Dont need ac

[MAKG]

Allan, the definition of a conservative is one who resists change. Sometimes that's a good thing. When it makes you ignore reality, it's not.

Climate change is a reality, especially in polar regions. Several of the ice sheets have major breakup events going on right now, the Arctic sea ice cover is retreating, and there are some hints of unexpectedly rapid subterranean melting in Greenland. Right now. The only one of those that affects sea level is Greenland (floating ice doesn't change it when it melts), and Antarctica is not known.

You claim to know something about logic. Why then do you CARE whether the observed warming is caused by humans? It's a problem. Would you deny putting out a naturally caused house fire (say, from a wildfire or accidental electrical fire), or would you wait until you determined it was arson before you did anything?

Having said that, there is a little doubt -- much of it spewed by those with political agendas -- that climate change is caused by human activity. To jump from that to a statement that nothing needs to be done at all is a political action, not based on any logical reasoning at all -- inductive or otherwise.

As for insisting that all science should be completely deductive, read your Descartes. You can't prove I exist deductively. Even if you SEE me; hallucinations happen. All science contains at least some induction. It simply must, or it's not capable of anything at all.

 

[skippy]

the enviromentally friendly prius can't pass emisions in georgia,according to mondays atlanta/journal.in fact,we don't have a test that applies,dude spent 2 days off work trying and eventally had to be issued a waiver.tree huggers are going to love this.there goes the carbon footprint.damn the bad luck.

 

[AllanD]

Allan, the definition of a conservative is one who resists change. Sometimes that's a good thing. When it makes you ignore reality, it's not.

Climate change is a reality, especially in polar regions. Several of the ice sheets have major breakup events going on right now, the Arctic sea ice cover is retreating, and there are some hints of unexpectedly rapid subterranean melting in Greenland. Right now. The only one of those that affects sea level is Greenland (floating ice doesn't change it when it melts), and Antarctica is not known.

You claim to know something about logic. Why then do you CARE whether the observed warming is caused by humans? It's a problem. Would you deny putting out a naturally caused house fire (say, from a wildfire or accidental electrical fire), or would you wait until you determined it was arson before you did anything?

Having said that, there is a little doubt -- much of it spewed by those with political agendas -- that climate change is caused by human activity. To jump from that to a statement that nothing needs to be done at all is a political action, not based on any logical reasoning at all -- inductive or otherwise.

As for insisting that all science should be completely deductive, read your Descartes. You can't prove I exist deductively. Even if you SEE me; hallucinations happen. All science contains at least some induction. It simply must, or it's not capable of anything at all.

MAKG,

Man made or not is actually as important a point as determining that the warming exsists.

Forst off the claims of the ammount of warming are consistantly EXAGGERATED

And thos exaggerations are used as a "reasons" for all people to dramatically change their lives.

but if man has NOTHING TO DO wiht the warming if it is entirely natural people are having their lives disrupted for NOTHING!
Because if man is NOT responsible then NOTHING we do will have any effect.

Frankly I believe that the entire works of man have an effect that ammounts to a small fraction of the actual temperature increase.

I believe that solar activity and orbital shift are responsible for the change.
and if they are, then reducing and/or changing energy use, gas emmissions, etc, will in total have less effect than which way you point your ass when you fart.

reducing energy use for it's own reasons is good, what I am objecting to is the verbal tsunami of over-the-top hyperbole!

I am all for cleaner more efficient cars, but 98% of the dire
warnings you hear about the environment are
nothing more than hot air.

It's a constant tirade, and it makes it impossible to hear the truth over the noise.

They are crying "wolf", and when the real wolf shows up
(it has NOT... yet) nobody will listen.

ENOUGH!!!

AllanD

 

[MAKG]

Allan, you would be well served to make a distinction between claims of those with political agendas and scientists that must withstand objective scrutiny. Exaggeration of the effects, even unintentionally, is grounds for rejection of a paper all by itself. Intentional exaggeration is very literally a firing offense, even with tenure (it's an ethical violation). There is no such restriction on environmental or other political groups. You should not get your science information from such people. Credibility counts. And you seem to be quoting a few very-right-wing conspiracy nutcases. The arguments from which depend on some unseen cadre in black suits successfully herding cats (have you ever tried to get a scientist to say ANYTHING specific?).

As for not being able to do anything if not responsible, that's just wrong. Humans put out fires they didn't start all the time (both literally and figuratively). There have been promising experiments different from just cutting back on carbon -- especially seeding ocean patches with iron, which jumpstarts plankton production (for a time, anyway). Advisibility of doing that on a much larger scale for climate is highly debatable, largely due to the consequences if such a huge uncontrolled experiment went awry. And what else will a huge amount of iron or a really big plankton bloom do?

You claim exaggeration; I've not seen claims more than a few degrees over the next century in the scientific literature, and at least four independent global models show that (and none show smaller). I have seen claims of large changes in water distribution, especially related to snowpack. Some of which seem to be here (but I wouldn't take that too seriously without the usual 30 year average). And you seem to miss that 1 deg C in climate is equivalent to shifting all climate zones north by 400 miles. So, think of your climate as becoming like North Carolina. Do the same crops grow there? Does it have the same water issues? Though global climate changes do not necessarily show up at every locale.

 

[AllanD]

MAKG,

Why do you keep making references to right-wing conspiracy groups?

That is (like it or not) part of any "extreemist" (left or right)
mantra to discount anything said in opposition to THEIR views.

Frankly I am suspicious of anything said by anyone that starts
to sound like Dogma, and that is what the environmentalists are
spouting, Dogma...

Like it or not, believe it or not, anyone having the temerity to say "This isn't right" is shouted down, and don't tell me it doesn't happen.

Look at how you are talking to me...

Anytime data is IGNORED or labeled as "irrelevant" it makes ANY conclusion by the people who decide to ignore it suspect.

And once someone screams wolf and is caught in the lie
they can't back down and admit they were wrong.
So even if the GOD came down in a cloud of glory
and spoke saying global warming was HIS fault
all the "fault of man" people would say that THIS
was itself a right wing conspiracy.

It would all be amusing if not so tragic.

and because people are told "what to think" in school as often happens in todays educational system instead of "HOW to think", as it SHOULD BE, then any conclusions regardless of how it is written is as suspect as a UC Berkely grad telling me that he isn't
politically left of center.

Is it something in the water out there in california that I cannot disagree with your beliefs without being a "right wing nut"?

I am not some right wing nut regardless of how many times you allude or overtly indicate that I am

I have a highly tuned sense of bullshit, and disregarding the simple fact that some of their "Facts" are nothing of the kind (insufficient data for the BROAD conclusions) and in utter contradiction of demonstratable reality, not to mention
the all too common tendency to grotesque exaggeration and hyperbole puts my bullshit-O-Meter into overload mode.

The prevailing attitude is that global warming IS caused by man.
but let remind you that there are many prevailing beliefs that
have been proven wrong, some quite recently.

the guy who first claimed that continents MOVE
(thereby creating the plate tectonic theory) was widely
regarded as a nut for decades.

Hell, there was still a prevailing belief that the craters on the moon were volcanic in origin until the 1950's and My 5th grade science teacher resisted the idea that the craters were the result of impacts

Hell "science" didn't accept that things hit planets until Shoemaker-Levy 9 was OBSERVED slamming into jupiter in the 1990's, until then it was a "theory" not a "fact"

Yet that same scientific conservativism is NOT applied to "global warming" or it's alleged "man made" origin.

So why is the idea that man IS NOT responsible easier to believe than a belief that man IS responsible.

If man's modern industrial society is responsible for the "warming trend" explain to me why the warming trend (ignoring "blip" events) that can be PROVEN actually started in the 18th century, possibly earlier, but that cannot be proven.

Simple answer? you CANNOT and ANY attempt to explain that away is bullshit.

the people all in a tizzy about global warming always seem to come off with an attitude of "don't confuse me with the facts I know I'm right" In other words the poster child for "arrogance in action"

I recall one slanted TV show recently had me in stiches I was laughing so hard. they just finish explaining that there is invariably a "lag" between outside forces (average sunlight) and temperature change, this can even be seen in seasons, the Northern sunlight minimum occours on or about december 21st, but the coldest northern hemisphere temps don't happen for another 90days (early february)

I was laughing because I lost count of how many times they contradicted themselves in the 15min I watched.

Yeah they have an agenda, they must scream and rail at "mans industrial output" I honestly believe if we bulldozed all industry on the planet and went beck to wearing banana leaves and living in grass huts NOTHING would change.

Except that people would freeze to death when the glaciers arrived.

I do believe in reducing energy useage.
but mostly for economic reasons.
short term I heat my house with coal, because to heat with oil for
a full winter would cost me $1500 (around 450gallons) at current
heating oil prices, and that involves keeping the thermostat at an
absolute minimum (~60F) I can maintain a much more comfortable
70-75F on coal (locally produced and not putting money into some tinpot dictator's (aka Hugh Chavez) pocket) for ~$300 (a bit more than two tons)

And if ANYONE has a problem with my burning two tons of coal annually simply because it's $1200 cheaper than 450gallons of oil then I suggest you send me $1200 but I won't promise to spend it on oil, failing that you should dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT and complain to them, because I simply don't care!

I also recycle, partly because there are economic incentives, I get PAID for metals I "recycle" by adding to the commercial metals recycling stream (instead of ptting it into hopelessly inefficient government run recycling programs).

I recycle PLASTICS and Glass because my township actually gets PAID for the glass and sorted plastics they recycle...
they also get PAID for worn out tires!

So why should I PAY to get rid of them when I can send them somewhere that the money flows the other way
And reduces my taxes by subsidizing the municipal trash collection
and in my location it IS municipal workers, not a contractor.

Do I believe in conspiracies? No, but I do believe in stampedes.
the difference is that a conspiracy is a group of like minded intelligent, competent people deliberatly moving towards a common goal. a stamped is none of those things.
the rush to "fix" global warming is a stampede.

And one that will ultimatly FAIL because the Chinese are certainly not going to stop burning their dirty soft coal just to make a bunch of California environmentalists happy.

At this point I'll point out that reality can be a real bitch.
and not all realities are scientific, some are economic others political.

People rail out one side of their mouths that "burning oil is bad
because it causes global warming", and out the other side of their mouth that "Oh my god we's got to stop burning oil because we are running out" If both statements are true the "problem" will be self-correcting, because if all the doom sayers are correct we are about to run out of oil then it will get cold

All around me I see a sea of mutual contradictions.
and people either don't realize they are doing it, or expecting
that I won't remember what they lied about this week
so I can compare it with next week's lies....




AD

 

[skippy]

allan,global warming is a vehicle to liberate tax payers out of yet more money.a conference in bali is forthcoming w/10,000 participants from nations around the globe,and sponsered by the un for the purpose of superceding the kyoto protocol.our contributions to third world countries is expected to be 40 billion annually,not sure if 190 million for brazil to stop cutting forests was included or separate,i was distracted by a dear w/a huge,well you know.other wealthy nations will be covering the other 46 billion annually.with that kind of money at stake,absolute proof is just around the corner don't you know.more taxes? you betcha!

 

[MAKG]

Allan, the right wing nut part of it is asserting without evidence that almost all of those folks who actually study the topic at hand for a living are utterly full of sh*t, and ONLY YOU and a couple of conservative talk-radio people know the truth.

Yes, I tend to dismiss that. Why? Because it's next to impossible to get through the RELIGION that says "I don't have to do or think anything different." You're calling a large group of scientists liars and cheats, perhaps without even realizing it.

You have demonstrated in the past that you don't understand scientific culture AT ALL, and I've tried to explain it to you. Frankly, it gets very old. You won't understand unless you make a concerted effort to do so, and perhaps publish a paper of your own. You don't seem to have any interest in it -- you think you know.

Like it or not, you simply can't wish away these problems. That's what you're calling your "BS meter." I call it wishful thinking. Sure, it would be nice if I didn't have a lifetime of drought to look forward to. That's what a degree or two of warming does to California water distribution. It's the difference between snow and cold rain.

And if you think California environmentalists are the driving force here, you REALLY need to lay off the Rush. The rest of the industrialized world -- even the Kiwis, as weird as that might sound -- are well ahead of the US here.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

Keith,

Methodology is the PRIMARY thing they should be teaching you.
Methodology is HOW to think.

So if they werent "force feeding" you methodology I worry about what they were force feeding you instead....

In the modern education system they spend their time indoctrinating students
with WHAT to think.
And them NOT teaching you HOW to think allows them to get away with it!

should I tell you what my brother wanted to do when his 10 year old
daughter came home and told him her teacher told her than eating
meat was evil?

Do you even know the difference between inductive logic and deductive logic?

Or the great trap of inductive logic thinking?

Or how to recognise a circular arguement when you hear one?


Yeah they show you two opposing view points, but it's pretty easy to
manipulate those "contests" to provide their predetermined result.

"indoctrination" when done correctly produces people that will deny
to their dying breath that they were indoctrinated at all... while they
repeat the party line word for word

Telling you to Suspect everything? you know there was a reason they
made socrates drink poison... and their doing so wasn't entirely unjustified....

What I always ask is "what is their motivation for telling me that"?
I suspect motives.

Desertification in africa? Simple. over Population.
Native grasslands are plowed for crops that don't grow well then the
wind blows the topsoil away. Either that or the people try to raise cattle
that eat the grass too low and it dies and blows away.

that isn't "climate change" causing the "Desertification" that is
"Desertification causing the climate change"

Why is Africa overpopulated? for the same reason AIDS is EXPLODING in africa,
Because NOBODY there will practice "Safe sex", let alone birth control.
and people must eat.... that means cattle and crops
unless someone wants to teach the Masai to be vegetarians?
(If you want to try I want to watch, should be a good show...

Cattle are not "designed" for the much dryer african climate.
Most of africa makes the high northern plains and sage flats
of Colorado, Wyoming & Montana look like the garden of eden.

******************

As for the name calling? I didn't start it Na NA NaNa Na NA NAAAAH
If someone accuses me of being "Conservative", then by definition they consider "conservative" to be an insult.
The logical retort then is accusing them of being a liberal, because
only a liberal would consider calling someone a conservative as an accusation

****************************

frankly the only effect all this mad scrambling to "do something" will likely
hurt more because the places where "something" is being done are
responsible for a small fraction of the polution that they claim is
responsible for the problem...

Ever hear of a place called China?

You think China is going to stop burning coal without even rudimentary
emmissions controls? If you do you have been spending too much time
with your opium pipe.

Go protest in China and see where it gets you...
Of course the chinese have a differnet view of Conservatives and liberals.
And don't really differentiate, if you protest they shoot you.
They MAY let you choose between the left ear and the right ear.
But in either case they bill your family for the cost of the bullet.

Yet through all this the main slant of a lot of the environmental activity is geared
not to actually doing something about the "problem" but rather making people feel
guilty about just living their lives.

But the mainstream media is starting to smell the distinct scent of
"manure de homme de Bovine" as the fanatical environmentalists
contradict themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

Much of the things that people are racing around doing are at best ineffective
and in many cases counterproductive.

AD

Allan,

No one should be telling me HOW to think. I'm failing to see the distinction between teaching me HOW to think and WHAT to think. A professor can easily manipulate the teaching of students on HOW to think in order that these students think that same way the professor does. Modern education should be teaching people to be CRITICAL of everything around them, and not just take something and digest it without analyzing it.

This is what education should do. I have learned to be critical of everything I come in contact with, even global warming. I base my opinions not on the arguments made by everyone involved, but in the evidence collected by those without any (political) agenda, whether that be those who disprove or prove the proposition, in this case global warming. For me, analyzing evidence I have poured over in my Geology class (and yes, we read material from all sides of the issue) has lead me to my current beliefs. It does not mean I just accepted what my teacher gave us for material...I read everything with a critical eye. Again, this is the key to education. If this is a methodology, then I believe I understand your argument. Telling students HOW to think with an agenda behind it is wrong, that would be my sub argument.

I absolutely understand inductive and deductive logic, as well as circular arguments. Everyone takes a Logic course at my college as part of their Gen. Ed. requirements. Very basic, but a good foundation.

I would consider what happened to your niece a pretty terrible thing...however, it should not allow a gross generalization of the education system to be conclusive. I have not experienced this issue firsthand, but I am sorry your niece had to. That is bad education in my opinion.

My professors do not manipulate the "contest". They have their views, but not ONCE have I heard them lean towards either side in a debate of an issue. My classes focus on student debate and argument, and the teacher chimes in only to provide data in order that we may at least have a basis for our argument. I mean the BASIC data, not data that has been manipulated for a point.

You should be suspect of everything. If I get handed something, whether it be a political pamphlet or a set of data from an experiment, I am critical of it. Now, I consider the "motivation" aspect to be included in being critical. Almost everything has motivation behind it...but I believe the questions should go further and be more critical than just asking what motivated this person, group, etc. to produce this idea, policy, etc.

I suppose my point is that conservatives tend to generalize about this issue, and make it seem like everyone in school is being indoctrinated to be liberal; it just simply isn't true, and my college experience proves this. Would you be surprised if I told you I regularly attend the College Conservatives meetings? Or that I've attended a lecture from a scholar who thinks the Holocaust was overexaggerated by the Jews? Just because I may not agree with something, does not mean I have not considered and analyzed opposing viewpoints. I'm sorry Allan, but I cannot stand by while I'm generalized into a political agenda. It just simply is not true, at least for my case.

Desertification is also happening because rainfalls have been falling in recent years, causing the trees which hold the topsoil to die, which in turn kills the topsoil because there's nothing to hold it there. This obviously leads to erosion and then a slow process of desertification. Two sides to the argument; I don't discount over population whatsoever, it's very real. But there are climate effects as well to be considered.

China is a huge issue as well, but I'm not sure if there's room here for that debate. They should be under the same scrutiny as the U.S., but as you said, it won't happen because they just shoot you over there if you disagree or protest the government. I absolutely appreciate my right to this argument with you.

Lastly, if you believe I am indoctrinated, that's your opinion and your entitled to it, and nothing can change that. However, whether I repeat what you consider a "party line" or not, I base my opinions on the empirical evidence I work with. I'm not indoctrinated Allan, I really don't know how to put it any other way. However, it is your right to believe so, and I'll side with Voltaire here.

 

[AllanD]

I'm only suggesting the possibility that the attempt to indoctrinate you
has been made.

some people are highly resistant to the attempts.
That's because some people are born with a highly sensitive bullshit detector.
Others develop one as they experience life.

I will say that things you strongly believe in during your teenage years and into
your early 20's are subject to review, reconsideration and rejection by the time
you are 30.

If nothing else you realize that the "Ideal" is ignored in favor of the expedient
because you simply can't afford the former and you need the latter to survive.

China burns coal because they have it.
So do we but atleast we have stack controls on our coal-fired power plants.

And I'll be honest, even if I had the money for Oil, Gas or Electric heat
(in ascending order by price) I'd still burn coal becase I'm certain I can
find MANY better things to do with the money.... like pay my dentist.

what I rebel against is the fanaticism of some environmental claims
and the resulting laws and regulations in response that affect my life
by making EVERYTHING more expensive, and I'm right on the line barely
hanging on... so I can't afford for things to be any more expensive than
they already are.

I don't object to things being "cleaner" or more efficient
I object mainly to the COST of doing so and all of the false economy
that is put forth as "improvements"

I could run my exsisting truck into the next century to make as much pollution
as is generated by manufacturing a shiny new Prius.
and that ignores the fact that the pollution from my truck is "non-persistant"
pollution (greenhouse gasses) while the pollution from making the prius is "persistant"(heavy metals soil contamination) pollution that will be with us for centuries.

And even if you or MAKG aren't aware of it we are racing with ever increasing speed towards an economic bottleneck that is in part created by the misguided parts of our current environmentalism.

Conserve? Yes.
Clean? yes.

but remember that replacing infrastructure is VERY expensive

and for much of these cleaner technologies the "dirt" they require to make them
will never be balanced out by their cleanliness in service.
It's better to adopt other technologies (Butanol) rather than race pointlessly towards Ethanol when ethanol is technologically and economically a dead end.

Basically we are racing to implement immature technology
and interum "stopgaps". stopgaps are ALWAYS wasteful of resources.

Realize that each misstep taken costs money.
Each misstep will be paid for.
that cost WILL be passed onto taxpayers and consumers.

The worst part is that certain reasons used to instill a sense of urgency
are in my belief simply not true.

I don't disagree entirely with what is being done.
But I disagree with the need to do things as FAST (and as expensively)
as some people (many or even most) insist on doing them.

History has shown us one thing.
a cohesive majority can still be wrong.

a majority of people still read their daily horiscope.
a majority of people BELIEVE that they will win the lottery.
a majority of doctors once believed that diabetes was uniformly fatal (before insulin)
while hypoglycemia was psycho-psomatic (and would thus refer the patient to a psychaitrist)
Or the majority of P-shrinks once believed that insulin shock (or electroshock)
therapy could cure schitzophrenia?
Or earlier physicians that believed "bleeding" could cure disease (including bleeding WOUNDED men!)

Majority rule works so well...

I believe the majority has reached (or been led to) a false conclusion based on incomplete data.
The very fact that so many deny even the possibility of being wrong casts
doubt on their claims and conclusions.

half-wrong is still WRONG if someone else is not at all wrong

what I keep saying is that the case isn't proven.
and that's the absolute simple truth.

Consider just for a minute the environmental impact of replacing every
vehicle in the US before that vehicle is completely "used up"

Now consider doing it AGAIN because the technology that the
replacements are based on is flawed...

and AGAIN because the vehicles are made for an alternative fuel
that has over time proven to be ess "sustainable" than originally thought...

Now consider the economic implications.

If the concept doesn't horrify you every bit as much as the most fevered imaginings about global warming then you aren't thinking it through

as far as I'm concerned it's like a choice between mercury poisoning
and Venereral disease. Neither choice is at all appealing.

Even assuming for a moment that the worst of the dire predictions
are the minimum that happens, trading economic suicide in an ATTEMPT
that is NOT guaranteed to reverse the warming trend is a lose-lose situation.

All the "Oh My god we must do SOMETHING" over a climate condition that
has been progressing for several hundred years does not strike me as a
particularly good example of intelligence.

It's like swerving off the road and hitting a tree to avoid running into a deer.
Yet stupid people (including highly educated stupid people) do that every day of the week.

Why should I believe that mankind in general is any smarter or more farsighted?

AD

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I'm only suggesting the possibility that the attempt to indoctrinate you
has been made.

some people are highly resistant to the attempts.
That's because some people are born with a highly sensitive bullshit detector.
Others develop one as they experience life.

I will say that things you strongly believe in during your teenage years and into
your early 20's are subject to review, reconsideration and rejection by the time
you are 30.

If nothing else you realize that the "Ideal" is ignored in favor of the expedient
because you simply can't afford the former and you need the latter to survive.

China burns coal because they have it.
So do we but atleast we have stack controls on our coal-fired power plants.

And I'll be honest, even if I had the money for Oil, Gas or Electric heat
(in ascending order by price) I'd still burn coal becase I'm certain I can
find MANY better things to do with the money.... like pay my dentist.

what I rebel against is the fanaticism of some environmental claims
and the resulting laws and regulations in response that affect my life
by making EVERYTHING more expensive, and I'm right on the line barely
hanging on... so I can't afford for things to be any more expensive than
they already are.

I don't object to things being "cleaner" or more efficient
I object mainly to the COST of doing so and all of the false economy
that is put forth as "improvements"

I could run my exsisting truck into the next century to make as much pollution
as is generated by manufacturing a shiny new Prius.
and that ignores the fact that the pollution from my truck is "non-persistant"
pollution (greenhouse gasses) while the pollution from making the prius is "persistant"(heavy metals soil contamination) pollution that will be with us for centuries.

And even if you or MAKG aren't aware of it we are racing with ever increasing speed towards an economic bottleneck that is in part created by the misguided parts of our current environmentalism.

Conserve? Yes.
Clean? yes.

but remember that replacing infrastructure is VERY expensive

and for much of these cleaner technologies the "dirt" they require to make them
will never be balanced out by their cleanliness in service.
It's better to adopt other technologies (Butanol) rather than race pointlessly towards Ethanol when ethanol is technologically and economically a dead end.

Basically we are racing to implement immature technology
and interum "stopgaps". stopgaps are ALWAYS wasteful of resources.

Realize that each misstep taken costs money.
Each misstep will be paid for.
that cost WILL be passed onto taxpayers and consumers.

The worst part is that certain reasons used to instill a sense of urgency
are in my belief simply not true.

I don't disagree entirely with what is being done.
But I disagree with the need to do things as FAST (and as expensively)
as some people (many or even most) insist on doing them.

History has shown us one thing.
a cohesive majority can still be wrong.

a majority of people still read their daily horiscope.
a majority of people BELIEVE that they will win the lottery.
a majority of doctors once believed that diabetes was uniformly fatal (before insulin)
while hypoglycemia was psycho-psomatic (and would thus refer the patient to a psychaitrist)
Or the majority of P-shrinks once believed that insulin shock (or electroshock)
therapy could cure schitzophrenia?
Or earlier physicians that believed "bleeding" could cure disease (including bleeding WOUNDED men!)

Majority rule works so well...

I believe the majority has reached (or been led to) a false conclusion based on incomplete data.
The very fact that so many deny even the possibility of being wrong casts
doubt on their claims and conclusions.

half-wrong is still WRONG if someone else is not at all wrong

what I keep saying is that the case isn't proven.
and that's the absolute simple truth.

Consider just for a minute the environmental impact of replacing every
vehicle in the US before that vehicle is completely "used up"

Now consider doing it AGAIN because the technology that the
replacements are based on is flawed...

and AGAIN because the vehicles are made for an alternative fuel
that has over time proven to be ess "sustainable" than originally thought...

Now consider the economic implications.

If the concept doesn't horrify you every bit as much as the most fevered imaginings about global warming then you aren't thinking it through

as far as I'm concerned it's like a choice between mercury poisoning
and Venereral disease. Neither choice is at all appealing.

Even assuming for a moment that the worst of the dire predictions
are the minimum that happens, trading economic suicide in an ATTEMPT
that is NOT guaranteed to reverse the warming trend is a lose-lose situation.

All the "Oh My god we must do SOMETHING" over a climate condition that
has been progressing for several hundred years does not strike me as a
particularly good example of intelligence.

It's like swerving off the road and hitting a tree to avoid running into a deer.
Yet stupid people (including highly educated stupid people) do that every day of the week.

Why should I believe that mankind in general is any smarter or more farsighted?

AD

It's possible that in my time before college I may have experienced some form of indoctrination, but I can't specifically remember because I've blocked out most of high school from my memory (really bad time in my life). However, I can say that in college I have yet to explicitly experience the issue.

I didn't actually really develop a BS alarm until I got to college interestingly. Once I came here, things kind of snapped together in my head. It was kind of like I found all the missing puzzle pieces, and was able to look at things in a totally new way...not just take something for granted.

Of course my ideas and opinions can change as I get older. Experience teaches well. I believe in constantly challenging my views and reconsidering them as I go along in life, this is part of the learning process in my experience. I'm not any more stuck in my ways than anyone else, and as I grow older, come into contact with new things, my views may very well change. But, I can say that at least I have constantly evaluated my outlook, and I owe this to my college experience.

Reality is a bitch as they say.

Just to be clear, I never argued that we should be doing 180s and completely turning around our economies to save the planet. What I am arguing for is sensibility. Things like when I see a single parent, maybe with 1 kid, driving around in a Suburban. Is that really necessary? I mean, couldn't you just get a Blazer and still be ok? It's just that as Americans we feel that we need to show off our status to everyone else, to let them know we can afford the Suburban. I think it's silly.

I completely agree with the butanol idea; I've also never been a proponent of Ethanol as a fuel. It gets terrible gas mileage in my experience (I have a flex fuel 3.0). Plus, the economic costs to convert everything would be an over burden of the least to the taxpayers. Part of the big reason Brazil can do it is because they produce their ethanol from sugarcane, which is a much cheaper source and easier to extract.

I don't want to give up my truck as much as the next person. However, I try to conserve as much as possible. I ride my bike to the local places I need to go to around my college. I only drive when I have to. I switch off the lights when leaving, I recycle, etc. These are sensible things which don't really affect one's economic status. In fact, they can often improve it.

 

[AllanD]

I agree that the soccer mom with one parent in the Gas V8 Excursion is wasteful
(both environmentally and economically), but selling it for scrap and replacing it
with a Prius is not a solution, that's alos "just wasteful"

I often wondered years aso what they were thinking when the government not only decided to have the auto manufacturers add "pollution controls" to vehicles but non
technocal people dictated exactly what emmissions controls would be fitted.

Did it clean up the cars? well... that depends on how you figuire it, you see the early pollution controls did chop emmittions down about 25% from what a properly tuned
engine of the same type would...
The problem was that with the pollution controls the engines ran like complete CRAP
and got shitty mileage, so they burned 40% more fuel! HELLO? Mc FLY is there anyone in there? Echo! echo! echo!

Emmissions are STRICTLY related to the total ammount of tuel burned,
so relative the fuel those cars burned they were actually considerably dirtier.

there is a saying, Any idiot can learn from his own mistakes, intelligence is learning from the mistakes of others, Genius is never making the mistake in the first place....
But what exactly do you call it when someone can't even learn from their own mistakes?

Example? MTBE to create "oxygenated gas" for reducing emmissions in winter months.
there was only one problem, the best claims for MTBE was that adding it to fuel reduced emmissions by around 3%, but the catch is any car running the stuff got atleast 5% worse mileage, some vehicles lost as much as 8%

If you burn more fuel...

what added insult to injury was that gasoline leaks happen... you can try to prevent it, but.... POetroleum is not miscible with water. MTB is, it's persistant and far more toxic than any other component in gasoline.. Oops...

So do you REALLY think I trust the government to have any f'ing idea what they are doing?

No I do NOT believe in conspiracies.
What I believe in is INCOMPETENCE
and the two are mutually exclusive.

Oh... I just SO want the government deciding which alternative
fuel to go with... (Hold your breath until that wave of sarchasm passes)

You just KNOW they'll get it wrong...

Hey reminds me of the friend that homebuilt an electric car on a Volkswagen rabbit.
As it turns out the car could not be inspected in NewJersey.... there was no place on the ELECTRIC car to put the smog test sniffer probe.

No shit they FAILED the car for emmissions!

A real bunch of rocket surgeons.

AD

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I've never understood why people are so obsessed with the Prius. As its been mentioned before, a small gas engine car (like a Focus or a Civic) will have incredibly low emissions, GREAT gas mileage for how much you pay for the car, and will have less impact because there's no nickel batteries to "dispose" of. Honestly, I'd buy an economical gas 4cyl car before I got a Prius. It's not worth the money, and in many instance it can be the same mileage.

 

[MAKG]

There is a reason I don't drive a new car. Casting all that aluminum (and stamping the steel and making the fiberglass) DOES have pollution implications. It also has energy consumption implications that I don't know the answer to. And they are just too expensive and as an engineer, the complexity of two independent powerplants makes my hair stand on end. But I probably will buy one used when the cost falls sufficiently. Or a 100% electric car (but OMG the "100 MPG" statements there piss me off to no end as they are obviously counting electricity generation as "free," which is a blatant lie).

You can probably search up some of my statements on this board expressing unease at using food for fuel or transitioning food-producing land into fuel-producing land. I've never been comfortable with ethanol for that reason. Or biodiesel. There is only so much waste grease to go around, and then people will start growing soybeans or somesuch specifically to make it.

You still need to make distinctions between policy decisions and science. You cast doubt on the source, when it is only the response that really is under any kind of educated question at all. Scientists as a rule (with a VERY limited number of exceptions) do not make policy. And scientists are not interchangeable with the general public -- just how many scientists have you met that believe their daily horoscopes, for instance? I've met thousands of scientists, but not one that does that.

There IS a problem with global warming. It DOES exist and is almost CERTAINLY a result of human action. What the best response is is not a scientific question -- it necessarily involves some subjectivity and MUST depend upon non-science, especially economics (though it may have some of the tools of statistical sciences, it most definitely is NOT a science, and is given far far far too much credibility -- and anyone who lived through the Carter Administration, with its simultaneous very high interest rates and inflation, really should understand that). This is very much open to debate. One British study recently attempted to estimate the economic cost -- and found there was a net benefit to servicing the problem as soon as possible. Once again, economics is not a science, and that's a function of all the assumptions. But it is not at all a given that an early solution is "too expensive" unless your target is exclusively short term.

MTBE was never a good idea -- it's largely inert as a fuel and the mileage drop that comes with it for that reason almost exactly offsets the pollution gains per gallon. The Federal government STILL requires some oxygenating additive in polluted zones. Not for ANY scientific reason whatsoever -- modern fuel mixtures are good enough to do without it -- but to support the corn industry.

As for emission controls having little effect, the numbers since 1968 are much higher than that. Especially since that "proper tune" qualification isn't at all sensible. Most people would never have tuned up their carburetors at all if it weren't for biennial smog sniffs. And having grown up in Los Angeles, I can tell you with certainty that the air quality there is light years better now than it was in the 70s. You can see the mountains now from the south city, and stage 1 air quality alerts are occasional now, instead of daily in the summer.

And when was the last time you heard of someone committing suicide by idling a car in a closed garage? Catalytic converters make that go away; it's next to impossible now to get enough CO to do that.

 

[skippy]

hold on just a minute mike,on what evidence do you make the statement that global warming is"certainly"man made?what concrete proof do you have that allows you to make such a statement?or are you merely offering a opinion?

 

[MAKG]

Skippy, it's considered dishonest to remove qualification.

I said almost certainly. Read the recently released IPCC report.

In a nutshell, the evidence is that the current global warming rate does not correspond to any seen since the start of the last ice age, and does correlate with estimates of industrial carbon consumption. This has been tested a number of ways; the most well known is from ice core studies. There are a huge number of silly red herrings thrown into that argument by those with political agendas, so I won't go into it further in this forum.