74
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:03 pm
Naturally, only those who are unschooled in the subject assume that Global Warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:04 pm
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A hike in the gasoline tax for what need?

For the end of driving less, sharing rides, constructing more efficient engines, and driving slower. It would also help balance your budget, which is in disarray.
As an aside, a difference must be made between efficient and economical. Detroit cars' engines are as efficient as european engines. But an American car is not economical since it is huge because people want it and can afford it. For prestige, security, comfort what ever, that's personal choice. Meddling with personal choices is an age-old socialist project. GW or peak-oil are just pseudo-scientific excuses for political motives.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:06 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A hike in the gasoline tax for what need?

For the end of driving less, sharing rides, constructing more efficient engines, and driving slower. It would also help balance your budget, which is in disarray.
As an aside, a difference must be made between efficient and economical. Detroit cars' engines are as efficient as european engines. But an American car is not economical since it is huge because people want it and can afford it. For prestige, security, comfort what ever, that's personal choice. Meddling with personal choices is an age-old socialist project. GW or peak-oil are just pseudo-scientific excuses for political motives.


Yeah, people couldn't actually be worried about the environment, or whether or not oil will start to run out. It's just a cover for their socialist desires.

You guys crack me up, really

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Naturally, only those who are unschooled in the subject assume that Global Warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe.

Cycloptichorn
Oh, interesting what you said. As you seem to be schooled, please give me a reason why there should be some places which cool down with anthropic greenhouse gases increasing (assuming the warmist's theory is right). In the USA, over the 20th century, 32 states have warmed of 0,5°C and 16 states have cooled of -0,33°C. What in the theory says that ? I would love to know.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:24 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, people couldn't actually be worried about the environment, or whether or not oil will start to run out. It's just a cover for their socialist desires.

You guys crack me up, really

Cycloptichorn
I do worry about the environment, about lack of water, bad food quality, sea pollution, oil spill on beaches, polluted rivers, deforestation, overpopulation in some regions... But I couldn't care less about the overhyped threat of GW or other futile threats based on false claimed. Can you abstract enough to see the nuance Cyclop ?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:27 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Naturally, only those who are unschooled in the subject assume that Global Warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe.

Cycloptichorn
Oh, interesting what you said. As you seem to be schooled, please give me a reason why there should be some places which cool down with anthropic greenhouse gases increasing (assuming the warmist's theory is right). In the USA, over the 20th century, 32 states have warmed of 0,5°C and 16 states have cooled of -0,33°C. What in the theory says that ? I would love to know.


I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Global warming - I prefer to call it the far more accurate Climate Change - does not occur uniformly across the globe. There is no reason to believe that it would.

Instead, the traditional (by which I mean, what we are used to) patterns of hot and cold air convection are altered. So in some places it becomes colder, others hotter; some places drier, others wetter.

I'm not some kind of alarmist who screams that we are all going to die if we don't stop the GW in a year or two; but I do believe that the change of our accustomed weather patterns might have undesirable effects upon our traditional ways of life.

I've said before that I have no interest in debating your pet subject, and I meant it; I prefer to deal with folks who have somewhat of a wider scope than to find one issue and relentlessly argue it with those who disagree with them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 03:38 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Global warming - I prefer to call it the far more accurate Climate Change - does not occur uniformly across the globe. There is no reason to believe that it would.

Instead, the traditional (by which I mean, what we are used to) patterns of hot and cold air convection are altered. So in some places it becomes colder, others hotter; some places drier, others wetter.
No, you are wrong. GHG's are considered well-mixed gases so maybe there might be some places which warm less than others but no reason there should be colder places. You would find no model to explain why 16 states in the USA are getting colder from 1900 to 2000. You'll find no research article to support what you claim.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 11:35 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A hike in the gasoline tax for what need?

For the end of driving less, sharing rides, constructing more efficient engines, and driving slower. It would also help balance your budget, which is in disarray.
As an aside, a difference must be made between efficient and economical. Detroit cars' engines are as efficient as european engines. But an American car is not economical since it is huge because people want it and can afford it. For prestige, security, comfort what ever, that's personal choice. Meddling with personal choices is an age-old socialist project. GW or peak-oil are just pseudo-scientific excuses for political motives.


You've got that right, miniTAX. Socialists that drive their little roller skate 20 miles to work would like to tell me I can't drive a gas hog in comfort to work if I choose to work 1 mile from my house. Its about choice. If he wants to own a mansion, drive a scooter to work, and fly to Paris every year, plus a cruise every few months, I am not going to try to stop him. So I figure he should have no right over what kind of car I choose to drive. When Gore quits jetsetting around the world, I might consider even listening to him when he is screaming at the top of his lungs about global warming.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 11:58 pm
okie wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A hike in the gasoline tax for what need?

For the end of driving less, sharing rides, constructing more efficient engines, and driving slower. It would also help balance your budget, which is in disarray.
As an aside, a difference must be made between efficient and economical. Detroit cars' engines are as efficient as european engines. But an American car is not economical since it is huge because people want it and can afford it. For prestige, security, comfort what ever, that's personal choice. Meddling with personal choices is an age-old socialist project. GW or peak-oil are just pseudo-scientific excuses for political motives.


You've got that right, miniTAX. Socialists that drive their little roller skate 20 miles to work would like to tell me I can't drive a gas hog in comfort to work if I choose to work 1 mile from my house. Its about choice. If he wants to own a mansion, drive a scooter to work, and fly to Paris every year, plus a cruise every few months, I am not going to try to stop him. So I figure he should have no right over what kind of car I choose to drive. When Gore quits jetsetting around the world, I might consider even listening to him when he is screaming at the top of his lungs about global warming.


Now, now!

Just because you guys can't afford one of our "socialist roller skates" like maybe a nice Mercedes-Benz, a BMW or a Porsche doesn't mean you have to completely part with reality.

Then again, I would probably be slightly annoyed, too, if all our national car manufacturers had missed the important trends during the last couple of decades....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:21 am
old europe wrote:
Then again, I would probably be slightly annoyed, too, if all our national car manufacturers had missed the important trends during the last couple of decades....


Couple of decades? Nearly centuries by now.

And after these posts I am not only annoyed but worried why the European car manufacturers don't get the ideas how to build those good American cars.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:50 am
okie wrote:
You've got that right, miniTAX. Socialists that drive their little roller skate 20 miles to work would like to tell me I can't drive a gas hog in comfort to work if I choose to work 1 mile from my house. Its about choice. If he wants to own a mansion, drive a scooter to work, and fly to Paris every year...
http://images.forum-auto.com/images/perso/10/matmax.gifArrggh, no please. Keep them where they are. We've got enough of our share of socialists here in France.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:54 am
miniTAX wrote:
We've got enough of our share of socialists here in France.


Well, after twelve years with the socialists in opposition and a conservative president as well as a conservative government .... I do hope some royal times are coming now for France!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 03:44 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, people couldn't actually be worried about the environment, or whether or not oil will start to run out. It's just a cover for their socialist desires.

Are you simultaneously worried about catastrophic global warming and about oil running out (or, more generally, fossil fuels running out)? It would seem to me that the latter would automatically take care of the former.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 03:53 am
miniTAX wrote:
No, you are wrong. GHG's are considered well-mixed gases so maybe there might be some places which warm less than others but no reason there should be colder places. You would find no model to explain why 16 states in the USA are getting colder from 1900 to 2000. You'll find no research article to support what you claim.

You may want to search Google Scholar for "global warming" together with "North Atlantic conveyor belt". I predict you will find quite a few articles saying that Europe could cool as a result of global warming shutting down the flow of warm water to Europe. Admittedly, this doesn't explain why some states in North America should get colder. But it does make an important general point: global warming has second-round effects that redistribute heat between regions. Therefore it can, through those second-round effects, lead to local cooling.

okie wrote:
miniTax wrote:
[...]Meddling with personal choices is an age-old socialist project. GW or peak-oil are just pseudo-scientific excuses for political motives.

You've got that right, miniTAX. Socialists that drive their little roller skate 20 miles to work would like to tell me I can't drive a gas hog in comfort to work if I choose to work 1 mile from my house. Its about choice.

According to pollingreport.com, about 70% of Americans consider global warming a serious problem. Presumably they would choose a world without it. This means your gas-guzzling, C02-emitting SUVs, your long drives in them, your reluctance to carpool, et cetera, messes with their choices as much as their policy initiatives mess with yours. How are you any better than those "socialists" are?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 07:56 am
Thomas writes
Quote:
According to pollingreport.com, about 70% of Americans consider global warming a serious problem. Presumably they would choose a world without it. This means your gas-guzzling, C02-emitting SUVs, your long drives in them, your reluctance to carpool, et cetera, messes with their choices as much as their policy initiatives mess with yours. How are you any better than those "socialists" are?


Did you overlook Okie's point that he drives his gas guzzler 1 mile to work against the 'socialists' 20 miles to work in the roller skate? Which do you think uses the most gas? These are things that must be factored into the equation don't you think?

On the other hand, the contractor who needs his oversized pickup to transport crew to jobsites along with a ton or so of building materials is somehow evil for not using two or three 4-cylinder vehicles that would be necessary for the same job? Ditto for the rural family driving into town for a week's supply of groceries and supplies or the mothers hauling a softball team or ballet troupe to practice.

How many of those 70% of Americans who think "global warming is a serious problem' have done any research at all on this subject? Even as much as members posting on this thread? How many have read past the alarmist headlines in their morning paper? And doesn't the fact that so many of them continue to drive the gas guzzlers suggest the poll may not reflect their true concerns re this issue? There are lots and lots of "roller skates" for sale here too and Americans do have a choice re what they will drive.

While quite a few do drive the 'roller skates' for personal or economic reasons, most Americans also still continue to value personal freedoms including choice rather than have the government dictate what they can and cannot drive.

Why do you think we resist car pooling here? There are park and ride lots all over town for the carpoolers and a large percentage of the hundreds of Albuquerqeans who drive to Santa Fe or Los Alamos to work every day are car pooling. For myself who also logs a lot of miles on an average workday, car pooling isn't an option as nobody else is going where I go to do the work.

Finally how many think the 'serious problem' is something that we need to learn to adapt to live with rather than something we can do anything about? And then there's that other 30 percent who are inclined to believe the world's climate is always changing and we just happen to be in a normal warming cycle at this time.

And out of curiosity, how would Okie's choice to drive a SUV, if he does, possibly affect anybody else's choice in what to drive? And because of the sheer size and affluence of the USA, I would guess if every one of the 200 or so million adults were driving European size cars, we would still be the biggest green house gas offenders and our critics would still be complaining and claiming they are superior to us.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:37 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas writes
Quote:
According to pollingreport.com, about 70% of Americans consider global warming a serious problem. Presumably they would choose a world without it. This means your gas-guzzling, C02-emitting SUVs, your long drives in them, your reluctance to carpool, et cetera, messes with their choices as much as their policy initiatives mess with yours. How are you any better than those "socialists" are?


Did you overlook Okie's point that he drives his gas guzzler 1 mile to work against the 'socialists' 20 miles to work in the roller skate? Which do you think uses the most gas? These are things that must be factored into the equation don't you think?

Yes, I do think they should -- and the gasoline tax I suggest does factor it in, while the CAFE standards you now have don't.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:44 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, after twelve years with the socialists in opposition and a conservative president as well as a conservative government .... I do hope some royal times are coming now for France!
Royal times, Royal hmmm... Maybe not that bad after all. We haven't had a good occasion for decapitation of the royals since The Revolution. http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/bentley.gif
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:47 am
Foxfyre wrote:
How many of those 70% of Americans who think "global warming is a serious problem' have done any research at all on this subject?

I don't know. And it's irrelevant to the point I made about people messing with each other's preferences. The people who consider global warming a problem, and accordingly prefer a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, don't have to justify their preference with research anymore than Okie has to justify his preference for a big car. A preference is a preference, and messing with one is messing with one. Whether the preference is backed up with research or not makes no difference to this point.

That said, I don't believe there's a strong correlation between following the research and coming out on any particular side on this debate.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:51 am
Thomas wrote:
You may want to search Google Scholar for "global warming" together with "North Atlantic conveyor belt". I predict you will find quite a few articles saying that Europe could cool as a result of global warming shutting down the flow of warm water to Europe. Admittedly, this doesn't explain why some states in North America should get colder. But it does make an important general point: global warming has second-round effects that redistribute heat between regions. Therefore it can, through those second-round effects, lead to local cooling.
Thomas, you are talking about a putative future speculated event (thermohaline circulation shutdown). I'm talking about observational evidence.
If the evidence is that the GHG theory can't explain why 16 states of the USA have cooled while CO2 has continually increased over the last century, so there is something wrong with the theory.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
How many of those 70% of Americans who think "global warming is a serious problem' have done any research at all on this subject? Even as much as members posting on this thread? How many have read past the alarmist headlines in their morning paper? And doesn't the fact that so many of them continue to drive the gas guzzlers suggest the poll may not reflect their true concerns re this issue? There are lots and lots of "roller skates" for sale here too and Americans do have a choice re what they will drive.

Foxfyre, you may like to watch this (high speed link required).

I love the reply of the student:
- Interviewer: Do you think everybody should take personal responsibility to save the environment ?
Student : yes I do
- Interviewer : Do you it yourself ?
Student (the same as above): As myself, I don't.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/21/2025 at 06:20:23