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

[73dodge]

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.

It's not just funding my friend, a persons personal belief can be allowed to skew your research. Do sit an believe that every scientist is operating from a altruistic motive. Many have an underlying belief that western civilization or the modern industrial countries are the cause for all the problems in world. That's why they attack the US and then give China a pass. We have some of the cleanest factories in the world and they still want more government intervention and regulations to put the screws to our manufacturing businesses but China spews tons of filth into the air and they do not say a word about it. And that is because you will never force China to clean up their factories voluntarily.

So just because you have a piece of paper on the wall that says scientist does not mean you do not have personal biases that can come into play when you are doing research.

You also need to look at the other side in this debate and look at what they are saying. You can asses a theory and be allowed to question anything else. But do you hear about people that question the Global Warming paradigm? You hear that those scientist, well respected I might add, are compared to people who believe the earth is flat. They are mocked and ridiculed and told that they should be stripped of their credentials even though they have looked at the same data that the Global Warming people have.

The problem is that you just only hear from the ones who say that this is a fact and that man caused it. What do you know about the arguments against man made global warming? Or do you also agree with the doomsday conclusions? How do they know what will happen in 20 years? Remember that 30 years ago the scientific community was saying by 2007 the world would be shrouded in pollution and the sun would be blacked out. Or the other prediction the biggest one I remember was at the end of the first gulf war, the whole scientific community and every major news outlet in the world predicted that if Saddam blew up all the oil wells in Kuwait the smoke from the fires would blanket the planet and cause a nuclear winter. When that did happen none of those prediction came true.

I look at both sides of the issue and draw my own conclusions

[pettyfan43]

Like I said before.....

You can not use logic to argue with an environmentalist. It does not work, they will not see anything from ANY other view other than their own.

They are elitists and smarter than anybody else. NOBODY shall argue wih them, once the mind is made up, it shall never change. The environmentalists are incapable of giving you the courtesy of seeing ANY OTHER side of the issue. Never mind if you have looked at both sides and come to your OWN conclusion, if you don't believe what they do, you are an idiot and not qualified to even argue the point. They even refuse to admit that it is a theory and have just decided that it is a fact.

If you believe it is different, you need to prove you are qualified to believe that.  I mean the scientists and ALARMISTS have never been wrong before, don't believe all that history about the global cooling and nuclear winters caused by oil field fires, they made a mistake there, THIS is real! 

Just my two cents worth, but this is like the boy who cried wolf. Every 8-10 years, liberals and environmentalists have to come up with SOMETHING to keep people scared. They have to have a cause that the current people in charge won't deal with.  Every decade it is something new. Artificially creating a fear of a big bad problem that we must fix, is BIG BUSINESS. Remember Y2K and how our country was gonna go into shambles at 12:01 on 1/1/2000?  Remember Daylight Saving time last week (the computers can't handle it!!!!!!) My goodness how hard do these people think it is to adjust a damn clock?

Remember global COOLING 30 years ago? I remember being taught this "FACT" when I was in school, how scientists had come to a CONSENSUS that we were going into a new ICE AGE! In other words we have heard it all before.  Pardon us if we are not exactly jumping up and reaching for that big glass of Kool Aid.

ANd save the rhetoric, this is my opinion based on history, and my past personal experience and what I have seen in my 40 years here on this old rock. I am detail oriented by my very nature. when something does not make sense, it doesn't make sense.  I know BS when I hear it and I know a blow pipe when I meet one.

[AKcharger]

  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.

Holy Smokes...talk about givin 'em both barrels!

...Ditto 

[Charger_Fan]

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. 

I heard that too & wrote down the website they gave to check out the new MPG stats; http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

[Charger_Fan]

Speaking of the wonderful save-all Prius...http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

"The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate 'green car' is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer..." 

[John_Kunkel]

  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.

Once again the word "fact" gets a new interpretation.

[dodgecharger-fan]

According to last night's news, candles are the real culprit...

They actually did an investigative report (A.K.A. Someone thought it would make interesting news mainly because no one knew the answer while sitting in the editorial bull session.) about how candles emit particulates when burned. 
No! Really! A chemical reaction involving combustion that emits particulates! I would have never guessed.
And it's worse when you blow the candle out and you see all that smoke! Hang on! You mean to say there's more particulate matter in the air in the presence of visible smoke than when there isn't?
Let's pay a guy a lot of money to bring in gadget and measure that. Yeah! Then we'll put it on the 6 o'clock news.

How in the hell is that news?! Of course candles emit particulates. And gasses. It's combustion for crying out loud!
But now that they've done their investigative report, candles are bad. Anyone here work at a candle factory? Kiss your job good bye.

Ah but it's not really "news." It's a product of the media. I forgot. They're two different things.



Anyway, to get back on to topic here:  I'll bet the environmentalists are glad we've got electricity and light bulbs. Imagine the sorry state we'd be in if we were all still burning candles.
What are the environmentalists that make their own candles feeling right now? 

Can I pass you the margarine?

[bear]

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.

what do you want to bet that he doesn't believe in global warming

[Khyron]

If methane is also responsible for global warming. this thread just set Earth up about 10 more degrees 

[Khyron]

I just checked it for NY. I swear to god I'm thinking about buying this plate for the Charger .... Thanks for the inspiration guys!

[mikepmcs]

NICE!!! Get it now if you can.. My plate says JOE DIRT!(cause I am)

But I really like your gig right there.


v/r
Mike

[pettyfan43]

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.

what do you want to bet that he doesn't believe in global warming

NOT ONLY THAT, but he buys "pollution credits" (WTH is that?) from a  "company" so he can "offset his carbon footprint".

Oh the company he BUYS his "pollution credits" from is one founded by AL GORE and is nothing more than a paper company that he is the chairman of. It's all paper shuffling and BS designed to make ALGORE money and gain him publicity. 


Come on, if you REALLY expect people to buy this crap, at LEAST be creative!


The worst thing, is the people who truly buy into ALGORE's whole inconvenient truth BS, I can't be mad at em, I just feel sorry for em.

I mean come on, show me some substantial proof that you really are serious or shut the hell up.

ALGORE has absolutely ZERO credibility, he is a FRAUD, pure and simple.

[Big Lebowski]

  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.

Once again the word "fact" gets a new interpretation.

  Allright cool, the fish jumped on the hook. Please feel free to disprove any of my alleged facts. You see, you're not understanding where these "facts" come from. BTW....

   These whack job facts come from a book called "Hot Talk-Cold Science". It was written by a "fact interpreter" named S. Fred Singer. This nut job is a pioneer in satellites, he designed the first satellite instrument for measuring atmopheric ozone.
     S. Fred Singer received his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is also Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, and Pres. of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.
    Dr. Singer is Professor Emeritus of Enviromental Science at the University of Virginia; Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science & Technology; and Distinguished Reasearch Professor at George Mason University.
    Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U.S. Dept. of transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Dept. of the Interior; (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U.S. Weather Sat Center.......Shall I go on?

  Ya, this guys "facts" need to be "Interpreted" because he's obviously a whack job hack for the oil industry. Right?

[bull]

According to last night's news, candles are the real culprit...

Cool! So let's just blame everyone who used candlelight to see at night prior to Thomas Edison's invention (some of the same turkeys who killed the Indians and/or herded them onto reservations) and we can finally be done with this debate.

[Recharger]

I have to agree there, Pettyfan43.  Lots of people are quick to point fingers at the skeptics of human-induced global warming as being puppets of Big Oil and only furthering an agenda.  That's a very hypocritical view, I think.  What about the chicken littles like Gore and the researchers who publish gloom and doom commentaries with their "scienctific" studies?  They're doing the same thing, for the same reason:  money, power and influence.  That's right, big Al has an agenda too.  Anyone who thinks he's on this soapbox so the earth will be .002 degrees cooler after he's dead is just being naive, imo.  He won't care about the temperature of the earth once he's in it any more than I will.  He's on this soapbox to win over a certain voting base to get himself back into power in D.C. 

And as for the funding argument, who do you think funds these studies that predict the gloom and doom?  I'm sure you'd find ties to companies, industries, and politicians with less-than-noble motives and definite financial interests in Americans having to "go green" with their cars, light bulbs, refrigerants and whatever else they can think of.  Think about the number of American companies with a financial interest in seeing us all blamed and shamed into to having to buy "earth-friendly" (and often inferior) products.  You think they have any influence in D.C.?  Nah, it's only the big evil oil contingent that could possibly have an ulterior motive, right?     Those companies are all drooling at the chance to produce new products with labels like 'low-flow,' 'energystar,' 'eco-whatever,' and charge you a premium price mark-up for it.  You can bet they and their lobbyists are shoveling lotsa money into this hype machine. 

Bottom line is, there is financial and political influence on both sides of this issue and ALL scientific research has some sort of bias to it, as someone already mentioned.  Even the noblest hippie scientist needs to prove something is worthwhile about his research so he can get his grant renewed and keep paying the bills.  ALL scientific data has to be interpreted, and anyone can attempt to spin data to fit their purpose.  If the conclusion of a research project doesn't show some sort of importance, its grant proposal will be rejected and it's going to lose its funding.  Scientists are frequently guilty of trumping up the potential importance of their studies, to "keep in business" and get more grant $$. 

I've been a scientist in the research world, and while I'm no authority on climatology, I do know how to read a scientific study and interpret results.  The bottom line is conclusive evidence, and so far there doesn't seem to be any in this matter.  Any scientific study worth a damn needs a control model to compare against the study model, and that's kinda hard to do when you're studying long-term climate progression on an entire planet.  As a result there are no authoritative conclusions being made - just conjecture and theories.  And that's all this blame game is - a theory. 

And as usual, it's the politicians and media who make the worst of every situation, and cram the whole "change your ways" guilt trip down your throat, before a definitive conclusion has been found.   ...And I'll be damned if I'm going to deal with lameass underpowered cars and dim flickery lightbulbs because of someone's political agenda.   

[68chrgrwife]

I just checked it for NY. I swear to god I'm thinking about buying this plate for the Charger .... Thanks for the inspiration guys!

dude that is awesome...I want one for ca....

[71ChallengeHer]

I just checked it for NY. I swear to god I'm thinking about buying this plate for the Charger .... Thanks for the inspiration guys!

That's great. How about GAS-HOG

[defiance]

    Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U.S. Dept. of transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Dept. of the Interior; (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U.S. Weather Sat Center.......Shall I go on?

  Ya, this guys "facts" need to be "Interpreted" because he's obviously a whack job hack for the oil industry. Right?

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Care to try again?

[Ghoste]

So his opinions can't count based on who he worked for 14 years ago??  With oil companies being public enemy number one in this entire sham do you really think they would pay for studies that help put their head in the noose?  Why is it so unreasonable for them to want to fund REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which support their side of an unproven theory?   Instead of worrying about who funded his research, disprove what he has found.  If you had come forward with a sworn affidavit from last week or something that stated Singer has reviewed the latest material on climate research and has changed his position, that becomes something relevant to be considered.
Do the gun control lobbyists hire people from the NRA to review their findings on crime statistics?

[AKcharger]

    Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U.S. Dept. of transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Dept. of the Interior; (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U.S. Weather Sat Center.......Shall I go on?

  Ya, this guys "facts" need to be "Interpreted" because he's obviously a whack job hack for the oil industry. Right?

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Care to try again?

Where can we find a copy of this/what is your reference?
Was this before or after his current research that Big L quoted?
Was his climate change research "global" or part of a local environmetal impact study for a new pipeline or something?
Why did he have to make a sworn statement? people don't just go around making sworn statements for fun...what was the context?

Thanks!

[pettyfan43]

As I said, Logic does NOT work and anybody who disagrees with it is wrong and not credible at all.

Doesn't matter the guy's credentials, since actually did some work for an oil company 14 years ago, nothing he said matters. To the believers in this crap and the liberals/Democrats, if you disagree with them, you are inherently wrong, they are much smarter than us.

Don't dare use common sense. That is just playing dirty. 

I love how all this stuff is being said, all these points being made but the whole thing is null over a job he had 14 years ago..

Yep that makes sense.

[pettyfan43]

    Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U.S. Dept. of transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Dept. of the Interior; (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U.S. Weather Sat Center.......Shall I go on?

  Ya, this guys "facts" need to be "Interpreted" because he's obviously a whack job hack for the oil industry. Right?

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Care to try again?

Where can we find a copy of this/what is your reference?
Was this before or after his current research that Big L quoted?
Was his climate change research "global" or part of a local environmetal impact study for a new pipeline or something?
Why did he have to make a sworn statement? people don't just go around making sworn statements for fun...what was the context?

Thanks!

Not to mention, JUST because he was working for those oil companies at that time, that means it's all wrong? COME ON!!!!!!!!! That is absolutely ridiculous.

[defiance]

As I said before, I (or you) do not have the experience and education to make judgements about climate, so I must base my judgement on what researchers are more credible.  When the majority states that something is happening, and the minority that says otherwise can almost always be traced back in one way or another to a contributor with a direct financial stake in maintaining our use of fossil fuels, it is only logical to believe that the majority is less biased, and therefore more credible.
Rave on about that being illogical 

[Ghoste]

In YOUR opinion.  Some of us have done EXACTLY the same thing as you but have come to a different conclusion.
Go on and rave about THAT being illogical.

[pettyfan43]

In YOUR opinion.  Some of us have done EXACTLY the same thing as you but have come to a different conclusion.
Go on and rave about THAT being illogical.

See that is the problem right there, the people who believe this stuff, and it has been my experience with liberals in general, is that they automatically believe without a shadow of a doubt that you and I are idiots, and they are more intelligent than anyone else. We aren't capable of arguing with them because we don't agree with them. WHich is why I said what I did about using logic to argue with them.

THERE CAN BE NO CONESNSUS when it comes to science, if there is, it means the research and investigation has stopped! They are playing theories as truths.

AlGore's followers REFUSE to see him for what he really is and how he really works!