Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

It is a fact, from my observation, that Walter enjoys trying to make America and at least some American A2K members look bad or foolish or behind the times and will frequently use some cut and paste he found to do that. I can't recall many, if any, of his posts that were complimentary about America or those A2K members. But that's his prerogative.

I would not describe his posts as rants though. It's just something he does. Everybody needs a hobby.....

.....
But do we need more fuel efficient cars? Sure. I drive one. And I also know that a big car that carries more people is sometimes more fuel efficient that two little cars necessary to carry the same amount of people.

There are all sorts of factors that must be considered to get an accurate picture of the real situation.

Agreed on Walter. I believe Walter to be a very nice guy, but he just has some typical European styled superior mindset thrown in when it comes to how he views the U.S. Thats okay, we would probably be biased somewhat if we lived there in the same situation. It is our job here to give him a balancing and more accurate perspective on the U.S.

In regard to cars, you bring up a very good point, Foxfyre, in that you need to see how cars are used to know whether they are efficient or not. A gas guzzling truck may be much more efficient than a roller skate if the roller skate is driven 100 miles round trip commute to a useless government job vs the truck being used to help produce products used by many, many people. I had a friend that argued that huge SUVs should be outlawed. My argument was that the market should be the final arbitor of the situation. For example, I should have every right to own a gas guzzler if I wish to pay for the gas. I might live only 1 mile from work and drive a gas guzzler to work in comfort because I like to purchase landscaping materials or lumber and haul them home after work, whereas the tree hugger may choose to live 35 miles from work and drive a roller skate to work, then brag about being ecologically aware. The truth is I am saving more fuel than him by virtue of where I choose to live and work. There are many more choices concerning saving energy than what kind of vehicle we drive.

The free market is beautiful because it disciplines each citizen in how he wishes to allocate his resources, including where he chooses to save on energy costs. The situation is different for each person, and therefore it is obvious that each person is best suited to make the best personal decisions that fit his pocketbook and personal family needs, not the government.

0 Replies

When Mr. Walter Hinteler posted his evidence that the USA was polluting because of its many automobiles, I REBUTTED HIS POST BY MAKING THE THREE POINTS BELOW:

l. Take care of your own country first which is building so many huge coal fired power stations that it will soon be the leading polluter in Europe

2. Most countries in the EU HAVE NOT MET THEIR KYOTO TARGETS FOR LESSENING POLLUTION. Since Germany is a member of the EU and the USA is not, Mr. Hinteler should take care of his own problems first.

3. It has been shown repeatedly that automobiles which are downsized to save gas are very dangerous for its occupants. A drive to get people into smaller cars will mean the loss of thousands of lives per year which need not have happened.

MR. WALTER HINTELER DID NOT , I REPEAT, DID NOT, REBUT MY ASSERTIONS.

See below:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walter Hinteler takes the USA to task because it produces pollution from its automobile exhausts.

There are three reasons why Mr., Walter Hinteler is not quite accurate in his depiction of the USA,( which he knows almost nothing about since he does not live there,) and I will outline them for you.

First of all, Mr. Walter Hinteler's Germany will soon become one of the highest polluters in Europe-

New York Times-- Juen 20, 2006---P. l-Title of Article-

For Europe, a Green Self-Image Clashes with a Reliance on Coal

quote-

But the new plant, which will be just a demonstration model, pales next to the EIGHT COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS GERMANY PLANS TO BUILD FOR COMMERCIAL USE BETWEEN FROM NOW TO 2001---NONE OF THEM CARBON-FREE.

end of quote

I respectfully ask Mr. Walter Hinteler to mind his own business. In this case, his own business is taking care of the country he lives in FIRST and then when his country meets the standards he apparently wants, turn his attention to the USA.

Second, Mr. Walter Hinteler is most probably not aware that some of the countries in Europe are Hypocrites on the alleged CO2 problem.

As signatories to the KYOTO PROTOCOL, they P R O M I S E D to lower their emissions. As of this time the following is the shameful record of some of the countries in the EU---

International Energy Association estimates of the INCREASES since 1990. The European countries will miss their 2008-2012 targets since they have not cut back but have increased emissions of CO2-

Who are the villains?

Increase- France-6.9% Italy -8.3% Greece--28.2 % Ireland 40.3%

The Netherlands-13.2% Portugal- 59% Spain--46,9 %

SOURCE FOR ABOVE--- Robert Samuelson- Greenhouse Hypocrisy--Wednesday Juen 29, 2005- Washington Post--Page A21

Since Mr, Walter Hinteler lives in the EU, I respectfully suggest that he work to get those countries to meet the goals they had ENDORSED WITH THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE KYOTO PROTOCOL IN 1990.

and finally, I don't know if Mr. Walter Hinteler realizes that he is really pressing for the death of more people in automobile accidents.

According to Mr. Steve Chapman, Syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune in an article on July 26, 2001 says that a 1989 study by Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institute and John Graham of Harvard, "Existing fuel economy standards, which militated against heavier and larger automobiles and pressed for smaller vehicles caused an extra 3,900 fatalities for that year.

Mr, Chapman writes:

Maybe it might be worthwhile to sacrifice some livers today to avoid climate change later. But we could do all this and NOT MAKE ANY APPRECIABLE CONTRIBUTION TO PREVENTING GLOBAL WARMING. Though for anyone lying in a grave, the world wil certainly seem colder."

I am quite certain that Mr. Walter Hinteler will not directly rebut those points above. He may present another periopheral account but will not rebut the points above.

0 Replies

the last two posts from okie and Bernard display an amazing amount of ignorance. If Walter sometimes comes across as being condescending towards the US and American attitudes its not difficult to see why when considering these posts.

It may indeed be too late to ward off the serious consequences of burning so much fossil fuel so quickly. But future generations, whilst they may curse us might find some compassion at least for those of us who recognised there was a problem. Not so for the rapacious exploiters of the worlds resources and the policy makers who let them get away with it.

Nobody disputes the science. Global warming is a fact its anthropogenic. Carbon dioxide is a green house gas. Every year we release into the atmosphere CO2 that took approximately one million years[/i] to be captured by plant and animal matter that became oil and gas.

(The oil of course is running out, and the competition for what remains is becoming fierce. But who cares about tomorrow when you've got the worlds most powerful military eh)

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

When Mr. Walter Hinteler posted his evidence that the USA was polluting because of its many automobiles,

It's not my eveidence - I've tried to explain at three times - but that of an US-American organisation

BernardR wrote:

There are three reasons why Mr., Walter Hinteler is not quite accurate in his depiction of the USA,( which he knows almost nothing about since he does not live there,) and I will outline them for you.

See above

BernardR wrote:

First of all, Mr. Walter Hinteler's Germany will soon become one of the highest polluters in Europe

Nonsense, all known data - especially those from your quotation - say different.

BernardR wrote:

I respectfully ask Mr. Walter Hinteler to mind his own business. In this case, his own business is taking care of the country he lives in FIRST and then when his country meets the standards he apparently wants, turn his attention to the USA.

Is this something I missed when accepting my membership here? Or are you saying such in anticipation of a new member regulation you developped? (Which obviously excludes yourself since you don't have to mind your own business.)

0 Replies

okie wrote:

It is our job here to give him a balancing and more accurate perspective on the U.S.

You think, I could spend the money I pay for my Washington Times and Wall Street Journal subscription for something better?
I would agree but looking at the alternatives you offer ...

0 Replies

Back to the topic.

From today's Chcago Tribune (section 1, page 4; online HERE)

Quote:

Buildup of gases won't sharply boost crops, study says

By Michael Hawthorne
Tribune staff reporter

Scientists had thought that there was one potential upside to global warming: more food to feed the world.

Years of laboratory tests led them to believe that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could fertilize food crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat and rice, offsetting the plant-damaging effects of higher global temperatures and less rainfall.

But a new study with field tests in Illinois and other spots around the globe is challenging that assumption, suggesting that any increase in crop yields due to the buildup of greenhouse gases would be modest or non-existent.

Lower-than-expected yields could have dire consequences for the world's food supply, the study's authors concluded. They called for more research into plant varieties that could withstand the atmospheric assault.

The prevailing scientific wisdom has been repeatedly cited in government projections on food supplies and by Bush administration officials who oppose mandatory limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases.

continue

0 Replies

Quote:

Authors of the new University of Illinois study, published Friday in the journal Science, said their findings are more accurate because they mimic predicted atmospheric changes in farm fields. Instead of growing plants in a greenhouse, the researchers set up plots surrounded by rings of tubes that spray carbon dioxide and ozone over the crops.

They found that corn yields didn't increase at all when the air over the plots contained the amount of carbon dioxide projected to be lingering in the atmosphere by 2050. Increases in wheat and soybean yields were about half of what was previously thought.

"These results are very important," said Bert Drake, a plant pathologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center who was not involved in the study. "There hasn't been much of an effort to develop plants that will respond to projected conditions."

By the middle of the century, cars, power plants, factories and other sources are expected to boost the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 50 percent from current levels.

Although that is expected to lead to higher global temperatures, it also could increase the photosynthesis of plants.

Tests conducted at U. of I. plots south of Champaign and in Arizona, New Zealand, Japan and Switzerland found that those potential benefits are limited by the ability of many crop varieties to absorb more carbon.

The new study, financed in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, comes a few days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether carbon dioxide should be regulated as an air pollutant.

If the high court agrees with a coalition of states and environmental groups that sued the government, automakers could be forced to build cars and trucks that emit less pollution.

President Bush vowed during the 2000 campaign to impose mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, but he abandoned that pledge soon after taking office and now says that technological advances eventually will solve the problem.

Many scientists say there is more than enough evidence to suggest immediate action is needed to prevent rapid changes in global temperatures. Forty senators, including Illinois Democrats Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, sent a letter to Bush on Thursday, calling for government-imposed limits on heat-trapping gases, which come mostly from the burning of coal and oil.

Industry groups have long argued that increasing carbon dioxide levels aren't harmful and actually benefit the planet by boosting crop yields. One of those groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, recently ran television ads that ended with the tagline "Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life."

The field studies "are different from earlier lab and chamber results in a consistent and disturbing way," wrote David Schimel, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., in a commentary accompanying the new study. Schimel was not involved in the research.

Elizabeth Ainsworth, U. of I. plant biologist and co-author of the study, said the results should encourage seed companies to test new varieties that can withstand higher carbon dioxide levels and perhaps thrive in them.

"This is a step toward improving our projections for crop yields and food supplies," Ainsworth said.

"I don't think it's too soon to start breeding for crops that will take advantage of these conditions."

0 Replies

okie wrote-

Quote:

The free market is beautiful because it disciplines each citizen in how he wishes to allocate his resources, including where he chooses to save on energy costs.

That's a bit naive okie.

Where is the free market when voters put in politicians to do their bidding.

A free market would insist upon the price of petrol containing all the costs of using it. The coal that was sold from the Aberfan mine did not contain the full cost of its production like the price of nuclear generated electricity does not contain its proper cost which is being passed on to our children and grandchildren just so we can continue with the narcissistic binge.

0 Replies

And furthermore okie it is the narcissistic binge which is driving you to such extreme forms of sophistry (kindergarten sophistry of course) as you employed in attempting to argue that a free market is what it suits you to think it is.

0 Replies

Why do people keep posting photographs when they damn well know it makes the thread difficult to concentrate upon.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Why do people keep posting photographs when they damn well know it makes the thread difficult to concentrate upon.

Because I quoted and it's in that quote because it's in the original published report.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Why do people keep posting photographs when they damn well know it makes the thread difficult to concentrate upon.

I don't have any problem with photographs, but I do have problems with huge photographs that stretch the page and makes it hard to read the text.

The text of the story however raises a lot of questions with me. As an amateur gardener I like to raise tomatoes and sometimes corn and cucumbers and melons and I am a great lover of pretty flowers. With absolutely no scientific expertise in this whatsoever, I however can observe that some years the melons are amazling large and other years they don't do as well. Some years five tomato plants will supply the neighborhood and some years just keep up with our family. There are so many variables: humidity, air temperature, insects, quality of the fertilizer, amount of rain/water available, etc. that all factor into it.

I think one would have to measure crop yields over a period of decades to come to any scientific conclusion that there was any change or no change in yields due to the amount of CO2 in the air.

I think to a scientist, certainty should be a very big word. And I think those claiming certainty about any of this, ocnsidering that the theories are by no means universally accepted at this time, should rethink that fixed position.

I still have no opinion re the anthropogenic theory of global warming. I still think a closed mind on this subject is not likely to receive the truth about it when that becomes available. And I am not convinced that the 'politically correct' opinion on this is the correct one.

0 Replies

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/movies/28kill.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
June 28, 2006
MOVIE REVIEW
'Who Killed the Electric Car?': Some Big Reasons the Electric Car Can't Cross the Road
By MANOHLA DARGIS

A murder mystery, a call to arms and an effective inducement to rage, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is the latest and one of the more successful additions to the growing ranks of issue-oriented documentaries. Like Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" and the better nonfiction inquiries into the war in Iraq, this information-packed history about the effort to introduce and keep electric vehicles on the road wasn't made to soothe your brow. For the film's director, Chris Paine, the evidence is too appalling and our air too dirty for palliatives.

Fast and furious, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is, in brief, the sad tale of yet one more attempt by a heroic group of civic-minded souls to save the browning, warming planet. The story mostly unfolds during the 1990's, when a few automobile manufacturers, including General Motors, were prodded to pursue only to sabotage covertly a cleaner future. In 1990 the state's smog-busting California Air Resources Board adopted the Zero-Emission Vehicle mandate in a bid to force auto companies to produce exhaust-free vehicles. The idea was simple: we were choking to death on our own waste. The goals were seemingly modest: by 1998, 2 percent of all new cars sold in the biggest vehicle market in the country would be exhaust-free, making California's bumper-to-bumper lifestyle a touch less hellish.

Given that some companies, including G.M., were already creating prototypes for electric cars that could be mass produced, the mandate didn't seem unfeasible or unreasonable. Electric cars have been around about as long as the automobile and, believe it or not, Phyllis Diller. Mr. Paine's résumé is peppered with Hollywood credits, which may explain why, in addition to the usual expert talking heads, he has tapped so many celebrities and pseudo-celebrities.

Presumably Mr. Paine thinks audiences listen to the famous and almost famous, which is certainly the case with Ms. Diller, who delivers a nostalgic ode to the first electric vehicles while in front of an ornately framed painting of Bob Hope. Both the comedian and the filmmaker certainly know how to grab your attention.

Henry Ford and cheap oil helped keep electric cars off the road, leaving the fast-growing highway system to the spewing, sputtering internal-combustion engine. Oscillating between interviews and an array of punchy visuals, including industrial and nonfiction films, Mr. Paine lays out how the country's romance with gasoline-thirsty cars quickly turned into the craziest kind of love. By the 1950's, the zoom years of Jack Kerouac and James Dean, Los Angeles pedestrians who braved the city's streets could be seen covering their mouths with handkerchiefs, trying to filter the air. Many decades and smog alerts later, the state took bold action. What happened next, Mr. Paine explains, is a familiar story of corporate greed and governmental corruption, mixed in with flickers of idealism and outrage.

It's a story Mr. Paine tells with bite. In 1996 a Los Angeles newspaper reported that "the air board grew doubtful about the willingness of consumers to accept the cars, which carry steep price tags and have a limited travel range." Mr. Paine pushes beyond this ostensibly disinterested report, suggesting that one reason the board might have grown doubtful was because its chairman at the time, Alan C. Lloyd, had joined the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Established in 1999, this partnership is a joint effort of the federal and state agencies, fuel cell companies, car manufacturers like G.M. and energy peddlers like Exxon to explore the potential (note that word, potential) of vehicles powered by hydrogen-cell fuels.

Why would a company like Exxon back a zero-emission vehicle technology that according to some of the authorities interviewed in the film, like Joseph J. Romm, an assistant secretary in the Department of Energy during the Clinton administration and author of "The Hype About Hydrogen" is a long way from real-life roadways? The answers may not surprise you, particularly if you are predisposed to watching a film titled "Who Killed the Electric Car?," but they're eye-and-vein-popping nonetheless. As Mr. Paine forcefully makes clear, the story of the electric car is greater than one zippy ride and the people who loved it. From the polar ice caps to Los Angeles, where many cars truly are to die for, it is a story as big as life, and just as urgent.

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). Revelations of big-business and government collusion may provoke shock, shock.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Opens today in Manhattan

Directed by Chris Paine; edited by Michael Kovalenko and Chris A. Peterson; narrated by Martin Sheen; produced by Jessie Deeter; released by Sony Pictures Classics. Running time: 92 minutes.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The free market is beautiful because it disciplines each citizen in how he wishes to allocate his resources, including where he chooses to save on energy costs. The situation is different for each person, and therefore it is obvious that each person is best suited to make the best personal decisions that fit his pocketbook and personal family needs, not the government.

I and Bernard have been accused of arrogance. In my above statement, I would challenge anyone to argue with simple common sense, as summarized in the above statement. What is less arrogant than minding your own business and allowing each citizen to make their own decisions, based on economics? After all, economics is a pretty good measure of efficiency. Inasmuch as governments stick their nose into various energy productions, it may alter the free market in minor ways, but where the free market is the major player in the industry, it still is the primary determinant of what energy is the most efficient.

Just a matter of interest here, in the field of geology where paleo-climates are studied, this from one of the pre-eminent geological organizations in the world with membership of leading geologists and other scientists relative to the geological and energy producing industries, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists are coming out with a policy "card," which contains he following:

"All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings."

From this site:
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2006/07jul/climate_card.cfm

0 Replies

You mean, a bunch of geologists involved in finding and producing energy from the earth - which, by the way, means oil - state that humanity isn't responsible for global warming and Climate Change?

Shocking!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/movies/28kill.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
June 28, 2006
MOVIE REVIEW
'Who Killed the Electric Car?': Some Big Reasons the Electric Car Can't Cross the Road
By MANOHLA DARGIS

imposter, get serious. I did not read your stupid quoted article, which apparently is nothing more than a movie. Who cares? The price and inefficiency killed the electric car, inasmuch as it is dead. It may not be dead, and could be revived if better technology and price revives it, in other words the free market.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You mean, a bunch of geologists involved in finding and producing energy from the earth - which, by the way, means oil - state that humanity isn't responsible for global warming and Climate Change?

Shocking!

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, no more shocking than a bunch of scientists making their living off of government grants, university research grants, and U.N. grants, etc. that depend upon the conclusion that global warming is caused by man, is it any wonder that its their conclusion?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

okie wrote:

The free market is beautiful because it disciplines each citizen in how he wishes to allocate his resources, including where he chooses to save on energy costs. The situation is different for each person, and therefore it is obvious that each person is best suited to make the best personal decisions that fit his pocketbook and personal family needs, not the government.

I and Bernard have been accused of arrogance. In my above statement, I would challenge anyone to argue with simple common sense, as summarized in the above statement. What is less arrogant than minding your own business and allowing each citizen to make their own decisions, based on economics? After all, economics is a pretty good measure of efficiency. Inasmuch as governments stick their nose into various energy productions, it may alter the free market in minor ways, but where the free market is the major player in the industry, it still is the primary determinant of what energy is the most efficient.

Just a matter of interest here, in the field of geology where paleo-climates are studied, this from one of the pre-eminent geological organizations in the world with membership of leading geologists and other scientists relative to the geological and energy producing industries, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists are coming out with a policy "card," which contains he following:

"All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings."

From this site:
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2006/07jul/climate_card.cfm

But Okie, you can't cite the American Association of Petroleum Geologists because they will lie so they can keep selling petroleum products. So says just about anybody posting here who have swallowed the Anthropgenic theory hook, line, and sinker.

(And I think that if that is their position, it is suspect on the face of it. I expect certainty to be a very big word to the scientists on the opposing side of the issue too.)

0 Replies

Fox, I knew that would be the accusation, which cyclops has already made, but fact is I have far more confidence in geologists tied to the real world than a bunch of U.N. experts getting paid to make certain conclusions. At least, oil geologists contribute something useful to society.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Fox, I knew that would be the accusation, which cyclops has already made, but fact is I have far more confidence in geologists tied to the real world than a bunch of U.N. experts getting paid to make certain conclusions. At least, oil geologists contribute something useful to society.

Well, I'm looking past even the geologists to those trained in and experts in paleo-climatology, and it does seem that most of these are very skeptical re the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

And I will defend the statement by the Geologist Association you posted: It says that all the PRINCIPLE reasons for global warming are beyond human control. I think even a child would agree with that. It doesn't actually rule out an anthropogenic factor, but it also leave minds open to other possibilities.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know