Global warming--not convinced

[Telco]

Shocking, isn't it?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by Telco

I understand. They are pretty close-minded about this, but then the liberal left never has been able to see anyone's point of view other than their own, on anything.

Exactly like the retar... right. I like rigorous peer-reviewed papers, since they aren't about a point of view, they are about hard data and modeling likely outcomes. Of course, trying to explain this to a loopy liberal or a crazy conservative is like herding cats, or scientists...

[Telco]

Heh heh, glad this isn't turning into hurt feelings. If I were one of those reta.. right guys, I wouldn't even be here. I'd still be out driving my full size SUV, only with a hopped up engine and a 3 speed trans, no overdrive, to hold up to the power, with 4.11 gears and 5MPG. But that would cause too much pollution.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

start with this: we all agree pollution is a problem, but no one is SURE of CO2 influence on the greenhouse affect and how much mankind contributes.

No one is sure, except for every scientist researching/modeling in the pertinent fields. The only point for debate regarding this is how much we are influencing the climate within a certain range. There is no model stating that the majority of the recent temperature increase has come from anything except human activity. The only debate is how large that majority is... Maybe it's 78%, 96%, or 82% depending on model/definition? But that is the only part up for debate within the scientific community.

[cfg83]

omgwtfbyobbq -

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

No one is sure, except for every scientist researching/modeling in the pertinent fields. The only point for debate regarding this is how much we are influencing the climate within a certain range. There is no model stating that the majority of the recent temperature increase has come from anything except human activity. The only debate is how large that majority is... Maybe it's 78%, 96%, or 82% depending on model/definition? But that is the only part up for debate within the scientific community.

Egg-zactly.

CarloSW2

[escortdriver]

First off, a great article by Freeman Dyson:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html

Second: On the topic of research money. There is much more money available for you if you're interested in strengthening the case of APG GW then you you are interested in weakening it. Not even oil companies want to be seen giving money to such research efforts as they're afraid it may reflect badly on them from a PR standpoint. Concequently, little good research is being done in that area.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by escortdriver

First off, a great article by Freeman Dyson:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html

I would agree with that, he has a funny style. This is the same guy who conceived the "Dyson sphere" FYI:
"One should expect that, within a few thousand years of its entering the stage of industrial development, any intelligent species should be found occupying an artificial biosphere which completely surrounds its parent star"

I didn't see it as a case against man made climate change though, quite the contrary. He doesn't seem to think it is a big deal because we can easily make the climate do whatever we want by changing agricultural practices.

Originally Posted by escortdriver

Second: On the topic of research money. There is much more money available for you if you're interested in strengthening the case of APG GW then you you are interested in weakening it.

That has nothing to do with weather gw exists or not.

[Nerds laugh at me]

What the ...........

I would hate to think that the only reason that people are here is to save a few pennies worth of gas vs. try and do their part to better the world.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Nerds laugh at me

What the ...........

I would hate to think that the only reason that people are here is to save a few pennies worth of gas vs. try and do their part to better the world.

There's a few reasons to save fuel.... Money happens to be one of them

[cfg83]

Nerds -

Originally Posted by Nerds laugh at me

What the ...........

I would hate to think that the only reason that people are here is to save a few pennies worth of gas vs. try and do their part to better the world.

Alot of people are trying to save $$. It is totally legitimate to limit your mods to ones that have a "payback period". And guess what, it's working :

Vehicle fuel economy surges toward record - August 31, 2007
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...708310344/1014

...

The report "shows that automakers' claims that consumers don't want higher fuel economy is false," said David Friedman, director of the clean vehicles program with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's clear consumers are feeling pressure of higher gas prices, global warming and oil insecurity, and making do with the choices they have."

Based on sales estimates from automakers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calculated that 2007 models, including both cars and light trucks, would average 26.4 miles per gallon, surpassing the previous peak of 26.2 in 1987. The increase of 1 mile per gallon, or 3.9%, from the 2006 models follows two years of no change in the fleet average.

...

But, if gas prices go down, how soon will we forget?

CarloSW2