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

@hamburger,

Well you know, I've never known a really great lawyer who didn't enjoy a good old lawyer joke. And it is true that in that profession you find people who are brilliant, competent, ethical, and do great things. And some are dumber than dirt. In my profession too. I just wish all the smart ones were ethical.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

What reasons do you have to believe otherwise?
Do you have evidence of major flooding in the last 1000 years?
Do you have evidence of major plant growth consistent with a non desert environment?
Please provide us with your reasons why you think Albuquerque has had a different climate in the last 1000 years. You seem to know about tall tales. So, spin one for us okie and tell us when Albuquerque had large changes in water vapor while providing evidence of it.

On what basis do you believe relative humidity has been constant? No more logical than temperature was constant. After all, temperature is not the only thing that varies, and certainly it is just as likely that relative humidity would change even if temperature did not.

I would think that humidity would vary depending upon global weather patterns, jet stream realignments, solar variations, etc. And I would think in recent history, certainly since the 18 hundreds, land use changes with irrigation canals creating croplands and more trees than before would change humidity. And in more recent history of the last 50 years or more, all the lawns and houses would certainly change the humidity.

I find it incredible actually that any serious thinker, let alone a scientist, could assume constant humdity and do it with a straight face, parados.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

See - nobody's forcing you to get a new car.

If Obama gets involved with running companies, including dictation of what kinds of cars to build, the next thing that would come down the pike is for him to tell us what kind of car to buy. If he can dictate what kinds of cars to build, he will very likely tell us what kind to buy. After all, he is not going to sit idle and watch the cars he wants built sit on the lots, unsold, that would insult Lord Obama.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

It seems that some people get most or all of their news from leftwing blogs specializing in smearing people instead of analyzing whatever information is there. Every radical leftwing site from Daily Kos to Huffington Post and virtually every fringe group has printed a version of this clip. The offense? Will used the word 'center' in his reference to the research at the University of Illinois. That's it. The information was not otherwise incorrectly referenced. None of the meanspirited smear mongerers can dispute any of the facts. But they smear George will for using the word 'center'.

There is a whole website at the University of Illinois devoted to this subject however that looks a whole lot more than an 'informal group':
University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

0 Replies

As you might have noticed, had you been paying attention, okie, the cars that are sitting unsold on the lot are the hulking cars that GM, Ford and Chrysler built because they thought they could get us to buy them. They were wrong. They ignored what people have been telling them for the last ten years. The cars that are selling are the technologically evolved, high mileage, very reliable, much greener cars that other countries, notably Japan, with much higher mileage standards, ha ve been requiring overseas companies to build. Require high standards of the companies, you get high quality cars. Let them whipsaw you, as Bush did, and you get crap. Which is one reason Toyota is the world's largest-selling car company now. It's about damn time Obama told them what to build, since they've proven temselves incapable, free market or not, of figuring it out for themselves.

1 Reply

And from what I can see by looking over the home page at Uof I that you cite, fox, they support the consensus view that climate change is anthropogenic and is serious and is occurring in the arctic more strongly than elsewhere, as the models predict. So why does George Will think he can downplay climate change by using them? Hmm?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

As you might have noticed, had you been paying attention, okie, the cars that are sitting unsold on the lot are the hulking cars that GM, Ford and Chrysler built because they thought they could get us to buy them. They were wrong. They ignored what people have been telling them for the last ten years. The cars that are selling are the technologically evolved, high mileage, very reliable, much greener cars that other countries, notably Japan, with much higher mileage standards, ha ve been requiring overseas companies to build. Require high standards of the companies, you get high quality cars. Let them whipsaw you, as Bush did, and you get crap. Which is one reason Toyota is the world's largest-selling car company now. It's about damn time Obama told them what to build, since they've proven temselves incapable, free market or not, of figuring it out for themselves.

I think you are oversimplifying what has happened here. Fact is GM and Toyota are, or were not far off from each other in numbers of vehicles sold. The difference is not what is selling, but the profit margins in the sales. It is all the baggage being carried by U.S. automakers that is killing them, not necessarily the sales. Yes, sales have declined, but so has Toyota's sales, but they are better positioned because of the company not having all the same baggage. The union contracts, retirement packages, and medical benefits, just the high costs embedded in building the cars is what is killing our carmakers.

Bottom line, GM could have built smaller cars and hybrid cars, and all the rest, but they would still be going bankrupt. The unions bear alot of responsibility in bankrupting the companies, in my opinion. It is no coincidence that Michigan has one of the highest union memberships, and now nearly the highest unemployment rate.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Who said the 400 are "prominent." They are not. Moreover, over 2,000 scientists argue the opposite.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Well Ican's 400 guys are prominent enough to have credentials and bios that you can access on line. As I recall, we couldn't really identify any of your 2000 the last time you posted them. Also many of Ican's 400 used to be among those who argued the opposite and came to realize that the science could no longer be defended.

2 Replies

okie, look at a Cadillac Escalade and tell me that is a car that is going to beat the Japanese. That is a car that is the closest thing in existence today to a brontosaurus, and just as doomed to extinction. Labor costs are just not that high a percentage of the total.

It's not a fluke. GM's percentage of total saleshave been decliningt for years., and Toyota's hjas been rising. You complain about your fantasy of the government telling us what car to buy, but GM executives have been telling us what car to buy for years. No difference. And they've been wrong fairly consistently. THAT's why they're going bankrupt. They put their eggs in the baskets of the Escalades and the Navigators and the Suburbans. Remember the GM prez a few years ago, when a young customer told him they weren't making anany small entry-level cars anymore, and the prez told him to buy a used Buick? GM didn't get it then. They don't seem to now. It's not the labor costs. American cars used to be the source of innovation for the world. They haven't been that since around the 80s.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You only couldn't identify them because you didn't bother to look Fox..

Here you go..
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_author_photos.html

It's pictures!!!!! It even includes some of ican's list but not many because his list isn't really the majority of climate authors

As for the letter signed by the 2000. Here it is again
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Scientist_Economists_Call_to_Action_fnl.pdf

Quote:

The strength of the science on climate change compels us
to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures
continue to increase over pre-industrial levels

Here is the list of the most cited authors on climate change...
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
Of that list many signed the 08 letter I listed and far fewer are on the list from ican.

1 Reply

@parados,

I wasn't talking about your list Parados. I was talking about Advocate's. But let's go with your list.

Here's one name on the list:

David Gutzler is one of our own local scientists who falls in the 'better safe than sorry' category but also receives large grants from the Federal and State governments to produce an opinion. Remember, skeptics aren't getting those kinds of grants these days.

An excerpt of what Gutzler writes:

Quote:

Figure 3 shows one estimate of what could happen
in the 21st century. This was done for the state report
on water resources that I helped write, using the current
round of IPCC models in advance of the release of
this year’s IPCC report. These results were derived
from an average of 18 global climate models, forced
by a mid-range guess for what CO2 emissions might
be. As climate scientists, we do not know what the
CO2 emissions will be like, so we don’t try to make a
forecast. We just run the model a bunch of times with
different guesses. The models simulate what might
happen with this particular guess for CO2 emissions:
warming of seven or eight degrees Fahrenheit over
the course of the 21st century, roughly four times what
we saw in the 20th century.
http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gutzler/

He's not doing his own research. He's using IPCC models. He might give you a great deal of confidence that his conclusions are objective and unbiased and trustworthy. He does not give me confidence. He is a very likeable and personable fellow though. His classes are probably fun.

However, if you want to make this a battle of numbers re those strongly supporting AGW versus those who are skeptics, here's my list - 31,000 names:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I have seen the list before, and I was underwhelmed. You really don't see the prestigious schools and organizations represented to any significant degree. The other side has better credentials, and higher numbers.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

okie, look at a Cadillac Escalade and tell me that is a car that is going to beat the Japanese. That is a car that is the closest thing in existence today to a brontosaurus, and just as doomed to extinction. Labor costs are just not that high a percentage of the total.

It's not a fluke. GM's percentage of total saleshave been decliningt for years., and Toyota's hjas been rising. You complain about your fantasy of the government telling us what car to buy, but GM executives have been telling us what car to buy for years. No difference. And they've been wrong fairly consistently. THAT's why they're going bankrupt. They put their eggs in the baskets of the Escalades and the Navigators and the Suburbans. Remember the GM prez a few years ago, when a young customer told him they weren't making anany small entry-level cars anymore, and the prez told him to buy a used Buick? GM didn't get it then. They don't seem to now. It's not the labor costs. American cars used to be the source of innovation for the world. They haven't been that since around the 80s.

Well, I can't say I totally disagree with everything you say, however, the Escalade is not the only vehicle GM builds, they also build alot of smaller cars and some very economical cars. Its not as if they are, or have been blind to sales figures of all the competing models, both small to large.

And here is another point, Toyota made its reputation on smaller cars, but guess what they have also done in recent years, they have entered the markets of bigger cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to compete with Ford and GM. The Ford F-150 I think has been the top selling vehicle for a very long long time, maybe still is I am not sure, but that is not indicative of a failed gas guzzling vehicle, it is an indicator of a well engineeried all around vehicle, appealing to business, agriculture, and personal use. And with all the so-called terrible business model of building SUVs, there are sure tons of them on the road, so I think part of your argument is just wrong. The demand for SUVs has proven to be very substantial, especially after the seat belt laws for children, as those vehicles became much more practical for families.

I happen to think this issue is much more than simply gas guzzling vs non-gas guzzling, it has alot more to do with an increase in competition, a crowded field of manufacturers, costs of doing business, union contracts, and all the rest.

I do agree to a point that fuel economy did not have top priority, but face it, until gasoline got to $4 per gallon, the public was not clamoring for fuel economy with their buying habits. I do fault the companies for not foreseeing this effect as well as they should, but again, I am not sure this is what has driven the companies to the edge of bankrupticy. I think there are more reasons than that.

1 Reply

@okie,

If anything this should be instructive. I don't see a lot of little, really fuel efficient cars and trucks there. Because of the miserable economy, everybody's sales are way off, but the sales that are happening are still mostly for the bigger, more powerful, more comfortable vehicles:

In the USA:

Quote:

The Top 10 Best-Selling Cars of 2008
Ford F-Series: 515,513
Chevy Silverado: 465,065
Toyota Camry: 436,617
Honda Accord: 372,789
Toyota Corolla: 351,007
Honda Civic: 339,289
Nissan Altima: 269,668
Chevy Impala: 265,840
Dodge Ram: 245,840
Honda CR-V: 197,279

December 2008’s Top 10 Best-Selling Cars
Ford F-Series: 41,580
Chevy Silverado: 33,340
Toyota Camry: 25,275
Honda Accord: 22,348
Toyota Corolla: 22,129
Chevy Impala: 21,148
Chevy Malibu: 17,355
Nissan Altima: 17,311
Honda Civic: 17,302
Dodge Ram: 16,618
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/the-top-10-best.html

And among American made cars:

Quote:

The number one vehicle purchased in the United States thus far in 2009, is none other than Ford's F150 pick-up truck. Although F-150 sales are off a little over 39% year on year, people still want them. Ford Motor Co has moved over 25,000 units so far this year.

Holding a close second place on the 2009 best sellers list is Chevrolet's Silverado pick-up truck. Sales of these trucks are off by a little over 33% year on year, but Chevrolet has moved nearly 24,000 of these units thus far in 2009.

Not surprisingly, the Dodge Ram pick-up truck is holding third place on the 2009 best sellers list. Unit sales of Ram trucks has declined over 35% year on year, with Dodge moving almost 13,000 of these units to this point in 2009.

Fourth place: Chevrolet Malibu. 34% year on year decline with 9,312 units sold.
Fifth: Ford Escape SUV. Only 25.3% sales decline year on year with 8,360 units sold.
Sixth: Ford Fusion. A mere 11.2% sales decline year on year at 8,152 units sold.
Seventh: GMC Sierra pick-up truck, a bit over 39% decline year on year with 8,020 units sold.
Eighth: Ford Focus. 33% year on year decline at 7,769 units sold.
Ninth: Chevrolet Impala. Whopping 61.8% year on year decline with 7,062 units sold.
Tenth: Jeep Wrangler. Incredible 66% sales decline year on year at 6,362 units sold
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/02/23/best-selling-american-cars-for-2009-the-list-might-surprise-yo?icid=sphere_wpcom_inline

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, thanks, it is enlightening, and it would also be necessary to actually analyze the books of these car companies to find out why they are failing, such as gross sales and all the overhead, resulting in net income or loss, and compare the companies, and I would be willing to bet the production costs of American cars are higher, due to union costs, regulations, and other factors.

1 Reply

@okie,

I can't remember which program it was, but I was recently listening to some leftwing greenie debating a representative from Chrysler Motors who was defending the Jeep Wrangler as the flagship of their current line of automobiles. As you can see, they were 10th on the USA made best seller list and though sales are currently way off, people are still wanting Wranglers. The 'greenies' of course were saying that it was irresponsible and reckless to keep building the Cherokee or any 'environmentally unfriendly cars or trucks.

I'm guessing industrial sabotage via public pressure from AGW types is at least one among those 'other factors'. If the current administration continues to exert more and more facist style control over commerce and industry, Chrysler could be ordered to stop manufacturing its best selling vehicle.

1 Reply

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/090409beelertoon_c20090408073903.jpg

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It looks a lot classier that Clive Sinclair's electric clog.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm guessing industrial sabotage via public pressure from AGW types is at least one among those 'other factors'. If the current administration continues to exert more and more facist style control over commerce and industry, Chrysler could be ordered to stop manufacturing its best selling vehicle.

You can bet that if Obama gives money to these companies and dictates what type of cars to build, he will also tell us or coerce us with tax policy or otherwise, what cars to buy.

Yes, Foxfyre, those chants of "change" meant something, and now I fear alot more than most people realized. He has moved far further afield than I thought he would try in just 3 months.

I have actually heard a bank advertisement numerous times, the CEO saying the government has tried to give them money, but they have refused it because they don't need it, and will continue to refuse it. I think these government bailouts are part of a grander plan to provide a way to confiscate part ownership of business in this country, and gain control of the markets. A trojan horse move. I think that is a very distinct possibility, otherwise why try to give banks money that don't need it. If you haven't caught on, I don't trust Obama at all, Foxfyre.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know