they don't pay as much "gas tax" which is used to maintain the roads.  Atleast here they are.  If the hybrids are using the same roads, shouldn't they help contribute to the cost of maintaining them? 

And Don't forget you get half the car for twice the money!!!!!!!!!!!

[pettyfan43]

maybe our awesome govt should blast thru it with some space shuttles and see if that helps!!??!!   im with the SCIENTISTS who believe that this has been going on forever and the climate changes are just part of a pattern that none of us are in control of just like when they said freon was so bad then after more testing they discovered it dont float it falls ....buy by that time Dupont had a brand new pattend on it replacement r134a sound like greed motivated BS to me!!

Dupont held a 100 year patent on R12 Freon. Well there was "evidence" that there was a problem with R12 Freon and it was a hazard that harmed the ozone layer (forget the fact that Freon and ALL THE CHEMICALS IN IT are heavier than oxygen and Carbon Dioxide - It FALLS, It DON'T RISE!)
SO  dupont "develops" a new better more "environmentally friendly" R134a. As a Sidenote, R134a is poisonus and EXPLOSIVE!

This all happens Right on the tailend of the patent on R12 running out and WOW Guess WHO holds the new 100 Year patent on R134a! Here's a SHOCKER- DUPONT
Yeah, THAT'S a coincidence!

[Big Lebowski]

Overwhelming majority? Where did you get that nugget of information? From Al Gore?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

  Fact: Your smog belching Charger will be crushed if the Kyoto treaty is ratified here in the US.

  Fact: The IPCC are a bunch of "POLICY" driven scientists.
 
  Fact: There are plenty of atmospheric scientists who are saying man is "not" the cause of global warming.

  Fact: Records clearly show temps rise and "THEN" the Co2 levels follow the temp. increases.

  Fact: Man did "NOT" cause the little ice age temps to rise 6 degrees from 1550-1850.

  Fact: Earth= 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% greenhouse gases

  Fact: 99% of that 1% of our greenhouse gases is water vapor (clouds & rain for those of you in Rio Linda)

  Fact: Co2 makes up 0.3% of our atmosphere, most of that was here before cave men drove mopars.

  Fact: If the worlds Co2 percentage is 0.3% of 1%, then man is accountable for 0.003% of that 0.3% of 1%

  Fact: Science mag. Nov. 1982..."Worlds termites generate far MORE than TWICE the amount of Co2 that man generates."

  Fact: Most of the Earth's 1 degree increase happened "BEFORE" 1945.

  Fact: China, India, and Mexico are "EXEMPT!!!!!" from the Kyoto treaty...So you figure out why "ALL" 97 US Senators voted No on the treaty.

  Fact: How do YOU explain the ending of the "little ice age"? 1450-1850, the Earth's temps fell 2-6 degrees, then warmed 2-6 degrees

  Fact: You can't say Mother nature caused the warming untill 1850, then evil humans raised it by another 1 degree. That's total bull crap.

  Fact: Of the 17 climate models, only 2 showed gloom and doom. GUESS which 2 models they use on the news every night?

  Fact: Questions from global warming skeptics are met with elitist, snobish, pin headed responses like "You're not a scientist, you can't understand"

  Fact: I'm well versed in Global warming fear mongering tactics, so bring it on.


      Oh, one last fact....Al Gore is a hipocrite, he uses 20% MORE electricity than the average American home. He also burns more jet fuel than "WE" ever will. Imagine that as YOUR Mopar goes into the crusher.

[defiance]

And you're calling proponents of Global Warming fearmongers?  Look in the mirror.  Too much typing to bother addressing, but as I said, I'll believe the vast majority of people who have spent their entire lives studying and researching climates over the detractors, who every time I check, have links back to fossil fuel financial interests.  Oh, and I'll keep my charger in my possession while I'm doing it, just as our friends in England, Venezuela, and many other countries have done.

[hemihead]

I recently was at a seminar about the Yarus and Prius.  They were showing that at 15k miles/year @$2.50/gallon for gas, it would pay to get the hybrid after 18 years.  That is with NO extra maintainance cost AND assuming that its city MPG is as advertised.  Recently Automotive News had an article about the EPA rating the hybrids in a more accurate method to normal driving.  This is to LOWER their rating.  Keep in mind that they only utilize the electric motor to help MPG in city type driving.  Highway driving is the same MPG on both hybrid and non-hybrid.  It doesn't pencil out yet.  I hope that they become more efficient and less expensive to maintain, but for now they aren't practical. 

Also, the controversy about charging more tax/liscence fees for a hybrid since they don't pay as much "gas tax" which is used to maintain the roads.  Atleast here they are.  If the hybrids are using the same roads, shouldn't they help contribute to the cost of maintaining them? 

It would pay to get the Hybrid after 18 years? That POS won't be running after 18 years.

[Ghoste]

And not only that, they are subsidized through the rest of the car line, so that every time someone buys a new Civic or Camry, some of the cost is inflated to allow them to help pay for the greenie who wants the hybrid.
And all just so Toyota and Honda can run to the press and say "look at us, we're SOOOOOOOOO much friendlier to the environment than those evil dirty breakdown prone overpriced American cars".  Too sadly, this works tremendously.

[73dodge]

Fact: NOBODY posting in this thread has the education necessary to make a real, scientific judgement of Global Warming.

To paraphrase another contributor "careful. That's logical. You can't discuss global warming and be logical. It's against the rules."

I can't wait for this group to take on nuclear physics or the "string theory" or some other such subject that it's unlikely anybody here is qualified to voice an opinion about.

Oh yea that's right we are just a bunch of dumb ass car guys with grease under our finger nails who sit with hammers and pound metal all day and everyone on here taken together has a collective IQ 1 point better than a cheese pizza.

None of us her are smart enough to research an issue and make qualified assessments of those issues. We should just defer to those really smart guys in universities and think tanks to just spoon feed us information and expect us to believe everything they say. I mean they spend all their day thinking about things we in the unwashed masses just sit in a corner all day and try to figure out how to stop the uncontrollable drooling and how to keep our knuckle from getting scrapped as we walk.

Really you liberals have more "faith" in your belief system than any foaming at the mouth Islamic radical that threatens death against anyone who dare challenges their dogma. Like many scientist who dare question the Global Warming myth have been sent death threats or any meteorologist who dares question this dogma will have their AMA seal revoked and be excommunicated from the church of accepted dogma.

We should just trust the scientist because after all absolutely none of them have a political ax to grind and are morally incapable of skewing data to fit their world view. I mean they are the high priests of society and if they say something is true than dern it us back water morons better believe them. Even though theories change all the time for all their accepted science and what ever the flavor of the day theory is they think of next we darn well better believe. Because if we don't then we are going to Hell and we should repent of his unbelief!!!

So according to JK us dumb car guys should stick to arguing about whether the new Charger should have 2 doors or 4 because none of us here are capable of looking at the collective study of Global Warming and make informed decisions.

[defiance]

I'm not a "dumb ass car guy", but I'm still not qualified to asses global climate trends.  Neither are you.  If you claim to be, I'd like to see your research and credentials.  Otherwise, you're doing exactly what you describe: defering to SOMEONE to just feed you information and believing everything they say.  The only question is, who is that someone.  If you check the sources of funding, who to believe becomes pretty clear.

[Ghoste]

Depending upon your personal inclinations.