Why I think global warming is bull...

[Suzy]

hooo-boy....

you can really tell winter has set in....topics are gettin' deeeep.....

come on - we need more global warming - then we all could ride/race all year round 

Uh, no you wouldn't. If global warming continues, it'll be too hot to even be outside. You'll burn up LITERALLY!!! 

[George_Linhart]

Global warming is a fact because glaciers are melting? 

Hate to tell you but they have been melting and re-frezing for millions of years without our help.  Nature is all about change and fluctuation, how do we identify what we caused and what is more of the natural cyclical events that make up the enviroment itself?

The entire debate is an interesting exercize in certain factions using select data to justify their own position.  Lying with statistics is pretty easy to do.

If you want some entertainment while learing about the subject, Michael Crichton's book titled State of Fear is a pretty good read.  Crichton's prior work is good entertainment while showing the fruit of a lot of good research.  He is generally pretty anti-technology and science (see his prior works in Jurasic Park and Prey to show how he highlights the riskiness of new technology) - one would think he would be on the pro-warming side.  I found the book fairly surprising in the position he takes.

Beyond anything else - remember it was a well know scientific FACT that the earth was flat at one time.  Then it was also a FACT that the earth was  the center of the universe.

Me thinks that the narrow minded people need to take another look at the data that supports their FACTS before we put in place a lot of international laws and agreements aimed at preventing ships from sailing over the edge of the flat earth.

George

[spyderchick]

I love a good debate.

The fact the the world was flat was not scientific, but an accepted assumption based on the what mapmakers and scholars thought they knew. Scientists were the ones that postulated the world was not only round, but that the sun was the center of the universe. Which was alos incorrect, but moving in the right direction. Current astronomy and physics shows that the universe is a much more complex space and  we are constantly learning new things on a daily basis.

As far as global warming, wait for the report due out tomorrow. The scientific community is in accord. It's the economic and political communities that are questioning the science. Last time I checked, economists weren't required to take atmospheric science as part of their degree.

Also, why is it a big deal to reduce emissions on cars? China has a better record than we do on auto emissions, why is that? Why is foreign oil better than relying on solar energy or other alternative energy? Yes, it is expensive initially to put resources into new technology, but once it is  widely used, the cost is reduced.

Why should we take a cavalier attitude, just because it's convenient, rather than becoming proactive stewards of the planet?

Yup, let's keep throwing crap into the atmosphere just because we're not sure. Let's keep supporting governments of the Middle East, some of them that support terrorism. Let's not develop these technologies in America, creating with it, a changing, growing economy based on moving science and the country forward.

Oh yeah, E-85 can produce more horse power than fossil fuels. Good for racing.   

[rwracer]

................
The scientific community is in accord that global warming does indeed exist, ........

...The scientific community is in accord. It's the economic and political communities that are questioning the science....

Actually that's not entirely true.  The scientific community still has many members who disagree with the information being published as entirely misleading and is therefore somewhat divided on the subject.  NASA even has meteorological experts who state flatly that it is pure bunk, especially as it is being represented by the eco-alarmists.

In fact it is precisely because it is a highly politially charged subject that it is impossible in this country to get both sides reported fairly and accurately.  Do you actually believe that the liberal media reports facts?  I can tell you from a great deal of first hand experience that they do not.  Nor do they even try to publish complete and accurate information.  Their sole objective is always to publish the story that they want told and to cause everyone to believe what they want them to believe.  And they therefore deliberately publish only bits and pieces of facts in order to achieve that goal.  If that all sounds "Big Brotherish,"  blame the media, cause it's true.

And you only have to do a very cursory search to find fun articles like these:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=212

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/new_page_3.htm

And there's other books too...  like these...

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Other-Myths-Environmental/dp/0761536604

Bottomline is, if it's contrary to the prevailing political agenda, you will never get the whole truth and you will never hear contrary arguments fairly represented.

(Now we got a show!)

[Court Jester]

Beyond anything else - remember it was a well know scientific FACT that the earth was flat at one time.  Then it was also a FACT that the earth was  the center of the universe.

George

you mean it's not any more??? 

[Court Jester]

i guess if we cared that much we would all sell out bikes and by electic cars

[Sobottka]

global warming is NOT bull....didnt anyone see al gore's new movie? he invented the internet in case you dont know who he is

[spyderchick]

Actually I agree that when ANY subject is politicized, it becomes muddied.

However, I happen to be a science junky, and I've been reading about the issue for longer than I can remember. Scientic American, National Geographic are the more 'mainstream' publications, but also some others thrown in here and there, from both sides of the argument. A curious thing to remember about the scientific community, always look to see where source funding for studies initiates. NASA gets it's money from, SURPRISE! Uncle Sam and corporations, so I take what they have to say with a grain of salt. If they do not tow the party line, funding gets cut. I love NASA, and space exploration, so I understand their predicament.

It's the independent scientific community, that becomes the credible source. However, that said, it's difficult to cull the wheat from the chaff within that whole quagmire.

If you look historically at the government vs science, they have always been at odds until it serves a mutual purpose. If you've noticed, BP, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil have all been researching and funding alternative sources for energy. Why? Because they know that we have a finite amount of fossil fuels, and that which is still available is becoming more difficult and costly to extract. It is in their fiscal interest to explore all avenues available to them to keep their grip on the global energy market.

This is a complex subject, one that can be argued from many angles. However, it comes down to one simple thing: Why is change so difficult or perceived to be a bad thing? Let's argue that global warming is not a dire threat. Economically, it makes sense to move the technology forward. If technology was a bad thing, we wouldn't have smaller batteries, cell phones, smart cars, plastic, pharmaceuticals, etc.

There is a scientific basis for global warming, however the theories predicting the outcomes are imprecise. As one pundit put it, 'we can't predict the weather 5 days out, how will we know with a certainty what will happen 50 years out?' But even he admitted that GW may not be the larger issue. Why would you refuse beneficial change just because someone had a flawed theory? To me, that's stubborn and foolish. You need to look at an issue from all sides, and find a common ground for achieving positive result.

[spyderchick]

i guess if we cared that much we would all sell out bikes and by electic cars

I gave up racing so I could work on dead animal skin. I guess I'm not a very good hippy. 

[catman]

WELCOME  Catfight

[Super Dave]

I think lower emissions are fine.  Chinese cars have lower emissions?  I guess I'd like to see where that information is.  That technology would have been developed by previous developers of cars, which would be from our economic boat.  We paid for it. 

I know that the UN, saying that they are helping "global emissions", has different standards for the US, European, and other developed contries, but "more open" emissions for other less developed countries.

Honestly, that's scientific BS, along with political BS.  Just goes further to prove the point that some in positions of policy are full of "emissions".

If lower emissions are good for the earth, then they are good for the earth.  Additionally, the developed countries have paid good sums of money to develop these opportunities to reduce emissions.  As a result, the technology available to others is less expensive.  Just like those that bought HD TV's before the recent reductions in their cost;  it was more expensive for that technology because it was new.  Now, it's more common and the cost has come down through the efficiency of manufacturing and so on.

Additionally, the more developed contries are the consumers of many items made by the countries that make these items.  As a result, lower cost items are causing more emissions? 

It's BS.  Standards, if they are really for the good, and if they are really a cause, need to be across the board rather than delegated by a non elected entity that has no rights over my soverien nation.


If Gore's movie were something more than entertainment, one would have been able to see it for free. 


More fuel for the emissions fire.

[Super Dave]

Oh yeah, E-85 can produce more horse power than fossil fuels. Good for racing.   

E85 only has 80k BTU's.  Gasoline has 124k.  Hard to find gasoline as it is since the EPA has mandated blends spiked with oxygenates that dilute the BTU's.  More BTU's, more ability to do work.  Need to do more work with so many BTU's?  You've got to add more product.