This is where Global Warming is headed

[Dolby CP-200]

That's a pretty blanket statement CP, most (not all) people in the US depend on their cars for their livelihood, specially in cities where mass transportation is lacking. I couldn't perform my job depending on mass transportation, as I don't go from from point A to point B, my job puts me everywhere in between. I drive an average of 20 to 25,000 miles per year in the course of earning a living.

Whist polluting the air, I don’t blame you. It's just pity the earth has to suffer and the concrescences towards the damage to the O Zone layer is very delicate. I use leg power to get around most of the Bournemouth area I hardly use the yellow buses in this town because there’s no need when the main shopping areas and entrainment are within a 1 to 1 ½ miles distance from where I live.

If I had to travel long distances then so be it. But I don’t use it ever damn day of the week. the smell in London is enough to make your eyes water the fumes make me chock and cough it clogs up my nose and it fangs me to the teeth.

But no one but on one ever cares enough to see what where doing to this planet, has if we haven’t messed it enough already.

 

[darien87]

How so? The car goes 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. It's faster around a track then a Carerra GT, and it's 50 grand.

It sounds strange because you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have sports cars, yet that's what you drive. Are you saying you're going to give up your riced-out civic? So you say your car's fast, if it's fast, it can't get good gas mileage. And what are your emissions like? If you're going to tell people to give up their sports cars, start with yourself.

 

[Dolby CP-200]

Having a high performance sports car is like having a high performance PA sound system in the home the only difference is you’re not allowed to speed if you do you get nicked and you go to prison if you don’t cough up the fine. So what is the point I’d sooner have a high performance PA sound system at least it you’re not as tempted to do anything recklessly stupid and get nicked at the end of the day as you like with a sports car.

What about that place that’s called “White Sands” now that is a perfect place to race your sports car I guess without getting nicked!

 

[Highlander]

The car goes 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. It's faster around a track then a Carerra GT, and it's 50 grand.

Given the choice between the two I bet you'd still take the Carerra though.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Fear and hysteria of necessary change (some form of conservation) and the unknown. Hmmmph.

Yes, absolutely
We had/have a pest problem in the are and aerial spraying was conducted by the state. Some wanted 'Absolute Guarantee of safety' at the city council meeting and expressed in the paper. I should have asked if that person has a folder full of such guarantees from others before they venture into anything, driving, dining out, hiking, etc.
Another express the fears of Agent Orange like repercussions.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here is what I consider the definitive scientific response to man-made global warming: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/index.html

I have watched The Great Global Warming Swindle. Th most interesting feature is that the scientists interviewed in the video debunking the UN IPCC report ARE the same scientists listed as the authors of the IPCC report. They felt that their science and reputations had been arrogated for political purposes and they wanted this film to show that science cannot make the case for man-made global warming.

To repeat, the scientists listed as authors of the UN report believe that the report is a political document that ignores the science and is basically a lie.

I didn't watch that DVD. How many scientists were interviewed? Were there others who prepared the UN report? Are there other scientists on the planet who is an expert in the fields of climatology who in fact supports the human caused and accelerating conditions of global warming?
Perhaps you latched onto a few that you agree with and happens to have been part of the signatories to a report? Certainly far from a definitive proof of your position.

 

[tbewick]

And to think......

It was only 30 years ago that the same Kook establishment was proposing the covering of our poles in black. Ya know..... so the Earth may absorb heat to counter the pollution induced man-made ice age. The same idiots waved their arms frantically predicting how billions & billions will die because of man-made cooling. They were calling for more government regulation of the private sector & higher taxes because human activity was to blamed for the cooling trend (and approaching ice age)...HeHeHe.

On one hand you have the kook tree-huggers who fantasize about sending technology back to the stone age so they may experience a cleaner mother earth......on the other hand....you've got leftists governments who long for bigger government and more extensive control over everything. Hey...what a perfect opportunity to advance our "Government Control" agenda!!!!

One thing is certain...... when the next cooling trend becomes reality, the same kook establishment will be calling for more government intervention, higher taxes, they'll predict billions will die, and it will be all mans fault.

Hi Buckeye_Nut,

Global warming is a fact - it is there in the global temperature record and its effects can be seen in the natural environment*. The attribution of human activities to the observed warming cannot be unequivocally established, although the positive attribution has wide support among climate scientists.

I think there are certainly enormous difficulties in making forecasts of the future. It appears, however, that many people are vulnerable to climate change, particularly those living countries with hot, tropical climates**.

I think it makes sense for measures designed to to slow climate change to be proportionate. Placing too high a value on slowing climate change would divert resources away from other, more worthy causes***. Having an excessive economic penalty for carbon usage would be counterproductive. Firstly, it would not be politically feasible, secondly, it would hinder economic growth. Maintaining economic growth is a way to reduce future generations' vulnerability to climate change.

* IPCC Working Group II fourth assessment report, summary for policymakers, 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf

** Tol, R.S.J., S.Fankhauser, R.G. Richels and J.B. Smith (2000), 'How Much Damage Will Climate Change Do? Recent Estimates', FNU-2,Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University, Hamburg.
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/worldecon1.pdf

*** 'Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures', by Joseph Aldy, Scott Barrett and Robert Stavins. Working Paper Number:RWP03-012. Submitted: 03/03/2003. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP03-012/$File/rwp03_012_stavins.pdf

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Placing too high a value on slowing climate change would divert resources away from other, more worthy causes.

Good point. There are a lot of potential ecological crises worse than climate change. One is not having enough clean drinking water where it is needed. Another is deforestation (and the subsequent reduction of oxygen content in the air.) A third is pollution (some Chinese cities are already approaching the point of being unfit for human habitation due to air quality.) The worst may be the severe drop in the bee population (if bees are gone, all crops will fail.)
This list only scratches the surface.

 

[Davemcc]

I didn't watch that DVD. How many scientists were interviewed? Were there others who prepared the UN report? Are there other scientists on the planet who is an expert in the fields of climatology who in fact supports the human caused and accelerating conditions of global warming?
Perhaps you latched onto a few that you agree with and happens to have been part of the signatories to a report? Certainly far from a definitive proof of your position.

The video is 40 minutes long and interviews of number of the leading climatologists in the world, those considered elite among their peers. It examines the history of the global warming movement and the scientific evidence from both modern and historically based evidence, including the ice cores that played such a pivotal role in Gore's movie.

So far my position is simply that this is the definitive scientific response to man-made global warming. I think it should be viewed by both pro and anti man-made global warming advocates. I don't think that anybody should rely on my opinion, but review the evidence including this video and decide for themselves.

 

[Fred333]

I think the man made issue is a definite concern, but my poit would be how do we not know that is might be the natural cycle of the earth? I mean it happened before with an ice age and a "dethaw", who's say that we are doing some bad things? Scientist that weren't around when it happened before? Don't get me wrong I am not for pollution but just throwing another view point out there.

 

[annunaki]

It sounds strange because you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have sports cars, yet that's what you drive. Are you saying you're going to give up your riced-out civic? So you say your car's fast, if it's fast, it can't get good gas mileage. And what are your emissions like? If you're going to tell people to give up their sports cars, start with yourself.

The Ariel Atom uses a 2.0L i-vtec motor from Honda. The engine, when driven conservatively, can easily get 30+ miles to the gallon in it's current configuration. The Atom has such impressive performance due to it's excellent HP-to-weight ratio. 3.67BHP for every 16.1lbs. With a 200lbs. driver the power to weight ratio goes to just 3.67BHP to 19.43lbs

http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/04/frames.htm

 

[jonnythan]

If you want to go that fast, why not get a motorcycle and get even better fuel economy?

 

[annunaki]

In regards to Global Warming, we are constantly only exposed to one side of the argument. We are never exposed to much research that points to a natural climactic cycle.

More than half of published scientists do not believe "Global Warming" exists. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

Findings from Greenland recently may suggest there is more hype to the melting of icecaps as well. http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

Most realistic research has found this to be a natural warming trend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

You won't ever see this research brought to light because the media loves the scare tactic of "Global Warming". If you telll a big enough lie long enough it becomes truth.

The biggest issue I see with global warming is that too many people no longer think for themselves or question why they should believe a certain way.

Now, do I feel that we can take better care of our planet and resources, yes. There are many ways to start saving. I do not feel that there should be mass hysteria and high taxes on carbon emissions, ect. We need to implement a long term plan to get off of fossil fuels and concentrate more on renewable energy. In the short term, we need to keep current energy pricing in check while ridding ourselves of dependence on foriegn oil. With a 10 yr. plan in place to get off of our dependence on oil we could use our own oil reserves (in that 10 yr. span) and drill if needed into our own oil supplies. In that time we would need to encourage our auto makers to start coming up with alternative vehicle solutions that do not rely on gasoline or ethanol. Offer them a tax break to get them (vehicles) out within 10 yrs. Have the government work with the auto makers to encourage alternative vehicle production. Offer them a reward of no taxes paid for one year for the first one that comes up with an affordable mass produced vehicle solution that operates more or less the same as a current automobile.

After that 10 yr. span, allow a 5-10 yr. time frame for fossil fueled vehicle to work their way off the roads.

Of course this probably won't happen because the oil companies will forbid it. Not to mention they have their hooks into nearly everyone in Washington. Our political situation would need to change to where they actually represent America and it citizens, but that is another discusion.


We should also build a few more nuclear power plants to reduce the consumption of coal. With all of the measures that are in place in modern nuclear plants, a meltdown can only occur if it is done on purpose.

I could go on but I do not feel like typing anymore.

 

[annunaki]

If you want to go that fast, why not get a motorcycle and get even better fuel economy?

Safety my friend. I would rather have a reliable crash structure around me as well as be fastened to the machine. 4 wheels on the ground are better than two.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Safety my friend. I would rather have a reliable crash structure around me as well as be fastened to the machine. 4 wheels on the ground are better than two.

Not to mention that motorcycles are fun in good weather, but suuuuck in bad weather.

 

[annunaki]

Not to mention that motorcycles are fun in good weather, but suuuuck in bad weather.

With some Rain-X on the visor of your helmet, the Atom could be A LOT of fun in the wet if you do not mind getting soaked.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

If the use of alternative fuels is not fully in place (including the infrastructure for distribution) when the oil runs out, we will be in major trouble.
Yes, that is when the oil runs out, not if.
Also, even if pollution from cars, factories, etc. is not significantly contributing to global warming (which must be determined by science and is not a matter of opinion or politics), it is still not a good thing and we would be better off without it.

 

[jonnythan]

Not to mention that motorcycles are fun in good weather, but suuuuck in bad weather.

As if the Ariel Atom is any different?

 

[annunaki]

If the use of alternative fuels is not fully in place (including the infrastructure for distribution) when the oil runs out, we will be in major trouble.
Yes, that is when the oil runs out, not if.
Also, even if pollution from cars, factories, etc. is not significantly contributing to global warming (which must be determined by science and is not a matter of opinion or politics), it is still not a good thing and we would be better off without it.

It will be many many years before oil runs out. I have a cousin that is a geologist who works for an oil company. He claims they have loads of oil that has not yet been tapped that will last for many, many, years. Oil is still being made to some degree as well. Definitely not as much or as fast as it is used that is for sure. That is beside the point though.

I agree that we need to put the proper infrastructure into place. That is key to removing ourselves from it's grips.

 

[jonnythan]

Oil is not going to just run out one day.

It will slowly get more and more expensive as the supply dwindles and we resort to more expensive efforts to extract it (coal shale, deep ocean drilling, etc).

Eventually it will get so expensive, and alternatives get so inexpensive, that a switch will begin.